Right, Left or somewhere in between

[roflmao]

You've slightly misunderstood my argument. My intent was to point out that people are not valuable to us because they are simply alive. If they were, then we would have a hell of a time reconciling our existence with our love for life, given our destructive nature.

Hell yes people are valuable to us simply because they are alive and because they are of the same species. Otherwise, no one would give a crap if a person gets tortured to death and hears about it on the news. By your logic I shouldn't give a hoot about the horrors inflicted on the Jews in World War 2, or any similar event.

Of course, the closer a certain life is to you, the more it means to you. I care a lot more about my parent's then I do about some random person in Australia. But hell, how closer can you get than having a person living inside of you?

[Noble]

Read my previous posts. Even people whom you do not know possess all of the things which I stated make a person a unique beautiful creature. My respect and love for human beings is not contingent on my familiarity with them. I respect them because they have achieved that oh so rare and beautiful state that so far as we know has not been achieved by any other organism on this planet: Consciousness.

Early stage fetus's are not yet human beings. Though they may have just started to take shape, they lack many of the things that biologically define us. Things like organs, limbs, nervous systems, reproductive systems, et cetera.

[roflmao]

Everything has to come from somewhere. Everything. Early stage fetus's are in the process of formation, everything we know and perceive in this world undergoes a stage of formation, which is basically from nothing to everything. Just because a baby has not reached "full human status" does not the baby not human. It's just in "stage 1" of human development, soon it will reach the final stage and have organs, limbs, and a reproductive system.

Hell, 4 year old kids haven't reached full human status because they cannot reproduce. By your logic a 4 year old kid is not fully human yet, and is some other type of creature. There is no real final stage of a human development, we change every day until we die. We're still all human though.

Since I'm in the mindset of computer programming, let me give you this analogy:

If I were to design a application for the web, and each time I started coding smashed my computer and deleted the code because it doesn't have all the features implemented yet that are in my "oh so pretty web app" I invisioned. I'd get nowhere, just because I don't have everything built yet does not make my app not an app.

Every application starts out exactly the same way, my flex app starts out with a <mx:Application> tag, thats the very first stage of development.


I value a life for what it is, not for what it looks like.

[Surrealitycheck]

What defines a human being is not really the genes. It's pretty much the mind.

If I were to transplant your brain into an inorganic body that could support it (imagine one had the technology to do so) your personhood would still be understood by most people.

When you consider the foetus, it is relatively clear that the defining human aspect one should use to test its humanity is consciousness/sentience. This can be fairly easily tied to activity of the nervous system.

Life per se is a test of nothing, as one sheds no tears for bacteria annihilated by one's immune system. One must define the aspect of the living human that makes it worthy of interest.

[Noble]

roflmao: Four year olds still have reproductive systems and they still have all of the biologically defining attributes that set a human apart from a dolphin or a chimpanzee. Very early fetuses do not.

What is infinitely more important than that is that they have a conscious and aware mind. They have all of the things which I've been talking about for the last several posts. They have all of the things which make people important.

Yes everything starts from somewhere. A cake starts from dough, but you don't define dough as a cake simply because of it's potential.

Your web application analogy doesn't really work. Here is it's biggest failing point:

If I were to design a application for the web, and each time I started coding smashed my computer and deleted the code because it doesn't have all the features implemented yet

People don't get abortions because of the fact that the fetus hasn't developed into a human. To imply that is pretty silly. They get abortions for many many reasons, some more legitimate than others.

To revise your analogy; say you were designing that application and found that if you completed it, there was a high chance that you would die in the process. Say you also found out that the application would grow up in a broken home, or no home at all and lead a short and painful existence under the grip of abject poverty and an extremely negative environment. Would you scrap your application then?

[Surrealitycheck]

Plurals don't have apostrophes :P

It's foetuses.

[TheWickedGerman]

To revise your analogy; say you were designing that application and found that if you completed it, there was a high chance that you would die in the process. Say you also found out that the application would grow up in a broken home, or no home at all and lead a short and painful existence under the grip of abject poverty and an extremely negative environment. Would you scrap your application then?

I would like to adopt your application, i can give it a lovefull Computer who can give it a shelter. Her name is Gertrud. Sorry couldn´t stand this.

OK, serious: Comparing a foetus with a application is, umm, not usefull.

I would say a human beeing starts to be a human beeing when it´s brain start to function, because that´s the earliest point where it can have a consciousness.

