Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > Scrolls of Lore > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:16 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default Abortion

Okay, I said I was going to let you guys have your 2012 Election thread back, but you kept at it through the night and into the morning. So here we are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfElfDragon View Post
It does.
Very good. You've conceded that your definition of a "human being" has nothing to do with the objective definition of a human organism. You may leave the kids' table. Feel free to join the other folk in history who have denied personhood to a specific group of humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magistrix Verdande View Post
At which point it's only a singular-cell organism. It having the traits to potentially become something with a gender identity is not the same thing as it being inherently male or female. Even after fertilization, the blastocystic stage is in itself merely cellular mitosis, where the singular cell splits repeatedly to create new cell mass (not unlike a tumor, mind).
There you are with "potentially" again. The traits are there, in the form of the chromosomes. What do you qualify as "inherently male" or "inherently female"?

No, nevermmind. I don't want to hear the answer you've just made up in your head in the last few minutes. Instead, please find me a scientific source that gives your definition of when one becomes biologically male or female.

Or if you like, I can produce another source myself.

Quote:
After some quick re-caption on the theory of biogenesis, I concede this point. I do not, however, think of the zygote as a person, but as a single-cell organism.
Do you see the first part of this answer? It means you concede that an unborn human organism is in fact a human being. The second part of your answer says that doesn't matter to you because the human is too young.

Is that accurate? Because it is a huge step. Not everyone gets to it. Please report your findings to HalfElfDragon, if you could. It can help us all get on the same page.

Quote:
You shall have to excuse me, for I am not learned in the ways of roo-biology, but is the joey not conceived in such a way that the fetus will leave - and return - to the pouch several times during its development? If so, can it be compared to human pregnancies, where the fetus is dependent on leeching nutrients from the host until rather late in its development?

Correct me if I am indeed wrong, but can the embryo survive by artificial means before week 22 - around the same time that abortion is no longer an option? Can the roo, by the time it's able to leave the pouch for the first time, be artificially sustained by technology?
I'm not sure, but let's assume so. Let's say the unborn can survive by artificial means at this point.

1) Did the technology always exist to allow an unborn to survive by artificial means by week 22?

2) If not, does this means that in the past, fetuses were not really people until the technology existed to keep them alive artificially at that development stage?

3) If so, then does that mean in the future, fetuses and embryos will gain the rights to personhood as soon as technology progresses to keep them alive artificially and allow them to continue growth?

This might be redundant, Verdande, since you earlier did attest that a human embryo was a human being. (Unless you changed your mind.) If so, apologies for that.

Quote:
I'm simply pointing out the similarities. After all, a tumor - too - is a single-cell organism which has initiated cellular mitosis which then spins out of control.

And if it is capable of cellular mitosis, Is it not alive? Isn't cellular mitosis, after all, the only thing the zygote will be doing before entering the blastocystic stage?
Yes, a tumor is alive. Lots of things grow and develop that way. But, since a tumor is not a stage of human development, it is not a human. It will always be a tumor, even in the most ideal of conditions for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archimedes View Post
It's not fucking mass killing.
Adding the word "fucking" doesn't change fact. It's an example of government policies allowing for (or encouraging) the "killing" of a certain age group on a "massive" scale.

I backed away from the word genocide because I think that word does have connotations of sociological hatred. But still, the numbers do more than compete with genocidal movements of the past and present.

Quote:
Don't give me that. I use the English singular gender-neutral pronoun. I'm not dehumanizing anything. I'd call a person an it if I did not know its gender. I often do.
Excellent; I apologize then. There is a wide range of people with a variety of misconceptions, within your ideological group. You realize that the human's gender is determined this early on, but a lot of people don't. Please communicate this information to Verdande, if you could.

Quote:
The newborn has a brain. The newborn has a nervous system. The newborn can feel pain and fear.

That was my point. What's yours?
My point is that you just picked certain stages of development randomly. There are developmental landmarks throughout the prenatal and postnatal - growth and development starts long before the brain, and it continues long long long after.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magistrix Verdande View Post
I should like to remind everyone that abortion is, in fact, not illegal in most of the western world. It's only legal, however, until a certain time period; to which we must ask ourselves if modern science agrees with a specific period of pregnancy where the fetus becomes a human being, much like how they agree that there is a specific stage of development where the embryo becomes a fetus.
Verdande, you JUST conceded that the embryo was a human being. What's the point of having a discussion, if we don't remember the markers we already passed?

Science does agree. Here's another link: http://www.biologyreference.com/La-M...e-Human.html#b

First sentence. If you really think there is a disagreement in the medical/scientific community over when a human is a human, then please present a medical/scientific source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garotar View Post
It's rather simple really. Why should a random collection of cells have more rights than the person it's living off of?
1) The "random collection of cells" is a human organism. I can use similar vocabulary to describe a fully-grown adult.

