(April 6, 2013 at 9:24 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How are the last two a parcel of tissue?

The first is still different, in that it is the potential for life and not a piece of hair flakes or something like that.

I don't see how someone can say a grown fetus is even remotely similar to a piece of tissue unless they are just lying.

A seed has the potential for life. I don't see how that's relevant to anything.

When you identify a person, do you appeal to material causes? When you call someone by there name, does their name change when their hair grows? But their hair make them different at a molecular level?

How do you define a person? Obviously it is not material causes, otherwise personal identity would be wrong and would change depending on changing circumstances.

The identify of a person is a metaphysical identity, which begins when the person begins. It is not related to consciousness, because that changes. It is not related to physical structure, because that changes. It is related to the persons physical structure.

If life does not begin at conception, there is no life at all, only shifting material substances that are considered to have the name "X", and granted conditional acceptability by the state as having life.

So it is not people who have rights, but the state who defines what people are and gives them rights, it is not the biological relations that define what a person is, it is the state who defines biology.

Your name does not come from your seed, it comes from the state, in other words. It is the state who defines you as what you are, not the natural growth of you seed.

Here, as in everywhere, the state is the authority in the world of the authoritarian liberal, who defines everything in terms of an aggressive public psuedo-philosophy.

Why do people argue over semantics in the abortion debate? Whether we call the thing growing inside of a woman after she had some guy fuck her 5 months ago a human or not doesn't change what it actually is. For the sake of argument, I'll call it a human/baby - and I'm still for killing it if the woman wills it.

Gilgamesh I appreciate your honesty. Why are you for killing humans/babies?

(April 6, 2013 at 11:05 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Gilgamesh I appreciate your honesty. Why are you for killing humans/babies?

The thing we're talking about doesn't change; the reason doesn't either. I'm for killing humans/babies because of the same reasons all these other atheists are for abortion.

Contraception prevents a person from forming. If the person is not there, I cannot act against them. Contraception is fine.

Abortion takes an already living human and kills it. Euthanasia does the same thing to the elderly. I am against both for the same reason.

Consciousness is irrelevant in the ending of the life. The elderly person could be unable to function. People when sleeping have nearly no consciousness.

The clump of cells, that miniscule tissue, can be proven to be a unique individual at conception because of it's obvious genetic difference with the mother. It is not a cancer because of cancer are deformed cells (stuck with the growth button on), but these cells are operating just fine (growth button on, not stuck). It is not the mother because of the unique DNA sequence. It is not the Father because of the same reason. It is still a parasite, but so are lots of people out of the womb, and we're not allowed to kill them either.

With the exception of military combat and necessity by the government (capital punishment, but this would only apply if the person could not be safely held), I see no reason for killing.

(April 6, 2013 at 8:29 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Meh. I don't think you can put any value on someone's future existence.

So does that mean I can kill you now and you'd have no problem ethically with that?

(April 7, 2013 at 5:32 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So does that mean I can kill you now and you'd have no problem ethically with that?

To be fair, if you succeeded, Cap'n would indeed not mind, since he would be dead

(April 7, 2013 at 5:45 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(April 7, 2013 at 5:32 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So does that mean I can kill you now and you'd have no problem ethically with that?

To be fair, if you succeeded, Cap'n would indeed not mind, since he would be dead

Problem solved!

(April 7, 2013 at 12:26 am)Tex Wrote: Abortion takes an already living human and kills it. Euthanasia does the same thing to the elderly. I am against both for the same reason.

Consciousness is irrelevant in the ending of the life. The elderly person could be unable to function. People when sleeping have nearly no consciousness.

Right, but people in a chronic vegetative state don't wake up. If you were going to spend the rest of your life asleep with no higher brain functioning, would you want your kids to come visit veggie you on Sundays? They could give you a sponge bath and turn you so you don't get bed sores. Unpleasant for everyone. They've already lost you, let them move on. Pull the plug.