[Noble]

Tongue firmly in cheek.

[Troubleshooter]

No, it doesn't unless you believe in souls. It is physically identical to those other species in every way except for its DNA - of which we share more with animals than many think.

You're separating in your mind the fact that it is a human from its humanity by implying that it could be just about anything based on appearance and similarity of DNA with, well... Mushrooms.

Were it a mushroom, it would most certainly find its way into my pasta, but it happens to be human. By every scientific, theological, and empirical definition, it's a human being. If you choose to dehumanize it arbitrarily, thats a matter for your conscience, not debate.

Also, I asked you what would generate a deep emotional response from you, not where you "drew the line". The question was more about when could you form a human connection to a developing person... its not a political question.

For example, I have a hard time forming an emotional connection to what I see in those sorts of pictures until it has a heart... I guess I am a romantic

@Noble :

My intent was to point out that people are not valuable to us because they are simply alive. If they were, then we would have a hell of a time reconciling our existence with our love for life, given our destructive nature.

If thats the case, you framed your argument very poorly. After reading your responses, I'm glad to see you're back to the Noble I expect to see. For starters, we do have a "hell of a time" reconciling our nature with our actions... or rather our failure to live up to our own expectations. Its a common theme in fact. Regardless, thats not what the debate is about now.

I posit that those aspects include individuality, consciousness, emotion, and self-awareness. None of these things are present in very early embryos. All of these things are present in every single human being. If they haven't developed yet, we aren't destroying any of the things we really care about in a person. We are destroying inanimate biomass.

First, you cant prove to any degree of certainty that most if not all of your "requirements" are not present in a developing human being. Where there is ambiguity about the presence of life, generally the more civilized among us will err on the side of protecting that life to a reasonable degree.

Second, if any of what you presume to be true about the pre-requisites of humanity then there would not be advanced life support techniques for preserving the near/recently dead. There would be absolutely no technology to support it.

Read : http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?from=storylhs

So I challenge you to reconcile your assertion with the reality that we do invest quite a bit into people who lack every one of your pre-requisites.

I'll ask you the question Troubleshooter. Why do you have a problem with killing another human being? Do your reasons apply to an undeveloped fetus?

For me the most distilled answer would be that it boils down to innocence and threat. I would not willingly kill an innocent unless it posed a greater threat to myself. (yes, this ties directly to collateral damage) The exception I make for abortion as it relates to rape only goes so far... really I expect that the victim must actively seek to end the pregnancy as soon as they can. If they delay in acting for any reason, I would revoke that right on the spot.

Answer to the follow up question is simply yes, it applies to a developing fetus. My problem with killing another human being is generally dependent on the situation in which I am force to choose to kill them, so most of the situational caveats don't apply to the unborn. (just to kill off this line of questioning.. I'm effectively talking about "rules of engagement" and "use of deadly force" for example.)

Early stage fetus's are not yet human beings. Though they may have just started to take shape, they lack many of the things that biologically define us. Things like organs, limbs, nervous systems, reproductive systems, et cetera.

This is the third time I've said it... please consider my advice regarding using "values" projected upon another as that which defines them as "human".

I'll take this all on at once for the sake of brevity :
If a person is deficient in any of the above list, are they less human as a result?

Furthermore, because a human being lacks any of the above, but could conceivably acquire them at some later point, are they not human yet?

I'm intentionally being vague because I know what your underlying premise is... the essential artifacts of human beings are not immediately present in a 21 day old person (I'm using the word deliberately), they don't enjoy the unique bond of humanity that makes them worthy of mercy. I submit to you that the artifacts of your humanity that form the template by which you judge human from non-human are outgrowths of human DNA that has been allowed to fully express itself. Your arm is the expression of the DNA that demanded that it grow there, likewise your nervous system, organs, reproductive systems, et cetera. The difference between you and the developing person is time, nothing more.

If there were a universally accepted template for a fully realized human being, then certainly there would be vast swaths of fully developed humans that would not pass inspection by it, and again I submit that we would find genocide knocking at our doors. In fact, when ever a template is found by which to reject fully developed humans from the human experience, atrocities ensue. Rwanda, Holocaust, Spanish Inquisition, Crusades... you get the point.

How can we agree that it is wrong to exclude <insert persecuted group here> from humanity, but not agree that the same is being argued as appropriate so long as the persecuted have not materialized before our eyes with all the common artifacts of humanity in evidence?