2) It's not more rights - it's the basic right to remain alive. We can argue about whether that right supercedes the mother's right to comfort, but that has nothing to do with the child's humanity.

Quote:
As for why the argument is bullshit, lots of other people explained why. Yelling "BUT IT'S BIOLOGY" is a copout in my opinion and tends to ignore the fact that there's more to it.
Yes, there is more to it. But it's great that you acknowledge biology here, in recognizing the child's humanity, so now we can move on to...

Quote:
Because at that point it's a human being. Simple isn't it? And no, I don't particularly find it offensive in case your wondering.
Sheesh; I thought we were making progress with you here.

Please find a scientific/medical source that says a human becomes a human being at birth, but not at any stage before. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Eliphas View Post
Just stop.

If you wish to ignore the development of the Ego and Super-ego then don't use an argument that requires the development of the Ego to allow the child to have an 'identity' of the 'self' as society molds him/her into what can they can and tells them what they can not be.
I used those examples because they were as ridiculous as yours.

If you really want me to stop, then cite, a, source. Please. Show me where the scientific community is divided over when a human counts as a human. Since all the documentation says otherwise, I'm not going to just take your word for it. Understand that.

"Just stop", he says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazja View Post
You know, Kangarros and other marsupials carry their young in a pouch so they can get rid of them when things get tough. That's why they survived on Australia while placentals didn't. Probably not the best example you could have used to argue against allowing people to abort. (They died out in other Continents because of their less complex brain. )
Terrific. So when the mother kangaroo does that, do you count it as kangaroo abortion or kangaroo infanticide? And in either case, does the lifeform that gets abandoned count as a kangaroo yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
Inb4 people start considering masturbation as genocide.
(sigh) Again, and again, and again.

When someone masturbates, does his sperm have its own DNA and 46 chromosomes marking it as distinct from the person who shot them out?


~ ~ ~

I've asked for scientific or medical sources from many of you, you who believe that a human doesn't "become human" until whatever stage of development you've decided to go with. Please, find a legitimate source that agrees with you.

I've offered sources of my own. If you don't accept them, then please clarify which sort of source you would accept, if any.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:19 AM
Exxile87 Exxile87 is offline

Elune
Exxile87's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: One nation, under Bloo
Posts: 7,656
BattleTag: Exxile87#1525
Send a message via AIM to Exxile87 Send a message via Yahoo to Exxile87

Default

Are you female?
__________________
Khadgar: Prepare to heroically CTRL-E through the portal with me!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:23 AM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,136

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
My point is that you just picked certain stages of development randomly. There are developmental landmarks throughout the prenatal and postnatal - growth and development starts long before the brain, and it continues long long long after.
My selection was not random. The brain is the seat of the mind. The brain is what allows the human to be. And there can only be cruelty where there is the ability to feel pain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exxile87 View Post
Are you female?
Irrelevant. Many women are pro-life.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:24 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exxile87 View Post
Are you female?
No, I'm a video game fan.

But my wife is female. So are a number of other pro-lifers. My talk radio person is female; do you want her name?

Also, Susan B. Anthony. In case she gets bonus points for some reason.

EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archimedes View Post
My selection was not random. The brain is the seat of the mind. The brain is what allows the human to be. And there can only be cruelty where there is the ability to feel pain.
Medical or scientific source, please. Otherwise we're just talking philosophy.

Does an eagle not count as an eagle until its wings or talons develop, because of how iconic they are to it as a species?

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 11-08-2012 at 09:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:27 AM
C9H20 C9H20 is offline

Elune
C9H20's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,257

Default

Welp, I'll just quote what I wrote in the other thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by C9H20 View Post
I think a reasonable compromise would be to instate mandatory contraception, as soon as a sure-proof non-invasive contraception method is discovered (there isn't one atm afaik). That way no children are conceived by accident, ergo no unborn children are murdered. Those who want to have children or oppose this for whatever reason can get off of the program, though the resulting pregnancies are their own damn fault and abortion is out of the question (unless a complication threatens the mother).

There you go, both sides get what they want.
Even if we lack a method to enforce what I wrote above to the letter now, we have contraception methods that work almost as well, which should cut down unwanted pregnancies almost completely, and end the need for abortion almost completely. That is until we can enforce my plan completely.

