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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

(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.

Are you female?

__________________
Khadgar: Prepare to heroically CTRL-E through the portal with me!

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.

Irrelevant. Many women are pro-life.

__________________

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: 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?

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?

I am pro abortion. If the woman wants to abort the baby, let her do it. They go to Heaven anyway

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.

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."

So how do you guys feel about the theory that Roe v. Wade and thus legalized abortion has lead to vastly lower crime rates in America in the last 20 years?

__________________

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?

__________________

I feel that legalizing adult murder would likewise lead to vastly lower crime rates, since none of the murders would be illegal anymore.

EDIT: 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

Rapists, and murderers should receive this punishment. Thieves should not, since the damage can be repaired in their case.

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.

__________________

Baron, quick question: does the law specify that all human beings are entitled to protection, or just people? This is an important distinction.

__________________

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.

Oh, and this isn't valid. The crime rate Omacron was talking about never factored in your alleged baby-murders in the first place.

__________________

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.

__________________

"Human being" and "person" are two things. When in an argument like this you need to be very semantically precise.

__________________

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.

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?

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.

__________________

It's worth pointing out that a definition of people is "human beings in general."

__________________

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.

In that case, we could exterminate those in poverty or those with past criminal histories. That would do that trick.

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.