Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Verviedi wrote:

A more accurate term would be pro-birth. They don't give two gaks about what happens after birth. All they care about is "punishing da dirty wimmins for having sex". It's all control. More unwanted children equals more crime. More crime equals more profit for prisons and other exploitive corporations. Why make money once by providing state abortions, when you could exploit the unwanted child for the rest of it's life?

We should meet up for a soy latte later and I'll give you some useful literature for the Revolution.

When it occurs we will make the Artist Formerly Known as Prince into the the TRUE EARTH SOVEREIGN simply known as "KING"

This thread bugged me for about the last 10 minutes, until I realized that this thread has caused me to realize I can't distinguish sarcasm anymore.

 daedalus wrote:
This thread bugged me for about the last 10 minutes, until I realized that this thread has caused me to realize I can't distinguish sarcasm anymore.

Poe's Law is a pain in the ass

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.

Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.

You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.

Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.

Fetuses cannot self sustain, unfortunately.

By that definition, any toddler or younger doesn't qualify as a human. And all those grown adults mooching off their parents and living in their basements. And anybody with debilitating mental or physical deformities.

At the instant of fertilization, you have a human. Its in the earliest life stages and doesn't look like a human yet, but its still a unique individual human being. Its not a turtle, a dog, or a jellyfish. It has a unique set of DNA, it will have a unique personality once it is capable of displaying one, it will have a unique set of finger prints once its fingers develop, etc... Just because it cannot communicate with another human or have a pulse doesn't make it any less human. Or is someone who is blind and deaf and mute not a human because they cannot communicate? Is someone who has cerebral palsy not human because they are incapable of surviving on their own? Is someone who has a genetic disorder that makes them unable to feel pain not a human? Of course not, why is it different for an unborn baby? Thats the usual argument. The Fetus can't feel pain, communicate, or survive on its own, yet there are people alive today who fit all those descriptions, but you would never suggest its ok to kill them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course not, why is it different for an unborn baby? Thats the usual argument.

Because it has no brain. Unless you want to resort to completely unproven claims about "souls" an entity with human genes and no brain is not a "person" by any reasonable definition. It's the same reason why it isn't murder to remove a brain-dead person from life support even though their body can still function.

No you don't, you have a bundle of cells that might grow into a human, or might not. Do not posit that life begins at conception (which is a belief) as scientific fact.

Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life". If we are only allowed to use "science" here. To say that its not alive requires you to ditch the scientific definition of life completely and go for a metaphysical concept of human life or sentience.

That bundle of cells will only grow into a human because it is human, it will never grow into a turtle, a dog, or any other type of creature. It might die before it is developed enough to breath and gain nourishment without its umbilical cord, it might die after this occurs due to neglect or other physical harm. That doesn't mean its not human.

The entire idea of being "human" isn't a scientific one. It itself is a metaphysical concept.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life". If we are only allowed to use "science" here. To say that its not alive requires you to ditch the scientific definition of life completely and go for a metaphysical concept of human life or sentience.

Why does being "alive" matter so much? The brain-dead person on life support is still "alive", yet we acknowledge that their "life" has no meaning and allow the removal of life support. Being alive is certainly necessary for "personhood", but it is not sufficient.

That bundle of cells will only grow into a human because it is human, it will never grow into a turtle, a dog, or any other type of creature. It might die before it is developed enough to breath and gain nourishment without its umbilical cord, it might die after this occurs due to neglect or other physical harm. That doesn't mean its not human.

Who cares if it has human genes or might become something more in the future? It isn't any of those things now. If you want to go for the "potential" argument then you have to acknowledge that every time you have some alone time with your porn collection you're committing an act of mass murder that makes Hitler look like a saint in comparison. And I don't think you want to do that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life".

So is sperm.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life". If we are only allowed to use "science" here. To say that its not alive requires you to ditch the scientific definition of life completely and go for a metaphysical concept of human life or sentience.

Why does being "alive" matter so much? The brain-dead person on life support is still "alive", yet we acknowledge that their "life" has no meaning and allow the removal of life support. Being alive is certainly necessary for "personhood", but it is not sufficient.

Well it obviously matters since we are quibbling over being alive and what that means.

The scientific definition doesn't support you being able to kill a human at the fetus stage, because its just as much alive by that definition as you and I are.

The metaphysical definition doesn't rely on physical characteristics, so again you cannot claim its not a live.