Again I feel that is a fair solution to both parties, does either party find any fault with it?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:28 AM
SmokeBlader SmokeBlader is offline

Elune
SmokeBlader's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30,980

Default

I am pro abortion. If the woman wants to abort the baby, let her do it. They go to Heaven anyway
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:31 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C9H20 View Post
Welp, I'll just quote what I wrote in the other thread:



Even if we lack a method to enforce what I wrote above to the letter now, we have contraception methods that work almost as well, which should cut down unwanted pregnancies almost completely, and end the need for abortion almost completely. That is until we can enforce my plan completely.

Again I feel that is a fair solution to both parties, does either party find any fault with it?
1) Would this manage to exclude the contracepives that destroy the embryo instead of preventing fertilization?

2) I wouldn't be a fan of this, not by a long shot. But in an imperfect world, I would trade it for making abortion illegal. In a heartbeat.

EDIT: Wait, I missed the part about it being mandatory. I'd say allow people to opt out of the "mandatory contraception", so long as they live with the consequences.

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 11-08-2012 at 09:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:35 AM
Nazja Nazja is offline

Trade Baroness - Admin
Nazja's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: All the lands of Wonder.
Posts: 40,989

Default

pro-life... how condescending. Just because someone is in favor of allowing people to choose how to live their life he isn't automatically going to abort his children or even entertain the notion of doing so. It just means that he's not going to enforce his opinions onto others.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:36 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazja View Post
pro-life... how condescending. Just because someone is in favor of allowing people to choose how to live their life he isn't automatically going to abort his children or even entertain the notion of doing so. It just means that he's not going to enforce his opinions onto others.
We enforce our opinions on murder, all the time. We don't just think, "Well, I don't plan to break into my neighbor's house and shoot him, but I'm not going to enforce my morality on other people. Separation of church and state."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:36 AM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,378
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:37 AM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,136

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
Medical or scientific source, please. Otherwise we're just talking philosophy.
The brain is the part of the body that gives us what we understand as perception. It controls and regulates all our observation of external stimuli. It is the organ which reads and interprets the electrical impulses sent from all our senses and which allows for the neurological processes of thought.

Are you seriously asking me to source that people think with their brains?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:37 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
I feel that legalizing adult murder would likewise lead to vastly lower crime rates, since none of the murders would be illegal anymore.

EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archimedes View Post
The brain is the part of the body that gives us what we understand as perception. It controls and regulates all our observation of external stimuli. It is the organ which reads and interprets the electrical impulses sent from all our senses and which allows for the neurological processes of thought.

Are you seriously asking me to source that people think with their brains?
No, I'm seriously asking for a source that thinking with your brain transforms you into a member of the human species, when you were some other type of organism before.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:40 AM
Ruinshin Ruinshin is offline

Elune
Ruinshin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 21,165

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I feel that legalizing adult murder would likewise lead to vastly lower crime rates, since none of the murders would be illegal anymore.


Quote:
No, I'm seriously asking for a source that thinking with your brain transforms you into a member of the human species, when you were some other type of organism before.
And... Stop with the scientific stuff. Scientifically, we are animals. Animals kill their kids, animals kill each other, animals kill. You don't get to argue from a scientific point and then go on and tell others to not use morality and philosophy, when it's your own morality and philosophy that continues to put human beings as, you know, human beings instead of animals.

Either we are scientifically animals, in which case abortion is just another case of animals killing things, or we are philosophically evolved past base tendencies, and as such fuck science.
__________________
Fucking Epic :X

Last edited by Ruinshin; 11-08-2012 at 09:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:40 AM
SmokeBlader SmokeBlader is offline

Elune
SmokeBlader's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30,980

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I feel that legalizing adult murder would likewise lead to vastly lower crime rates, since none of the murders would be illegal anymore.
Rapists, and murderers should receive this punishment. Thieves should not, since the damage can be repaired in their case.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:41 AM
Aneurysm Aneurysm is offline

Problemsolver
Aneurysm's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here, there, and everywhere.
Posts: 9,333

Default

Abortion should be allowed until the kid is three or four years old. By that time you should've gotten a nuanced and fair picture of what kind of person you've brought into this world, and if this person should be given the priviledge to grow up.
__________________
My love for you is like a truck, berserker.
Would you like some making fuck, berserker?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:42 AM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,378
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Baron, quick question: does the law specify that all human beings are entitled to protection, or just people? This is an important distinction.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:46 AM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,136

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
No, I'm seriously asking for a source that thinking with your brain transforms you into a member of the human species, when you were some other type of organism before.
When have I ever said that?

The brain is what allows the homo sapiens embryo to think and feel, thus transforming it into a human being.

But that is philosophy. It's basic, but I suppose it's not your apparent biological absolutism, so is unlikely to meet your approval. I think that a random bundle of human cells can't be considered a person unless it is capable of thought. I believe this quite strongly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I feel that legalizing adult murder would likewise lead to vastly lower crime rates, since none of the murders would be illegal anymore.
Oh, and this isn't valid. The crime rate Omacron was talking about never factored in your alleged baby-murders in the first place.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.

