Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Aug 22, 2015.
Cells are living beings too. But they're not conscious beings or persons.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So you're saying that a zygote or blastocyst is a person because it is a "potential" person? No..
A person is not conscious while asleep, passed out, or in a coma. Are we then justified in pulling the plug on life? Is awareness the only qualifier that warrants preservation of life? The sleeping man will eventually awake. The drunkard will eventually sober. The comatose man may some day revive. That lump of cells, given a chance, will become a conscious person.
If it were a growth of any other kind, I would call it a cancer.
This is another example of the square-zero reset.
To wit, let's talk about "pulling the plug", and how the "comatose man may some day revive".
And, you know, I'm aware that people do use default terms, but given the record, "comatose man" is almost funny.
Terry Schiavo was not a man. She was not going to someday revive.
Marlise Munoz was not going to someday revive. She wasn't even comatose. She was dead.
And that one was about "abortion".
I don't believe your pretense of simpleton naïveté.
We've tried addressing the personhood question at Sciforums before.
I know you're aware of those discussions; you even participated.
You do not get to reset this issue to square zero just because it feels convenient to pretend you're an idiot. And, honestly, I just don't get what it is about that appeal that so many people find attractive.
You've done this quite a bit lately, looking for a simpleton reset of issues. In the larger societal view with two general sides, the problem appears to be that one side has pretty much won what it can win and can only set itself up to lose, so they want to reset back before the beginning of the fight and try to do the whole thing all over again. To that proposition, however, we might note the counterpoint that it's hard to see the profit in trying to convince everyone not so much whether you are or aren't stupid, but, rather which valence of stupid you have achieved.
Abortion, rape culture, misogyny in general. It's a pretty transparent routine, Bowser, and I have no idea why you might think it somehow helpful.
Your appeal didn't work a quarter-century ago; indeed, that failure is the reason why we now hear anti-abortion pushing "personhood" instead of "life at conception".
Pitching to the gutter is certainly your right. I'm just puzzled about what you think it gets anyone.
I think in most states, "Murder" is legally defined. - Not a question for discusion in public forum, but for lawyers and legislators to discuss.
Well, take the jump. How would you define murder?
Tiassa, I don't believe awareness is the only measure of life and its potential. Some would say that simply because life begins with simple elements, its value is diminished proportionately. But I hold it has extraordinary value for what it is and for what it can become.
Really? As in seriously? Billy T was pretty explicit - '"Murder" is legally defined"
Go ahead, exert some effort - I bet even you can find the legal definition of murder in your jurisdiction. Google is your friend...
Well to duck the question, I would say killing of some person who has aquired rights.
Okay, I won't persist and leave it at that. My personal definition is, taking a life and the future it might have had.
So by saying it will become a conscious person, I assume you mean it isn't a conscious person. No more than a blastocyst is a conscious person. Then aborting a fetus isn't killing a person.
"Murder" is a legal term. One does not get to re-define it to support one's own position
Of course "murder" is defined differently in different countries, but it has the same definition throughout the United States. In order to be charged with murder, the victim must have already been born. You cannot be charged with murder if you kill a fetus that is still in its mother's uterus. Not even if you hack it out with a knife, not even if you flush it out with chemicals, not even if you manage to yank it out because the mother has already begun contractions.
This is not entirely true.
Not without changing into something quite different. As with acorns not being trees, etc, it's not a person yet.
Thing is, you cannot credibly claim to regard a human embryo as a person - you treat it, think about it, refer to it, as a person in no other context than abortion. The entire claim is a special pleading invoked to oppose deliberate abortion at the will of the pregnant woman , and otherwise denied.
I would simply note you're dealing with a con man.
Bowser↗ is already aware of the issues presented by the personhood question, and prefers to ignore all that as if it didn't happen in order to take another swing at the issue without having to account for reality.
If you look through these anti-woman threads he's been running lately, it's the same pretense of basic shitscratching ignorance.
Note that when the writers (or perhaps the editors!) lapse into proper legal terminology, this crime is NOT defined as "murder" in all states. Only the Troglodytes in places like Arizona and Georgia get away with it. When we finally clean the Republican scum out of Congress this will probably be modernized.
Nonetheless, a properly performed abortion, with the mother's consent, is still legal in all U.S. states and territories. As the younger generations with their more liberal politics come to dominate the electorate, we will see considerably more support for abortion. The ridiculous state rules about the width of the hallways, hospital admission privileges, etc., will go down the toilet with racism and homophobia.
Of course you ignore my point that your claim is not entirely true.
I dont have time to look up all the statutes. However, I am sure most states have laws regarding who can perform an abortion and when.
Great! Then take it out and allow it to become that conscious person. That solves both problems - the right of the mother to decide what is done with her body, and the "right" you demand for the fetus to develop into a conscious person.
no, they haven't... only some have
i am also a known male and i've not been browbeaten ...
[have been browbeaten]
and for a good reason ... especially considering their advocacy and comments
women don't have a conflict any more than African, Native American, Asian or Hispanic people have a conflict WRT racial tension... as so well said by Fraggle Rocker- perhaps you should actually re-read what Fraggle posted?
problem is, tali : you are getting defensive
perhaps you should read this
so you are wanting to qualify it ??
who gets to decide how to qualify what is "potential"??
these are completely different situations... in the first two there is no need to pull a plug because the life is viable and simply at rest/drunk
the last one is dependent upon the effects of the situation on all other parties as well as the potential quality of life that the comatose person will be able to have... you are weighing the potential for a cure (or recovery) with the risk of no cure and the financial burden associated with said risks
so that argument doesn't make sense at all
you can google the legal definition for your state or country... it is very specific per the law, and it is not always the same in every location around the globe
in the US alone there are even qualifiers that are applicable as Randwolf noted...
you really can google the definition ... just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it will be. especially WRT the law...
the CFR's on the subject
from the free legal dictionary
Separate names with a comma.