Beginning of Human Life

[Subduction Zone]

No i am responding to the argument that I quoted

Subduction Zone said: ↑
Giving consent to sex is not giving consent to pregnancy.

All I am saying is that if you had sex and got pregnant you have to deal with the consequences, which is why we force men to pay for child support. And which is why we should firce woman not to kill their sons.. ... this shouldn't be controversial stuff.




And why is that relevant?



Why? Because you say so ?

.

Again
1 you have the right to descide if you whant to donate / lend or not a body part

2 once you made the donation you cant change your mind , kill the beneficiary and recover your part

Again this shouldn't be controversial, you do agree with both of my points above, you would never support killing an innocent human just because he is dependent on someone else's body part....... you are just making an arbitrary exception with abortion because being pro abortion is currently on fashion and makes you sound modern and progressive

This is why you are on "corrections only". When you screw up and ask questions you do not appear to want to know or understand the answers. Instead of thanking people when they explain how you are wrong you ignore the explanation.

Don't worry, one of these days you will find a working analogy.

 

[leroy]

This is why you are on "corrections only". When you screw up and ask questions you do not appear to want to know or understand the answers. Instead of thanking people when they explain how you are wrong you ignore the explanation.

Don't worry, one of these days you will find a working analogy.

Once again avoiding direct answers,

Instead of thanking people when they explain how you are wrong you ignore the explanation.

No you haven’t provided any explanation for why am I wrong, all you have is “you are wrong because I say so”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again avoiding direct answers,


No you haven’t provided any explanation for why am I wrong, all you have is “you are wrong because I say so”

LOL! More false claims. You got your direct answers. Once again when you cannot deal with the answers you pretend that none were given.

Corrections only until you learn how to properly acknowledge corrections.

 

[leroy]

LOL! More false claims. You got your direct answers. Once again when you cannot deal with the answers you pretend that none were given.

Corrections only until you learn how to properly acknowledge corrections.

“You are wrong because I say so” it´s not a correction

For example I acknowledge that the fetus doesn’t take the uterus with him after he is born (unlike a child and a kidney)

What I don’t grant (and you have to justify) is that this detail is relevant // but focused you will not explain why is that relevant because you know that it isn’t.

Donating a body part, and then changing your mind and kill the beneficiary to recover your body part is morally wrong, changing “donating” for “lending” doesn’t change anything

1 If I donate you my kidney, it would be morally wrong if I change my mind, kill you and recover my kidney……….. and you would agree with this statement

2 If I lend you my kidney for 9 months, it would still be wrong if I change my mind at say month 1 kill you and recover my kidney ………..and you would agree with this statement (there is not a relevant difference between lending and donating)

So why making an arbitrary exception with abortion? Why are 1 and 2 wrong and abortion is ok? What relevant difference is there?......these are valid questions that require mora than “you are wrong because I say so”

So are you going to act like a mature man , justify your view and deal with this objection? Or are you going to find a pathetic excuse for not dealing with this argument?

 

[cladking]

As I haven't gotten it so far, just steadfast denial that the clear and present definitions apply, I am seeking scientific, empirical evidence or support for that belief.

Zygotes lack a brain are hence are in no way human. Indeed, they even develop in ways that are not human early on that could be God's way of telling us they are not human.

Humans love and no love is more important than the love of babies by their parents and especially their mothers. Depriving babies of this love through fiat is inhumane and evil.

Nothing more defines "human" than consciousness and love and zygotes lack them both.

When life starts is far more a philosophical or religious question than it is a scientific one since science has no clue what consciousness is or when it starts. In my opinion a fetus probably has enough brain and activity to be considered "conscious" around 5 1/2 months. Before this he is merely a potential human like all those fertilized eggs sitting on shelves. Are we now going to say they have to be born because the limited shelf life will kill them all?

The Supreme Court should never have ruled on abortion at all and by now it would likely be legal in all 50 states because zero tolerance laws against abortion are evil and result in many wasted empty lives as well as the destruction of their parents' lives. Decreasing the numbers of abortions is a laudable goal but doing it through the suppression of liberty is not because suppressing liberty damages EVERYONES lives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“You are wrong because I say so” it´s not a correction

For example I acknowledge that the fetus doesn’t take the uterus with him after he is born (unlike a child and a kidney)

What I don’t grant (and you have to justify) is that this detail is relevant // but focused you will not explain why is that relevant because you know that it isn’t.