That bundle of cells will only grow into a human because it is human, it will never grow into a turtle, a dog, or any other type of creature. It might die before it is developed enough to breath and gain nourishment without its umbilical cord, it might die after this occurs due to neglect or other physical harm. That doesn't mean its not human.

Who cares if it has human genes or might become something more in the future? It isn't any of those things now. If you want to go for the "potential" argument then you have to acknowledge that every time you have some alone time with your porn collection you're committing an act of mass murder that makes Hitler look like a saint in comparison. And I don't think you want to do that.

False equivalency. Sperm are not a human fetus. They're only cells which are part of another human whole. The same with an egg. But if you unite a sperm and egg then you create an entirely new human being.

A sperm or egg on their own do have potential, but that alone isn't enough because the act hasn't occurred yet. You require both to unite to create a new human, and in that instant you create a new human life. Both in the scientific and metaphysical sense.

That is no different than if I get cut or scraped and lose some skin cells. Skin cells are only a small part of a particular human being. A developing fetus is 100% of a particular human being.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well it obviously matters since we are quibbling over being alive and what that means.

Yes, but you're missing the point here. We've established in other cases that merely being alive is not sufficient to grant "personhood" and all of its various legal protections. A brain-dead person on life support is still alive, but removing life support is not murder. So if this is true then claiming that the fetus is alive is a meaningless statement.

False equivalency. Sperm are not a human fetus. They're only cells which are part of another human whole. The same with an egg. But if you unite a sperm and egg then you create an entirely new human being.

So what? They still have potential. By your own argument it doesn't matter what they are now, it only matters that they can become something worth protecting in the future. You can't keep moving the goalposts like this, either potential matters or it doesn't.

That is no different than if I get cut or scraped and lose some skin cells. Skin cells are only a small part of a particular human being.

Yes! Now you're getting it. Having human genes is not sufficient to grant legal protection, so getting cut and losing some skin cells is not equivalent to murder. Same thing with a fetus: it is a bunch of cells with human genes, but it lacks the attributes that define a "person".

A developing fetus is 100% of a particular human being.

Not really, since it's still developing.

There is only one clean cut point where we can say that something is or isn't human. Conception is a nice clean defining point, because that is when the unique individual human creature first appears. Since we are stuck with only using a metaphysical idea of being "human" we cannot distinguish based on what actions the individual can or cannot do. Someone who cannot communicate because they have not yet developed a mouth or nervous system is no different from someone who cannot communicate because they were deformed or injured.

A brain-dead person on life support is still alive, but removing life support is not murder. So if this is true then claiming that the fetus is alive is a meaningless statement.

So you admit that science has nothing to do with defining what is and isn't human? good.

Same thing with a fetus: it is a bunch of cells with human genes, but it lacks the attributes that define a "person".

Incorrect. It is a unique individual in the metaphysical, and physical, sense. Not some cells which were separated from a greater whole, it is its own greater whole. Albeit a small whole.

Not really, since it's still developing.

A baby in the 2nd trimester is "still developing".

A 1 month old child is "still developing".

A 10 year old child is "still developing".

A 17 year old is "still developing".

We humans don't finish developing long into the teens and early 20s. Using development as a measuring stick is a terrible metric.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is only one clean cut point where we can say that something is or isn't human. Conception is a nice clean defining point, because that is when the unique individual human creature first appears.

No, there are a great many clean-cut points where we can say that something is or isn't human. For example: Peregrine is human, nothing else is. You can argue that this is not a definition you agree with, but it's certainly a clean-cut point. But the fact that the truth is messy and full of gray areas should not lead to the conclusion that being clear-cut is more important than being accurate.

Since we are stuck with only using a metaphysical idea of being "human" we cannot distinguish based on what actions the individual can or cannot do.

Why? Why are we stuck with this metaphysical idea, why should we care about metaphysical ideas, and why can't actions and capabilities be included in the idea? You're making a whole bunch of claims here with no evidence to support them.

Someone who cannot communicate because they have not yet developed a mouth or nervous system is no different from someone who cannot communicate because they were deformed or injured.

But we're not talking about someone who can't communicate, we're talking about "someone" who has no brain. Not only are they unable to communicate they have no thoughts to communicate.

So you admit that science has nothing to do with defining what is and isn't human? good.

I admit no such thing. Science, by analyzing brain function, tells us that the brain-dead person on life support is no longer "alive" in any meaningful sense.