[Etherealsilk]

Yes everything starts from somewhere. A cake starts from dough, but you don't define dough as a cake simply because of it's potential.

Dough is not pre-destined to develope into a cake. A fetus is pre-destined to develope into a human. The dehumanization of it is simply a justification of destroying it, nothing more. To go back to the whole "care about a dead person" analogy, we care about the fetus and consider it human because of what it will be, not what it currently is. We care about the deceased because of what they were not because of what they are. The only difference is past vs future. The whole argument about being pro-life meaning we should be against any form of killing isn't applicable for the reasons stated above. In essence I tend to consider the potential human that is a fetus to be inherently innocent, whereas the same cannot be said of someone that has wantonly murdered (such as Timothy McVeigh).

The curious thing I find is that this discussion has become one of how much restriction of abortion, or in what circumstances should abortion be allowed, rather then of whether it should be allowed at all. Perhaps when we see this same shift in acceptance in the public there can be an actual move towards actually determining the limits of it. Of course thats assuming that at some point in time people as a whole accept that abortion to some degree is acceptable.

[Surrealitycheck]

Dough is not pre-destined to develope into a cake. A fetus is pre-destined to develope into a human.

Have you ever seen what happens to a foetus that isn't fed nutrients via an umbilical cord?

It doesn't develop.

Rather like dough without an oven

[Etherealsilk]

More akin to dough in an oven where the power is turned off I'd say. But if we are to take your assertion seriously then we have to assume that no fetus will turn into a human unless it is given an umbilical cord, such as we have to put dough in an oven to turn it into cake. But that isn't so because the majority of fetus develop with an umbilical cord; whereas dough doesn't develop with an oven, rather the oven is supplied. Point being the analogy doesn't stand up due to inconsistency.

[Surrealitycheck]

As silly as the analogy is, I feel it's worth pointing out that for most pieces of dough the oven is provided by the person orchestrating the dough-style situation - as the umbilical chord and nutrients are provided unconsciously by the person orchestrating the foetus-style situation. In both cases the environment is usually such that the change occurs, but it is possible in both cases that the environment can be inhospitable and our cake can be uncooked and our baby ungrown.

However tenuous analogy is tenous. My objection is more to the concept of destiny having any relevance in this case; everything is what it is and not another thing, as it were. People may value the dead because of what they were but speaking strictly rationally (which is what we're striving for here) potential does not have the effect you desire.

Most pro-lifers would hold the position that the foetus is an alive and complete human being, so

we care about the fetus and consider it human because of what it will be, not what it currently is. The whole argument about being pro-life meaning we should be against any form of killing isn't applicable for the reasons stated above.

Is a little off the mark, I feel.

However, whether or not your argument is a common one does not affect its accuracy - which I would also question, but frankly I just had a tooth-style operation, so I'll leave it at that.

I feel a cat coming on.

[Troubleshooter]

Of course thats assuming that at some point in time people as a whole accept that abortion to some degree is acceptable.

Society already allows for abortion in some cases... only the extreme pro-lifers are against it in any form.

Selective reduction is the deliberate killing of some fetuses so that the more viable ones might live. Its just selective abortion, but you cant call it that because THEN you've gone too far :Facepalm:

We already do set limits on what degree we believe that abortion is acceptable. Right here you have a plethora of opinion and beliefs that shape the choices of the people involved in the debate. What is not on the table, however, is weather or not it should be illegal to some degree. Society at large isn't allowed to have a reasoned debate about the issue and arrive at a workable consensus, and then revisit that consensus as society evolves, because (at least in the USA) the conversation has been put on hold by the SCOTUS. All the energy that could be put into reduction of the practice and arriving at solutions that are acceptable to the people according to their wishes is, instead, wasted on emotionally overcharged ranting and feverish indoctrination of the masses to radical extremes to unwedge the issue.

The tension over this will eventually snap, it is going to cause an over reaction... that's going to be sad.

[Surrealitycheck]

What is not on the table, however, is weather or not it should be illegal to some degree.

I thought this was the question of dates at which abortion is acceptable, etc?

Maybe this is just in the UK, but we have recently examined (although with no change, from what I recalled) the pregnancy timing at which one legally stops being able to have an abortion. This position implies an understanding that aborting some foetuses is less preferable than others - the more modulated position you are hoping for?