Donating a body part, and then changing your mind and kill the beneficiary to recover your body part is morally wrong, changing “donating” for “lending” doesn’t change anything

1 If I donate you my kidney, it would be morally wrong if I change my mind, kill you and recover my kidney……….. and you would agree with this statement

2 If I lend you my kidney for 9 months, it would still be wrong if I change my mind at say month 1 kill you and recover my kidney ………..and you would agree with this statement (there is not a relevant difference between lending and donating)

So why making an arbitrary exception with abortion? Why are 1 and 2 wrong and abortion is ok? What relevant difference is there?......these are valid questions that require mora than “you are wrong because I say so”

So are you going to act like a mature man , justify your view and deal with this objection? Or are you going to find a pathetic excuse for not dealing with this argument?

It is not because "i said so". Your arguments were refuted by reason and logic. Two tools that appear to be missing from your toolbox.

Do you have anything else besides laughably false personal attacks? Otherwise you are still on correction only mode.

The correction is that the women never agreed to lend her uterus.

Having sex is not an invite. It is not an agreement to lend. It is only an agreement to have sex.

 

[Valjean]

I don't understand the difference between human and person - every human is a person, and every person is a human. Anything more sophisticated than that is, again, a non-sequitur meant to justify the murder/killing of a human/person.

No, it's a clarification of some important distinctions, with significnt ramifications, which I've already explained numerous times. You're being simplistic.

Breakdown: A human is anything with a human genome. It designates species.
A person is anything that is sentient, self-aware, and anticipates futurity.

Not every human is self-aware/sentient. Some are unaware that they exist; unaware of existence itself. Not every human comprehends futurity and has an interest in continuing to exist -- if he even comprehends continuity. Mentally, they are the equivalent of rocks.
So what criteria -- other than DNA -- accords them rights or moral consideration?

A person is not necessarily human. Your definition would exclude intelligent extraterrestrials, for example, inasmuch as they were clearly not human. Mr. Spock or Worf would have no more claim to any rights or consideration than rocks or laptops.

What is morally despicable about murder/killing/assassinating a human in cold blood - it defies the innate and ubiquitous law of treating one as oneself.

OK... but what constitutes a "one?" One what? What differentiates a one from a non-one?
And what is this "ubiquitous law?" Tell me more about it.

You haven't answered my question. You've just restated your opinion of it, without justifying the opinion.

I think you're being simplistic, DNB. I think your assignment of rights is either blindly deontological or simply emotional. You're either following traditional rules, or personal emotion.

Have you thought about/critically analyzed this or other moral issues, or are you are using prepackaged religious or traditional rules as a convenient crutch?

 

[Mister Emu]

Zygotes lack a brain are hence are in no way human.

Is that so? How did you determine which physical characteristic determines humanity, why the brain and not say the opposable thumb or genitalia, and how do you explain your position being at odds with the scientific community, see the quote at the bottom of the OP?

Also, does that mean some orangutans and gorillas, who have more advanced brains than some humans, are classified as human?

Indeed, they even develop in ways that are not human

That seems an incredible claim. I would imagine that the way in which every human develops could only be called human.

Nothing more defines "human" than consciousness and love and zygotes lack them both.

Unloved individuals aren't human? That seems so coldly callous I can't imagine you've critically considered that thought.

Before this he is merely a potential human

Is it potentially something else? Maybe a dinosaur, that would be fun. I have doubts though, given that human zygotes are fully human and nothing else I believe they will grow to be human fetuses, human babies, human children, and human adults.

 

[leroy]

The correction is that the women never agreed to lend her uterus.

Irrelevant, pretend that you didn’t agreed to donate your kidney to a child, (perhaps it was mistake from the hospital or the Doctor)

1 Do you have the right to kill the child and recover your kidney

2 or would you say “never mind” life sucks I was a victim of an unfortunate event , but the child is innocent, I don’t have the right to kill him. ……..(if anything kill the doctor who would be the rapist in this analogy)

I bet you woudl go for option 2

Having sex is not an invite. It is not an agreement to lend. It is only an agreement to have sex.

1 if you play baseball in your backyard and break your neighbor’s window, you are expected to pay for the damage, you can´t say “I consent to play baseball but not to pay for the window”

2 if a woman gets pregnant the mam is expected to provide support for the child. He can not say “I consented to have sex, but not take care of a child.........he cant argue Having sex is not an invite. It is not an agreement to pay for child support

You obviously agree with these points…….. so why making an arbitrary expectation and say pregnant women ? why are they the only persons that can say “Having sex is not an invite. It is not an agreement to lend ?......


