(June 18, 2014 at 2:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 18, 2014 at 12:59 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: In fact, Christians have the most abortions.

Dare I post this again? ' The only moral abortion is my abortion.'

I can't believe I hadn't seen that before. But I did not need it to convince me of the fundamental hypocrisy of xtian shitwits.

(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Cthulhu, I have defined a human being as someone belonging to the species homo-sapien. I believe this to be the default view and indeed, the only coherant definition. Indeed, the zygote to the fetus, fetus to the child, child to adult. Are all just stages of their development. Since the fetus is informationally complete in its human informationit can be said it is a human being. Or similarly, as Alexander Pruss PhD in both mathematics and philosophy who holds a professorship at Baylor University states, if something exists and never ceases to exist than it can be said that thing is still alive. I am a fetus, I was a fetus just as I was a child and to say a fetus is any less human than a child is completely arbitrary.

(bold mine)

Right. YOU have defined it. That's what is being refuted here. You don't get to do that.

(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Cthulhu, I have defined a human being as someone belonging to the species homo-sapien.

How is species "homo-sapien [sic]" defined in biology?

(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I believe this to be the default view and indeed, the only coherant definition.

What you believe is wholly irrelevant. What can you demonstrate? You're seeking to convince others of your view, yes?

(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Indeed, the zygote to the fetus, fetus to the child, child to adult. Are all just stages of their development. Since the fetus is informationally complete in its human informationit can be said it is a human being.

I'll let someone more knowledgeable than myself disabuse you of the notion that you're using "information" in a remotely correct context. Esquilax? You're up.

(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Or similarly, as Alexander Pruss PhD in both mathematics and philosophy who holds a professorship at Baylor University states, if something exists and never ceases to exist than it can be said that thing is still alive.

Argument from authority. What's his background in biology? Yep, when I want opinions on matters of biology (the nature of life), I'll ask a mathematician or philosopher.

(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I am a fetus, I was a fetus just as I was a child and to say a fetus is any less human than a child is completely arbitrary.

It's entirely arbitrary to claim that a unicellular zygote is person under law.

I prefer a qualitative approach. Has it the capacity for moral agency? Has it consciousness? The ability to experience qualia? Is it viable? Is it a threat to the host's existence?

What makes your criteria any more valid than mine?

(June 18, 2014 at 11:32 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 18, 2014 at 9:48 am)Jenny A Wrote: Whether a fetus is ever a person is an entirely separate question from what rights it might have, were it a person.

So what's the point of the "a fetus is a person!" argument in the abortion debate? The argument is supposed to work in a way that attributes the right to life to the fetus (poorly, as I've argued, but that's beside the point), and if you then have to argue that the fetus must have special rights above and beyond what we give to people, well, then you might as well have just argued that and left the personhood claim by the wayside. You might as well be talking about, well, anything if we're arguing for special rights; being human isn't required for that.

Because if it's not a person---there's nothing to debate. It has no rights whatsoever. Period. Pro-choice wins absolutely. Your organ transplant analogy assumes personhood, if only for debate. If it's not a person, there's no point in considering your organ transplant analogy at all. We simply don't reach it. No person, no rights. We might as well talk about whether we can kill viruses, or put our dogs to sleep. Next?

Assuming personhood at some point before delivery then there is something to debate. And your organ transplant analogy must be considered.

As to whether a fetus is eve a person, I think that birth is an extremely arbitrary point for determining personhood.It's not looks, it's cognitive function. If a fetus has all of the cognitive function it will have a birth, it's a person. We are our brains. I know what makes me think of people as people. The idea that a fetus isn't a human at some point before birth is odd if you think it through. In what ethical way do you think a fetus changes as it goes through the birth canal. Is it a person when its mother goes into labor? Half way down the birth canal? When it crowns? Outside, but before the umbilical cord is cut? Can you dash its brains out because the cord hasn't yet been cut?

A little beating heart, or a collection of cells, is not a person. A brain dead former human is not a person even if their heart is beating. What matters is our very human brains.

Homo-sapien is the biological nomenclature for a human. Homo is the genus which we share with many other extinct animals H. Sapien is the only living hominid left. I am arguing that the only workable, cohereant definition of a human being is that which is a genetically and informationally complete specimen that belongs to the species H.Sapiens. I am using information the same way you would. Nothing funny going on there. Furthermore, an argument from authority is an argument that demonstrates its correctness based on who said it not on the content. I was not doing that I was merely citing his credentials who he was, in case you were interested to seek out the article yourself. Unfortunately, in that same post it seems you committed the genetic fallacy. You state, "What's his background in biology? Yep, when I want opinions on matters of biology (the nature of life), I'll ask a mathematician or philosopher." This is the genetic fallacy because you undermine the information based solely on where the information comes from not the content. For example, if a homeless man walked into a university say, a hundred years ago and said he came up with the theory of relativity. It would not matter that this came from a homeless man the statement would be correct or incorrect on its own accord, not his.
Finally, my position is the farthest thing from arbitrary. The metaphysical principle is this, if an organism that once existed has never died still exists. If I was a fetus and I am a human than it follows that a fetus, to, is a human. The whole process from fetus to baby, baby to child ect. is a process of growth not death. In this sense, it is completely arbitrary to call a baby, child ect. a human and not a fetus. Indeed, this seems to be the default view and unless a defeater can be given as to why it is not rational than we must accept it unless proven otherwise. Finally on the functionalist view, you face multiple issues. For example, suppose we find an idigineous species of Mars who look, think, talk, feel, smell, exactly like us. We can also trace there evolutionary history to see that they evolved exclusively on mars. These creatures would not be human beings, they would not be categorized into the category of homo-sapiens rather, they would be called something along the lines of Domesticus Marsus or something..i made that one up The reality is what being a human boils down to is our genetic history. Furthermore, on the functionalist view there is a problem known as the "tipping point." It asks at what point do we stop becoming human beings when you start taking things away? Most functionalists have been at a loss to describe at what point, exactly, this would be. Some have argued that intellectual functioning was the "buck stops here," sort of entity. I also, believe this has serious problems. For one thing, it reduces humans to a process instead of a thing itself. Here, this confuses a things ontology with what it can do.