[Troubleshooter]

Well, I think thats a bit of data that will be considered. I think that the hard core objections to abortion are going to run on emotion and theological principals more than hard data about "preferable" people. Thats a guess though... I suppose I would give the research the proper reading and weight in light of any opening to change the present paradigm in the legal sense.

I maintain that abortion in general is a net harm to society, and is thus something to be minimized as much as possible without outright banning of the practice. I still prefer to look at it as a social problem first, and an ethical/legal problem second.

[Etherealsilk]

Re: SurrealityCheck

That was basically my point, being that the analogy is tenuous at best and flawed at worst. To put it how I interpret the analogy, if a fetus is in a woman and is allowed to develop without interference it should and usually does develop into a human. If a clump of dough is allowed to sit and "develop" without interference it will maintain its state as a clump of dough, if a dry and moldy one after a period of time. Point being, for a fetus to NOT develop into a human usually requires intervention of some sort, whereas for dough TO "develop" into cake it requires intervention. Flawed logic is flawed imho.

Regarding the point you quoted, perhaps I should have done better with my grammar because those two sentences were meant to be separate arguments to separate issues. The point I'm attempting to make on the first sentence can be illustrated in the following example. Someone I know comes up to me and says they are pregnant. I ask them how far along they are and they reply they are only 2 weeks. I say congratulations. Note I don't say "well that sucks you have a random clump of cells in your body, lets hope it develops into a human." This illustrates what I mean about a fetus being pre-destined to develop into a human. Fate has little to do with it, rather it is simply the result of what will happen if the pregnancy is allowed to occur normally. The second sentence is meant to address those that suggest pro-lifers should be pro-all life, which is inconsistent with logic because of the reasons stated previous in my post and others in the thread. Again they are separate arguments and I should have framed them better, I apologize for that.

[Brenil]

Gun Ownership: I see no problem with owning a gun or maybe even a couple, but I personally am befuddled by people who keep an arsenal in their closet or basement and even more dumbfounded by people claiming that having a cache of assault weapons is exercising their rights. Personally, I do not own a gun, but I have nothing against those that do - again at a reasonable level.

Gun Control: Realistically, I don't see any harsh gun control taking in the United States for along time. There's just already too many guns out there to outlaw ownership. If this was done all the criminals could easily obtain guns while civilians become victimized. However, ideally, I believe guns should be restricted to what is 'reasonable' to a citizen and merely for sport or home defense. Would it be great for everyone to live in peace and not need a gun? Sure. In the real world not all of us can depend on the police when the shit hits the fan.

Abortion: Hmm... I've never really had a hard stance on this one way or another. I find that a good thing. This one issue divides far more than most and I'll abstine from answering because I honestly don't have a firm opinion one way or another on the subject.

Gay Marriage: Fine with it. Bible-thumpers can say how evil it is all they want, but gay people have just as much a legal right to get married, divorced, re-married, divorced again, and re-married a third time all in the name of the ever-elusive four letter word. When people are getting re-married on a regular basis 2-3 or more times, I find that anything 'holy' has long since left the offical union... and since when did marriage become ownership of Christians?

Universal Health Care: In a perfect world, I'd be for it wholeheartedly... or a smaller country. However, the United States is vast in size and population, its services are not unlimited and its been based on a capitalist system of health service for far too long. Like gun control, I think it would take many years to get this on its feet, in the interm it'll be an unholy mess. I support it, not without the caution that it will be hard to implement.

Current War: Which one? So many in progress and others on the sidelines. If you mean the so-called 'War on Terror', then I laugh at it. In my mind, this war is World War III by another name and has absolutely no end in sight. Perhaps it's pessimistic to say, but as a student of history, it certainly appears like the begining of the end of the United States as a major world power. Oh sure, we'll still have nukes to blow up the planet ten times over, but our convential forces and ecomonic power will be the victim of this neverending war. So am I for this disaster of planning that is a global war on ourselves? Nope. I find it rather chilling that people like John McCain firmly believe this is a war that can be won. There's no victory to be had when most of the planet is against you, only degrees of losing; those that cannot see and are in some form of power will choose the intensity of that degree, unfortunately.

Illegal Imigration: As someone that lives in Greater Mexico (re: Texas), I say this is a big problem... one that has once again been forgotten over other issues. Forget the potential terrorist issue that was so overblown in the press for the five minutes the media gave a shit about this problem; and look at the bigger problem of the strain on the local, state, and federal system. When you have over ten million illegals working, living, and attempting to gain benefits in a country, you're overtaxing the system. I can't really count the number bigotted stories I hear lately (about legals or not) and while some may be overblown, in my own experience, quite a few are not. My stance is plug the leak and process the rest. That's the only realistic answer, because deporting 12-15 million people will never happen.