You agree that people should be responsible for their actions, if “X” might result in “Y” and you decided to do “X” then you are expected to deal with the consequence “Y”…………. again you agree with this principle, but for some reason you make an arbitrary exception with women.


But all this is irrelevant even if the woman didn’t consent to have sex that is not an excuse to kill an innocent human

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant, pretend that you didn’t agreed to donate your kidney to a child, (perhaps it was mistake from the hospital or the Doctor)

1 Do you have the right to kill the child and recover your kidney

2 or would you say “never mind” life sucks I was a victim of an unfortunate event , but the child is innocent, I don’t have the right to kill him. ……..(if anything kill the doctor who would be the rapist in this analogy)

I bet you woudl go for option 2



1 if you play baseball in your backyard and break your neighbor’s window, you are expected to pay for the damage, you can´t say “I consent to play baseball but not to pay for the window”

2 if a woman gets pregnant the mam is expected to provide support for the child. He can not say “I consented to have sex, but not take care of a child.........he cant argue Having sex is not an invite. It is not an agreement to pay for child support

You obviously agree with these points…….. so why making an arbitrary expectation and say pregnant women ? why are they the only persons that can say “Having sex is not an invite. It is not an agreement to lend ?......


You agree that people should be responsible for their actions, if “X” might result in “Y” and you decided to do “X” then you are expected to deal with the consequence “Y”…………. again you agree with this principle, but for some reason you make an arbitrary exception with women.


But all this is irrelevant even if the woman didn’t consent to have sex that is not an excuse to kill an innocent human

Oooh, you admitted defeat again. No one is killing a child.

 

[cladking]

Is that so? How did you determine which physical characteristic determines humanity, why the brain and not say the opposable thumb or genitalia, and how do you explain your position being at odds with the scientific community, see the quote at the bottom of the OP?

Zygotes also lack opposable thumbs and genitalia. Indeed, the "females" who will be born with many eggs even lack the eggs. If human life is so precious then why not remove these eggs at birth for safe keeping and to assure as many as possible are fertilized? Human life is only precious when every individual has freedom of choice. When choice is removed we may as well go extinct because we won't really be human any longer.

As I said, " When life starts is far more a philosophical or religious question than it is a scientific one since science has no clue what consciousness is or when it starts.". There is no scientific evidence of the nature of humanity and it is solely religious and philosophical. No one has a right to impose his views on others.

That seems an incredible claim. I would imagine that the way in which every human develops could only be called human.

They go through what biologists call evolutionary stages that mimic early form of the species. At some stages they are more like fish than humans.

Unloved individuals aren't human?

No, unloved babies tend to turn into sociopaths, irresponsible individuals, and unhappy people. Nobody should be deprived of life for this reason but then no one should be deprived of a right to choice for religious reasons. Many unwanted babies and orphans grow up to be among the finest individuals but it is cruel and evil to force a baby which is unloved to be born.

Unloved individuals aren't human?

No, I didn't say that. I said "love" is a defining characteristic of humanity and babies who are unloved and don't love have two strikes at birth. The third strike is likely to hurt others or society in general.

Zygotes are not human any more than an egg, a sperm, or a corpse.

I have doubts though, given that human zygotes are fully human and nothing else I believe they will grow to be human fetuses, human babies, human children, and human adults.

No. Not all zygotes will grow into a fetus and not all fetuses will make it to infancy. It's the way of nature and always has been. People deserve protection from society and not zygotes and not anything with no brain. By the same token society deserves protection from massive hoards of unwanted and unloved babies. Society deserves protection from the destruction of the health and lives of healthy young women who are victims of botched abortions. Society deserves protection from the practitioners of illegal abortions.

You can't legislate morality and it's nobody's business. Is it fair the wealthy can just go somewhere to get the job done? Who's going to pay for the poor woman to get her abortion?

The whole things smacks of broad hypocrisy. Not all "abolitionists" are hypocrites but it is hypocrisy that keeps this going. Neither philosophy nor religion is sufficient grounds to tell others what to do.

 

[cladking]

I'll start with a quote from an embryology textbook:
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition.

This is not science. It is flowery language.

Humans start in their grandmother's womb when the female fetus begins growing her eggs.

The past, present, and future are inexorably bound together. It is human consciousness that is the glue, not a fertilized ovum.

 

[Valjean]

A human has more worth than any other creature on this planet. This is measured by their ability to love, and perform acts of altruism and compassion, and to determine right from wrong.

I think you're preaching, DNB; asserting a personal or religious opinion as fact.
Q: Why does a human have more worth? Love? Altruism? Compassion? I don't think you've studied much ethology.