Shit dude. PLEASE stop with the walls of text. Paragraphs are your friend.

(June 18, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: ahh! Hypocrites are so unfortunate. We as humans should do the moral thing when presented with the opportunity, these women are disappointing indeed.

I asked you about morality several pages back. I'm interested to know how you can square your assertion of objective morality with the behavior of the god you worship.

(June 18, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 18, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Or similarly, as Alexander Pruss PhD in both mathematics and philosophy who holds a professorship at Baylor University states, if something exists and never ceases to exist than it can be said that thing is still alive.

Argument from authority. What's his background in biology? Yep, when I want opinions on matters of biology (the nature of life), I'll ask a mathematician or philosopher.

Especially one from fucking Baylor!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_University

Quote:Baylor University is a private Baptist university in Waco, Texas.

(June 18, 2014 at 8:39 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Homo-sapien is the biological nomenclature for a human. Homo is the genus which we share with many other extinct animals H. Sapien is the only living hominid left. I am arguing that the only workable, cohereant definition of a human being is that which is a genetically and informationally complete specimen that belongs to the species H.Sapiens.

Great, you have a textbook definition of a human being. Now why is the fetus bestowed rights that triumph a woman's universal human right to freedom and privacy to do with her own body as she pleases again?

Quote: I am using information the same way you would. Nothing funny going on there. Furthermore, an argument from authority is an argument that demonstrates its correctness based on who said it not on the content. I was not doing that I was merely citing his credentials who he was, in case you were interested to seek out the article yourself. Unfortunately, in that same post it seems you committed the genetic fallacy. You state, "What's his background in biology? Yep, when I want opinions on matters of biology (the nature of life), I'll ask a mathematician or philosopher." This is the genetic fallacy because you undermine the information based solely on where the information comes from not the content. For example, if a homeless man walked into a university say, a hundred years ago and said he came up with the theory of relativity. It would not matter that this came from a homeless man the statement would be correct or incorrect on its own accord, not his.
Finally, my position is the farthest thing from arbitrary. The metaphysical principle is this, if an organism that once existed has never died still exists. If I was a fetus and I am a human than it follows that a fetus, to, is a human. The whole process from fetus to baby, baby to child ect. is a process of growth not death. In this sense, it is completely arbitrary to call a baby, child ect. a human and not a fetus. Indeed, this seems to be the default view and unless a defeater can be given as to why it is not rational than we must accept it unless proven otherwise. Finally on the functionalist view, you face multiple issues. For example, suppose we find an idigineous species of Mars who look, think, talk, feel, smell, exactly like us. We can also trace there evolutionary history to see that they evolved exclusively on mars. These creatures would not be human beings, they would not be categorized into the category of homo-sapiens rather, they would be called something along the lines of Domesticus Marsus or something..i made that one up The reality is what being a human boils down to is our genetic history. Furthermore, on the functionalist view there is a problem known as the "tipping point." It asks at what point do we stop becoming human beings when you start taking things away? Most functionalists have been at a loss to describe at what point, exactly, this would be. Some have argued that intellectual functioning was the "buck stops here," sort of entity. I also, believe this has serious problems. For one thing, it reduces humans to a process instead of a thing itself. Here, this confuses a things ontology with what it can do.

You're tripped up on the definition of a human being. The biology of life, of a human organism, doesn't have to fit nicely into your moral framing of a complex social dilemma. There are stages of human life where difficult decisions have to be made about defining what it means to be alive. Is a brain dead person alive? Well, everything but their brain can still function. So they're like 80% human? 100%? The issue of a fetus is an issue of individual liberty, which each person has over their own independent being. A fetus is not its own independent being. It is dependent on and part of a woman's body as much as any parasite is, and she gets to decide what to do with it. End of story.

(June 18, 2014 at 8:39 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: The reality is what being a human boils down to is our genetic history.

I'm going to focus on this one point, because it's the most important one, and the foundation of your argument.

(June 18, 2014 at 8:39 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Furthermore, on the functionalist view there is a problem known as the "tipping point." It asks at what point do we stop becoming human beings when you start taking things away?

I fully admit that there's a problem there, but it is not an insurmountable one.

I note also that you continue to use the term "human beings". We're speaking of matters of law here, where "persons" is the correct term, a legal term of art, and it'd be nice if you stopped equivocating on the two.

To rephrase your question, at what point does one stop being a person with full legal rights if you start stripping things away? Consciousness and the capacity to act as a moral agent. Specifically *which* rights are lost and when are debatable.

That this is difficult to measure in no way invalidates using it as a criteria.

I'll ask again since you seem to have missed it: what makes your opinion, as a matter of law, more compelling than another?

Which other rights do you propose we imbue the zygote with? Surely, if it's a separate being with status to enjoy the rights of the born, we shant stop at right to life.