Incorrect. It is a unique individual in the metaphysical, and physical, sense. Not some cells which were separated from a greater whole, it is its own greater whole. Albeit a small whole.

And an individual human is just one part of the greater whole of the species. Isn't it nice to be able to apply arbitrary metaphysical labels to stuff?

We humans don't finish developing long into the teens and early 20s. Using development as a measuring stick is a terrible metric.

Why are you assuming that "finish developing" and "become a person" must be the same point? The fetus becomes 100% of a being at a point long before it is a fully-developed adult. There's just no plausible argument that this 100% point is reached before the point where virtually all abortions occur.

Why are you guys letting the thread get dragged off topic by the guy who claims that its okay to kill innocent people for the greater good?

Focus on the fact that s violent guy shot up PP and killed a cop, and not about the sanctity of life except when it isn't sacred or isn't life.

Given that we still know virtually nothing about how the brain functions, as its a mindbogglingly complex organ we will likely never understand, saying that we have to have certain levels of brain function to be human is asinine.

I admit no such thing. Science, by analyzing brain function, tells us that the brain-dead person on life support is no longer "alive" in any meaningful sense.

"Brain dead" people have woken up and continued to live. If they were truly dead then that wouldn't be possible. I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of taking someone off life support actually.

Why are you assuming that "finish developing" and "become a person" must be the same point? The fetus becomes 100% of a being at a point long before it is a fully-developed adult. There's just no plausible argument that this 100% point is reached before the point where virtually all abortions occur.

You are the one who stated that because a fetus isn't finished developing that its perfectly ok to kill it. Humans don't finish developing for almost 20 years after birth, so using development as a yardstick is a terrible one.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that we still know virtually nothing about how the brain functions, as its a mindbogglingly complex organ we will likely never understand, saying that we have to have certain levels of brain function to be human is asinine.

Complexity is not a significant issue here because we're dealing with cases well outside of any gray areas and uncertainty. We might not know exactly how the brain works, but we know that if you don't have a brain at all then you aren't "you" in any meaningful sense. There's no doubt that if you shoot someone in the head and destroy their entire brain they are dead, even if you can hook their body up to some machines and keep up the illusion of life.

"Brain dead" people have woken up and continued to live. If they were truly dead then that wouldn't be possible. I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of taking someone off life support actually.

Well, at least you're consistent about this. Wrong, but consistent.

You are the one who stated that because a fetus isn't finished developing that its perfectly ok to kill it. Humans don't finish developing for almost 20 years after birth, so using development as a yardstick is a terrible one.

No, that's your straw man version of what I said. I disputed your claim that a developing fetus is 100% of a particular human being, I never claimed that it's ok to kill anything that falls short of 100%. My actual position is that a fetus becomes a "person" before that 100% point, but the vast majority of abortions (and virtually all voluntary abortions) happen so early in the development process that it's safe to say that they aren't a "person" yet.

Lets fixate on this brain issue you seem to have. The first neural tissue develops only 16 days after conception. Most abortions occur well after that happens, you probably won't even know you are pregnant yet. So unless you are catching it perfectly before that occurs you are killing the baby after it has developed identifiable nervous tissue.

And since we still don't have much idea of how consciousness actually works, if it even has a physical manifestation, we cannot say that its not a conscious being.

 d-usa wrote:
Why are you guys letting the thread get dragged off topic by the guy who claims that its okay to kill innocent people for the greater good?

If I had to guess, it's because there's nothing to actually discuss regarding the actual thread topic. You summed the situation up pretty succinctly.

If "brain death" has been correctly diagnosed, nobody is coming back from that. It is, by definition, irreversible. If someone came back from it, then someone don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n up in declaring them brain-dead. Simple as that. If you're classified as actually brain dead (i.e. complete cerebral and stem death), you're dead enough that your other organs can be harvested for transplant.

I think its more that we know so very very little about the brain, so any sort of declaration one way or the other is very much up in the air. Outside of some physical destruction or necrosis you can never say for sure.

“If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't.”

 Grey Templar wrote:
Lets fixate on this brain issue you seem to have. The first neural tissue develops only 16 days after conception. Most abortions occur well after that happens, you probably won't even know you are pregnant yet. So unless you are catching it perfectly before that occurs you are killing the baby after it has developed identifiable nervous tissue.

Identifiable nervous tissue =/= functioning brain. It doesn't have anything even remotely resembling a human brain until much, much later.

And since we still don't have much idea of how consciousness actually works, if it even has a physical manifestation, we cannot say that its not a conscious being.