Determination of right from wrong? Humans have been oppressing and slaughtering each other to enforce their particular view of right or wrong for millennia. Humans usually have compassion for their own tribe members, but even this is questionable, judging from the widespread exposure of unwanted children in many cultures.
Outside their tribes, they show little natural reluctance to slaughter men, women and children, as we saw in the US, Germany, Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, San Salvador, Myanmar, and countless other places. Indeed, people often take a perverse pleasure in causing the maximum pain and anguish possible.
I'd say man is among the least compassionate, loving or altruistic species.

Other creatures that eat each other alive, are not to be considered as morally sound or morally capable beings.

Yes, animals usually do their dharma, and are incapable of hatred, gratuitous cruelty, vindictiveness, &c. Immorality is rare or impossible inmost non-human animals. Doesn't that make them our superiors?

Man has a spiritual dimension within his constitution that no other creature has - he is capable of recognizing his Creator, and abiding by what he perceives the attributes and characteristics of the Creator are - holy, wise and all-powerful.

People learn their version of a creator, if their culture has one, and there is little agreement about his/her/its/their attributes. God belief is not innate.
Nor is there much agreement about proper behavior or attitudes.
So, no. Man is not the paragon of animals. We're a cruel, vicious, aggressive species.

 

[rational experiences]

If women's womb evicts the ovary that men says allows my life to continue to exist.

Then consciously by terms of men owning domineering thoughts as any creation term. It is by their brothers agreed say so.

What is your psyche claiming?

Position a human a man making man statements only.

The onus is all yours always was Mr ego.

The choice yours.
The penis yours.
The force penetrating yours.

Gods natural law vaginally passage closed. Gods natural law cell of life continuance evicted by a blood sacrifice and pain.

Pretty basic human advice and natural laws. First position which is legal.

With God in nature.

 

[Mister Emu]

Human life is only precious when every individual has freedom of choice. When choice is removed we may as well go extinct because we won't really be human any longer.

You don't believe in law? Even if I granted your position, there are plenty of laws restricting our choices with regards to non-human entities.

Better obliteration than restraint? I think most would disagree.

As I said, " When life starts is far more a philosophical or religious question than it is a scientific one since science has no clue what consciousness is or when it starts.

Consciousness is a delimiter of life? That would be news to biologists the world over. I think the science of living things is the best source to determine life.

They go through what biologists call evolutionary stages that mimic early form of the species. At some stages they are more like fish than humans.

But these stages are in fact a normal part of human development, yes? At no point are they developing into anything other than a further stage of the human lifespan, yes?

Many unwanted babies and orphans grow up to be among the finest individuals but it is cruel and evil to force a baby which is unloved to be born.

I find it far more cruel to dismiss someone's opportunity to live because you prejudge the quality of their life.

I said "love" is a defining characteristic of humanity

I think perhaps you are misusing the term "defining charactetistic". If the characteristic is not a necessary part of the definition...

People deserve protection from society and not zygotes and not anything with no brain.

Ah, so endangered plant species deserve no protection. Interesting. Again, I don't think you fully considered the position.

By the same token society deserves protection from massive hoards of unwanted and unloved babies.

I'm always on the look out for dastardly unloved babies and the threat they offer. One might think that what unloved babies should be offered from society is... love. Not destruction. Oh well.

You can't legislate morality

We legislate morality all of the time. This is nonsense.

This is not science.

That's certainly an authoritative stance. One wonders by what authority you declare the statements of scientists in science text books describing the beginning of human life as the point a new creature of human nature comes into being incorrect.

 

[rational experiences]

A long time ago. Human law tried to introduce human celibacy by order.

It didn't happen. Only a small human population agreed.

Based on the law of nature that had sealed the adult woman's vagina passage.

And any God law was said in the fact of humans existing. As two adult human life in self presence.

Also ignored as relevant laws against human theists.

Realised. Stated. Knew.

 

[Valjean]

The nature of a thing, it's essence. That by which that is what it is.

But "nature" is, on its face, nebulous and subjective. Essence isn't observable, palpable, measurable or quantifiable.

I also value sentience, self-awareness, reason, moral capabilities, etc. But they are a second order result, it is our nature as humans to be those things, it is the nature of a gorilla to be a creature of lesser intellect, but still capable of self-awareness, an ability to communicate abstract concepts, to feel fear and grief, emotional connection to other creatures, and I believe independent moral consideration.

It is not by random chance that we come to the very things you value, elsewise the ant or the shrub might exhibit them, nor is it by virtue of effort of the individual. It is by our essence, our nature as human. It is the humanness that holds the value and bears the rights.