Last edited by Anansi; 11-08-2012 at 09:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:48 AM
Warlock Warlock is offline

Keeper of Lore
Warlock's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,497
BattleTag: Warlock#1498

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
Baron, quick question: does the law specify that all human beings are entitled to protection, or just people? This is an important distinction.
The fact that pro-choice people think there is a distinction between those two terms is why the two sides will never agree on this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:48 AM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,378
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archimedes View Post
When have I ever said that?

The brain is what allows the homo sapiens embryo to think and feel, thus transforming it into a human being.

But that is philosophy. It's basic, but I suppose it's not your apparent biological absolutism, so is unlikely to meet your approval. I think that a random bundle of human cells can't be considered a person unless it is capable of thought. I believe this quite strongly.
"Human being" and "person" are two things. When in an argument like this you need to be very semantically precise.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:49 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferlion View Post
And... Stop with the scientific stuff. Scientifically, we are animals. Animals kill their kids, animals kill each other, animals kill. You don't get to argue from a scientific point and then go on and tell others to not use morality and philosophy, when it's your own morality and philosophy that continues to put human beings as, you know, human beings instead of animals.

Either we are scientifically animals, in which case abortion is just another case of animals killing things, or we are philosophically evolved past base tendencies, and as such fuck science.
I'm not arguing about whether or not humans should be allowed to kill other humans, or when that applies. That, is a case of morality.

I'm arguing about whether or not humans are in fact humans. That, is a case of scientific fact.

The reason people object to that, is they often have their own moral views on killing fellow humans, and the whole thing gets messy when they have to factor in exactly what happens. But you don't seem to be denying that, so my "scientific stuff" isn't really applying to the disagreements between you and me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
Baron, quick question: does the law specify that all human beings are entitled to protection, or just people? This is an important distinction.
Omacron, a discussion between us would be on a different playing field than this. For example, with other people, I've used killing newborns as a comparison.

But I'm not entirely certain you believe newborns have an inherent right to life themselves. Do you?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:50 AM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,136

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
"Human being" and "person" are two things. When in an argument like this you need to be very semantically precise.
Perhaps so. I tend to use the words 'being' and 'person' interchangeably, but for the purposes of this conversation I will try to limit my diction to the latter.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:51 AM
Erthad Erthad is offline

Elune
Erthad's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stromgarde
Posts: 9,556
BattleTag: Erthad #1438

Crossed Swords (War2)

It's worth pointing out that a definition of people is "human beings in general."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:55 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archimedes View Post
When have I ever said that?

The brain is what allows the homo sapiens embryo to think and feel, thus transforming it into a human being.

But that is philosophy. It's basic, but I suppose it's not your apparent biological absolutism, so is unlikely to meet your approval. I think that a random bundle of human cells can't be considered a person unless it is capable of thought. I believe this quite strongly.
Okay, you're at a philosophical position that not all human beings count as people. To me, it's a very historically frightening moral position. But at least it doesn't make my blood boil in its intellectual dishonesty, so thank you.

Quote:
Oh, and this isn't valid. The crime rate Omacron was talking about never factored in your alleged baby-murders in the first place.
In that case, we could exterminate those in poverty or those with past criminal histories. That would do that trick.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:55 AM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,378
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post

Omacron, a discussion between us would be on a different playing field than this. For example, with other people, I've used killing newborns as a comparison.

But I'm not entirely certain you believe newborns have an inherent right to life themselves. Do you?
I don't believe in inherent rights in general, actually. I also don't believe that biological humanity is enough of a sole justification for enfranchisement by a government, and that biological humanity is immutable nor sacred. Argue all you want about the rights of a solely human fetus, but have you ever given thought to the rights of a being that's only, say, 70% human? What about something that's 10%? 1%? There are already GM foodstuffs and medicine available that has small bits of human DNA in them, should we therefore enfranchise these modified creatures?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-08-2012, 09:56 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
I don't believe in inherent rights in general, actually. I also don't believe that biological humanity is enough of a sole justification for enfranchisement by a government, and that biological humanity is immutable nor sacred. Argue all you want about the rights of a solely human fetus, but have you ever given thought to the rights of a being that's only, say, 70% human? What about something that's 10%? 1%? There are already GM foodstuffs and medicine available that has small bits of human DNA in them, should we therefore enfranchise these modified creatures?
Right. So you can argue with someone else about whether we should be allowed to drown infants in the river. I'm not particularly experienced in having that argument, not yet anyway.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.