The claim that consciousness is not a physical thing is completely unsupported and has no value here. It's nothing more than "because I said so".

What we do know is that consciousness is tied to the physical state of the brain. No brain, no consciousness. It is completely unreasonable to suggest that a blob of "identifiable nervous tissue" with less complexity and development than a cockroach (which you'd squish without hesitation) is able to support human consciousness. We can't prove beyond any possible doubt that it doesn't work that way, but by that standard we can't prove that "Peregrine" is a person and not some kind of advanced AI that is posting here to distract you and prevent you from interfering with its plans to take over the world.

The discussion of what an abortion is or is not killing is not the topic here. As is when a baby is a baby or is just a fetus. So drop it

It seems to me that the shooter is a nutjob whose behaviour has been actuated and enabled by an array of personal circumstances (and inadequacies, if you like) and the mixture of anti-abortion rhetoric and actions that in American social and political discourse commonly but certainly not exclusively comes from the right wing.

This is not to say that Republicans argue for violent suppression of abortion. The term Republican can't be defined with any proper relations to people who are Republicans - i.e. two Republicans can easily have very different views on all sorts of topics.

Similarly, although Democrats are seen as left-wing and generally supportive of womens' rights, there is a Democrats For Life organisation that is against abortion (and the death sentence too.)

The whole issue is too complicated to blame "Republicans", but it's nice to have a scapegoat because we can point the finger of blame and ignore the much deeper and more difficult variety of problems that feed into the headline.

We see the same behaviour in the railing against US and UK muslims for not condemning the actions of Wahhabist Saudis in Syia and Iraq.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

A more accurate term would be pro-birth. They don't give two gaks about what happens after birth. All they care about is "punishing da dirty wimmins for having sex". It's all control. More unwanted children equals more crime. More crime equals more profit for prisons and other exploitive corporations. Why make money once by providing state abortions, when you could exploit the unwanted child for the rest of it's life?

We should meet up for a soy latte later and I'll give you some useful literature for the Revolution.

When it occurs we will make the Artist Formerly Known as Prince into the the TRUE EARTH SOVEREIGN simply known as "KING"

Please, no. Caffeine still alters the mind, and I don't enjoy having ny mind tampered with.
Also, you never go full Communist.

Doing exercise alters the mind, by generating endorphins.

I think one of the most important aspects of modern psychology is the realisation that humans have a surprising amount of difficulty in perceiving and dealing with certain aspects of reality. This has massive implications for social and political policy.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.

Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.

You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.

Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.

Fetuses cannot self sustain, unfortunately.

By that definition, any toddler or younger doesn't qualify as a human. And all those grown adults mooching off their parents and living in their basements. And anybody with debilitating mental or physical deformities.

Its a running question whether what comes down the stairs every morning will be our sweet little Genghis Connie, or whether it will be an angry bloodletter who didn't get enough sleep.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Life doesn't require a brain. Unless you are suggesting that a fetus isn't alive when it most definitely is alive by every definition of "life". If we are only allowed to use "science" here. To say that its not alive requires you to ditch the scientific definition of life completely and go for a metaphysical concept of human life or sentience.

Why does being "alive" matter so much? The brain-dead person on life support is still "alive", yet we acknowledge that their "life" has no meaning and allow the removal of life support. Being alive is certainly necessary for "personhood", but it is not sufficient.

Mmm but trying doing that when that person had not expressed a desire to end life beforehand. That person still has the full rights of protection from the state.
Used car salesmen may however, be hunted on sight. Hey don't blame me, its the law (about the car salesmen).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Why are you guys letting the thread get dragged off topic by the guy who claims that its okay to kill innocent people for the greater good?

Focus on the fact that s violent guy shot up PP and killed a cop, and not about the sanctity of life except when it isn't sacred or isn't life.

Indeed.
Appears his current residence was an RV with an attached shack in the middle of nowhere.

So far no note I can find on any network of help, nor of how he managed to buy firearms.

Does it fall into the Prime Directive column?



This guy has some issues of a wide assortment

You think...

All these guys look like screaming nutjobs.

 Frazzled wrote:
You think...

All these guys look like screaming nutjobs.

Its all coming down to
Republican Nutjob
Democrat Nutjob

Surprise that the 2nd Amendment hasn't made a appearance in this thread yet....

Well, sure looks like it has now.

Self-fulfilling prophecy or...something else?