I agree that it's not by chance. It's by natural selection.

You seem to accord a special consideration to humans; to set them apart in a unique moral category. But would that same consideration extend to extraterrestrials, who resembled us cognitively and behaviorally in every respect, in 'nature and essence'? If so, it's not humanness that demands moral consideration, but personhood. Their nature or essence would be an artifact of personhood.

This seems a very colonial moral framework. Practically, are the mentally retarded less worthy of moral consideration? If someone were damaged that they couldn't plan, couldn't look to the future as you have included in your personhood definition, do they not get rights? Many people were not as intelligent, future looking, morally considerate, etc. as Koko the gorilla, was their value not equal to ours despite their deficits?

Good point. The unconscious, demented, or brain dead can be indistinguishable from a fœtus, in this respect. Ethicists have been debating this for ages, and it's a contentious topic in the animal rights community.
Personally, I take the easy way out and extend moral consideration and right-to-life very broadly,

 

[Subduction Zone]

But "nature" is, on its face, nebulous and subjective. Essence isn't observable, palpable, measurable or quantifiable.
I agree that it's not by chance. It's by natural selection.

You seem to accord a special consideration to humans; to set them apart in a unique moral category. But would that same consideration extend to extraterrestrials, who resembled us cognitively and behaviorally in every respect, in 'nature and essence'? If so, it's not humanness that demands moral consideration, but personhood. Their nature or essence would be an artifact of personhood.
Good point. The unconscious, demented, or brain dead can be indistinguishable from a fœtus, in this respect. Ethicists have been debating this for ages, and it's a contentious topic in the animal rights community.
Personally, I take the easy way out and extend moral consideration and right-to-life very broadly,

It is always a bit frustrating when someone demands a concrete answer for a "Jello" problem. The thing that people have to realize that just because there is no concrete answer that does not make one's immoral solution viable. We have already seen the severe drawbacks of abortion laws in Ohio and that only took six days. Does anyone seriously think that is the only such case that we will see?

 

[Mister Emu]

But "nature" is, on its face, nebulous and subjective. Essence isn't observable, palpable, measurable or quantifiable.

You conflate metaphysical with subjective. They are not the same. Morality is a metaphysical proposition, the concept of rights is a metaphysical proposition.

We cannot measure self-awareness, future thinking, or self-interest directly either, we can only look for behaviors that suggest these things and we have no method to distinguish between the appearance of sentience and true emergent sentience.

You seem to accord a special consideration to humans; to set them apart in a unique moral category.

I accord consideration to humans commiserate with our nature, and believe in doing so for all of existence.

But would that same consideration extend to extraterrestrials, who resembled us cognitively and behaviorally in every respect, in 'nature and essence'? If so, it's not humanness that demands moral consideration, but personhood.

I don't claim that only humanity is worth moral consideration. It would be their own essence that would be considered, and nothing to do with humans, just as a gorilla's gorilla-ness is what bears the moral consideration that we would give universally to gorillas.

Now on the other hand, would your consideration extend to extraterrestrials who had personhood, but by nature were ravenous destroyers seeking the death of all other than themselves? If they by nature sought only obliteration for us, would we not be justified in exterminating them root and branch? If so, then it clearly isn't personhood that confers moral consideration.

Good point.

Thank you, and I don't disagree with broad rights dispersal. I'd certainly rather err on the side of granting rights, especially the right to live, than in restricting them.

 

[Valjean]

It is always a bit frustrating when someone demands a concrete answer for a "Jello" problem. The thing that people have to realize that just because there is no concrete answer that does not make one's immoral solution viable. We have already seen the severe drawbacks of abortion laws in Ohio and that only took six days. Does anyone seriously think that is the only such case that we will see?

A secular government should concern itself primarily with the health, safety and prosperity of its citizens. Legislation should reflect this, and deal mostly with practical infrastructure, economic, health, safety and environmental issues.
But the pro-life crowd is more concerned with legislating propriety and their personal, religious morality, regardless of negative health, safety and economic effects on the larger society.
In the Supreme Court, too, the conservative justices have made it clear that the social effects of their decisions are not of primary concern in their rulings.
The Trump appointees are political activists, who misrepresented themselves at their nomination hearings.

We've seen what results when the separation of church and state is breached -- in Iran and Afghanistan.

The founding fathers were familiar with abusive, authoritarian religious communities right here in the states, and remembered the holocaust the Religious Wars wrecked across Europe. They wisely resolved to keep religious motivations out of politics out of politics.