Oh and if you want to live here legally... stop waving your goddamn Mexican flag around and writing 'Viva Mexico' graffi everywhere. If Mexico is so damn great, why are you living here? You don't see French immigrants writing 'Viva la France!' everywhere, do you?

Death Penalty: For it for terrible crimes only and it should be efficent and speedy as possible. None of this waiting on Death Row for twenty years bullshit. Anyone who committed a capital offense should be done within five years. Otherwise, they're draining our tax dollars by sitting in an isolated cell on Death Row. Oh, and if your state has the death penalty, use it, or you don't really have it. I'm looking at you California.

Sex Education: Depends on the age, obviously. I'm fine with it for High School. Anything below that seems rather overboard.

Censorship: Shouldn't be any. That doesn't mean I want to see titties and swinging dicks on the Disney Channel, but everything should have its place without restriction.

[Surrealitycheck]

Well, I think thats a bit of data that will be considered. I think that the hard core objections to abortion are going to run on emotion and theological principals more than hard data about "preferable" people. Thats a guess though... I suppose I would give the research the proper reading and weight in light of any opening to change the present paradigm in the legal sense.

That's probably true about most issues :P

The religious argument is impossible to debate as it rests on a point of theology - ensoulment - and the hardcore feminist dogma where abortions are a fundamental female right are equally silly. However I would wager that the position of abortion in America is fairly unique. Maybe I'm being unfair, however.

I maintain that abortion in general is a net harm to society, and is thus something to be minimized as much as possible without outright banning of the practice. I still prefer to look at it as a social problem first, and an ethical/legal problem second.

I don't think anybody would argue that abortions are harmless per se - except maybe the most hardcore feminists. Even then I suspect the fundamental argument would be "the degree of harm to the mother and the misery of the prospective child's life are so extreme that the minor harm of the termination of the foetus is irrelevant in comparison", with the associated valuation of the foetus that that implies. I agree with you that abortions should be used as little as possible; however, I do think we can make a fairly strong position for when the foetus first gains some semblance of thought (an argument from necessary physical properties of the brain).

Again they are separate arguments and I should have framed them better, I apologize for that.

Not your fault, I should have been looking more carefully at context!

[Moe]

Another issue that might be interesting would be stem cell research. Where do people stand on that?

[Surrealitycheck]

Embryonic stem cell research :P

[darkelf]

Completely for in just about any way, shape or form.

[Cyberbob]

As long as they aren't purpose-growing embryos just for experimentation I'm fine with it. Pretty much every case I've seen of embryonic research the embryos used were more or less going to be thrown out anyway, so yeah - no issues with it.

I've read about those Japanese guys who can turn skin into stem cells, but I don't know whether they're as effective as the real deal. If they are, I think it would be best to pursue both avenues of research.

[Mokino]

Umbilical's fine for sure. I can't see much controversy there since you don't harm embryos for them.

I believe that stem cell research should be allowed as long as, as Cyberbob stated, embryos are not grown specifically for it. Allow mothers to donate their babies' umbilical cells (and possibly deceased babies' cells.) If it's completely voluntary I don't see a problem with it.

[Troubleshooter]

Yeah, I'm pretty much on the side of "dont make life just to kill it with the hope of saving life.."

Again, my objections are purely tied to humanity... non-human stem cell research in all its forms doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Even so, I wouldn't divest my portfolio away from firms engaged in this research too quickly... I'd want to know more about it first. The quick answer is that it "feels" oogy, and I'd want to be convinced that its not.

[Supernaut]

Stem Cell research is a necessity imo, there's so many things that it as the potential to cure, I think it's inhumane not to research it.

But as above systematically growing embroyo's to research it isn't a good idea, I'm not the kind of person who thinks progress should be at all costs (well depends on what we would be progressing - come on virtual reality!) though new methods of getting stem cells have appeared recently so I see no harm in pursuing those avenues and if stem cells are to be donated in another way then so be it.

[Open Blue]

Growing stem cells from stem cells is fine for me, but I'll agree with Mokinokaro on this one.

[Moe]

Ok, I think we've gotten all we can out of this thread. Locking this now so that I can move it to the vault.