DNA provides no discriminatory function here and is therefore a meaningless consideration.

(May 29, 2014 at 6:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Actually, infants do "think" as do animals. The thoughts may be simple (I'm tired, I'm hungry, I'm wet, etc.) but they are "thoughts".

There's no evidence that a fetus thinks prior to week 21. It's after week 21 when brain development begins. It's also after this point that the fetus shows signs of awareness, such as reactions to loud noises. After week 21, there is some question as to when thinking and self-awareness begins. I'll leave the specifics to biologists but I use week 21 as a conservative placement of a benchmark.

If thinking is the dividing line, and you note yourself that animals think, does that mean everyone at the grocery store with meat in their cart is an accessory to murder?

---

(May 31, 2014 at 4:07 pm)Cato Wrote: DNA provides no discriminatory function here and is therefore a meaningless consideration.

In court DNA is enough to convict, or have an old conviction thrown out.

What does this topic have to do with court?

(May 31, 2014 at 4:04 pm)alpha male Wrote: ...Each person chooses as they see fit. Different people give different weights to different factors. What's the problem? I don't get why you're all having trouble dealing with this.

OK, then since it's all just a matter of personal opinion, then you can use it to determine when YOU have an abortion and let other people make their own choices.

The woman's right to make choices over her own life and control her own body is not in dispute. The point of debate is over whether or not these rights are trumped by some other factor.

The burden of proof is on you to show that this factor exists as a compelling reason to deny a woman her rights. You need to better then, "well, in my opinion..."

(May 31, 2014 at 4:18 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 4:04 pm)alpha male Wrote: ...Each person chooses as they see fit. Different people give different weights to different factors. What's the problem? I don't get why you're all having trouble dealing with this.

OK, then since it's all just a matter of personal opinion, then you can use it to determine when YOU have an abortion and let other people make their own choices.

The woman's right to make choices over her own life and control her own body is not in dispute. The point of debate is over whether or not these rights are trumped by some other factor.

The burden of proof is on you to show that this factor exists as a compelling reason to deny a woman her rights. You need to better then, "well, in my opinion..."

The only reason that I can think of that comes close to compelling is the possible pain factor, but even that is too minimal and fleeting to be counted against woman's choice to abort.

(May 31, 2014 at 10:04 am)Cato Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 9:48 am)alpha male Wrote: As I didn't claim that DNA is required for determination of personhood, no, your point is not terribly important.

Who said you made that claim? You claimed that individual DNA was an indicator of personhood. I demonstrated that it isn't. You then fabricate this required condition to your own argument in an attempt to make my contribution irrelevant.

This is the adult version of taking your ball and going home.

Alpha male would have to actually be an adult, and not an angry man-child for that to work.

(May 31, 2014 at 4:21 pm)Irrational Wrote: The only reason that I can think of that comes close to compelling is the possible pain factor, but even that is too minimal and fleeting to be counted against woman's choice to abort.

No brain, no pain.

That's kind of been my point in this whole thread.

(May 31, 2014 at 4:09 pm)alpha male Wrote: In court DNA is enough to convict, or have an old conviction thrown out.

This fact is not germane to the discussion of the concept of personhood. DNA used for identification isn't establishing personhood (this presumably is settled if they are being tried in a court of law), it is being used to establish which person.

Which adult person, no less. Not which zygote stabbed its wife.

(May 31, 2014 at 4:18 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: OK, then since it's all just a matter of personal opinion, then you can use it to determine when YOU have an abortion and let other people make their own choices.

I noted some time ago that I have no objective in this matter. It's been settled law in the U.S. for decades.

Plus, I can say the same to you, as you seem to think that abortion after 21 weeks is murder or akin to it.

Are people who eat meat accomplices to murder because animals think?

Quote:The woman's right to make choices over her own life and control her own body is not in dispute. The point of debate is over whether or not these rights are trumped by some other factor.

Interesting...her own body. A fetus has a body prior to 21 weeks.

---

(May 31, 2014 at 4:37 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: No brain, no pain.

That's kind of been my point in this whole thread.

If pain is the dividing line, then it's moral to kill anyone, as long as it's done painlessly.

And while I think your star wars bit is silly, if we build robots which think but don't feel pain, they apparently don't have any rights.