(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. There's a distinction to be made between human being and person.

You are defining a single cell as a human being.

Quote:Personhood draws in all sorts of other considerations, which is a deliberate attempt to muddy the discussion.

We are trying to clarify, not muddy.

Quote:That is: sentience, self awareness.

Those are the things that make one human.

Quote:Conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. A human is created at that point.

I don't see how that is a human being. It is one cell.
You haven't justified your claim to anyone's satisfaction.

Did you know that between 11% and 22% of all pregnancies miscarry?

When a zygote splits, identical twins are created. Is each half a person?

Fraternal twins result when more than one egg is fertilized. Occasionally, those two zygotes fuse creating only one. Is it two people?

The fusion of two fertilized eggs results in a mosaic - a double set of DNA.

The fusion of two zygotes creates a chimera, a person with two sets of DNA - some cells with one set, the others with the other set.

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why is the taking of life always wrong? This is what Esq says. It's ALWAYS wrong. But only sentient life. Why is that wrong? Why can't it ever be just to take life? Why is human sentience valued above other animal sentience?

I already told you why. It's because I actually thought about why I value life, specifically what the distinguishing characteristics that I found valuable were, and when I did that I could not rationally conclude that the thing I would mourn for when a person dies is that their heart would no longer be beating, or their hair would stop growing.

The biological signs of life are not the things we value. In fact, they are important only insofar as they allow the consciousness, the person inside the body, to persist. I expand the value of sentience, by the way, to animals too; the value of my dog is not in the fact that I need to keep feeding him to keep him alive, but rather that he's my dog. I mentioned this before; I value sapience, not biology.

And so do you, by the way, and here's a simple thought experiment to prove it: you have a child, and it dies. If I were to offer you a replacement child, just another kid at roughly the same age, would you accept that as a good idea? Why not? It's a human being, of the same age and gender; if what we cared about was biology then there's simply no reason why this wouldn't be an adequate replacement. Why mourn the dead child, unless we actually care about the person, and not the life signs?

Quote:I would agree that humans can't judge any other human... because we simply lack the knowledge to make that decision. God, in having that knowledge, can. Even on a one millisecond old sentient baby.

If god has all knowledge, it doesn't necessarily follow that he'll always make the correct, or morally justifiable decision. Not just as a product of the claim. You'd need to establish that he'd use that knowledge in correct ways.

Yet another abortion thread gone to high double-digits... Sigh...

Something I really don't understand about the pro-birth crowd. They always claim that sin is the result of free will, that free will is given by their gawd and without it we would simply be automatons, unable to fulfill our "divine purpose." Then they try to take it away.

Even if that gawd exists, it doesn't try to stop people from doing what it says is wrong. It may (according to some iron age goat herders who collaborated on the authorship of one poorly written book) punish people after their deaths for the wrongs they did, but it doesn't force them to do as it says. Why do the christers think they are better than their gawd?!?

(October 11, 2014 at 8:16 am)C4RM5 Wrote: I know information about abortion but I also know what my beliefs are, the two contradict

Excuse me while I die from laughter
Your beliefs differ from your knowledge. :lol:
You don't believe in what you know to be true. :diesmore:
:lostyisdyinghere:
Plus resuscitate me

If human life begins at conception, why aren't people allowed to drink and vote at 17 years and 3 months after birth?

Boru

(October 12, 2014 at 3:28 am)Losty Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 8:16 am)C4RM5 Wrote: I know information about abortion but I also know what my beliefs are, the two contradict

Excuse me while I die from laughter
Your beliefs differ from your knowledge. :lol:
You don't believe in what you know to be true. :diesmore:
:lostyisdyinghere:
Plus resuscitate me

You don't need facts to belief in something that is why it is called a belief and not a fact.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 1:31 am)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Yet another abortion thread gone to high double-digits... Sigh...

Something I really don't understand about the pro-birth crowd. They always claim that sin is the result of free will, that free will is given by their gawd and without it we would simply be automatons, unable to fulfill our "divine purpose." Then they try to take it away.

Even if that gawd exists, it doesn't try to stop people from doing what it says is wrong. It may (according to some iron age goat herders who collaborated on the authorship of one poorly written book) punish people after their deaths for the wrongs they did, but it doesn't force them to do as it says. Why do the christers think they are better than their gawd?!?

I don't belief I am better than God don't know where you got that idea from. Why do you think Christianstry to take away your free will.

---

(October 11, 2014 at 6:49 pm)DramaQueen Wrote: Carm, have you ever read a physiology or biology textbook?

Oddly enough I haven't I don't do Biology.

---

I have been looking for a defination of a human but I actually can't find one.

---

(October 11, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 4:43 am)C4RM5 Wrote: Yea actually I would prefer it if you responded with nuh uh because it is better than swearing at me and calling me a monster, but to be honest no one has provide factual information all you are doing is questioning me.

Whoa, I am apalled to hear someone called you a monster. You're just a very naughty boy!

Here's is why you're getting so many questions. When asked what makes something a human being, your answer explained what makes something human. It was an answer, but not to the question that was asked. Your answer applied equally to a person's appendix as a fetus, so it's not really much help, is it? You don't come off as daft enough to really believe that something being genetically human is enough to make it a human being. So you seem to be holding something back. My guess is that you can't come up with a reasonable definition of human being that includes a week-old fetus, and you're afraid if you acknowledge that, you won't have a leg left to stand on regarding the matter beyond 'I don't like it'.

---

(October 11, 2014 at 8:09 am)C4RM5 Wrote: You are one of the very small group of people that hasn't sworn at me , thatnk you.

Are you seriously maintaining that the majority of people whom you've interacted with here have sworn at you?

---

(October 11, 2014 at 8:13 am)C4RM5 Wrote: I have given so many definations of what a human is stop asking for them.

NOT WHAT A HUMAN IS! WHAT A HUMAN BEING IS!

Yea a majority of people on this website have sworn at me and said I was a monster because I like the idea of everyone having a chance at life.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 3:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If human life begins at conception, why aren't people allowed to drink and vote at 17 years and 3 months after birth?

Boru

Maybe the just wanted to keep it at a whole number.

(October 12, 2014 at 4:08 am)C4RM5 Wrote: You don't need facts to belief in something that is why it is called a belief and not a fact.

Religion in a nutshell.

(October 12, 2014 at 4:08 am)C4RM5 Wrote: You don't need facts to belief in something that is why it is called a belief and not a fact.

So what you're saying is that your belief about abortion is not factual? Then why should any of us care?

Do you seriously not understand why it matters whether your beliefs line up with facts?

(October 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: There is a big difference between a belief and factual information.

You don't need to have facts to believe in something, for instance I believe my chair will not break, I haven't got any factual information to prove it but it doesn't make my belief any more dis proven or proven.

But you DO have facts that your chair won't break under you - the reasonable expectation that you've sat in it hundreds of times without it breaking.

If you go through life expecting that your beliefs don't need to line up with facts and experience, then you open yourself up to believing any far-fetched, idiotic proposition that comes your way. Before you know it, you'll find yourself believing that snakes trick people into eating apples, that some mythic being inscribes laws on stone tablets, that Jewish carpenters walk on water...

Never mind.

Boru

@Carm You don't need facts to believe in something, but if you know the facts then the only rational option is to adjust your beliefs according to the facts.