You know what really grinds my gears? RAPE-UBLICANS

[Creed of Heresy]

you know what I find funny, Statler? Is how you keep using genetics as your case-in-point argument while at the same time being a creationist who denies evolution. Which is hilarious since DNA is something that completely proves evolution, given how our DNA strands have extreme similarities to everything else in this world, implying a common ancestry point...

Cherry picker.

[Mystical]

No, that wasn’t my point. I was pointing out the absurdity of trying to justify 21.6 million abortions by saying they help save the lives of 47,000 women.

Looks around*
Are you--are you talking to me?
I thought we'd talked about this several times already. I don't justify 21.6 million abortions. I'm against the use of abortion. I am also pro choice. Make of that what you will, but certainly don't draw a line in black and white for me to choose a side. I'll always choose humanity. That includes the mother who is a human. Potential human life is the same thing as human life to me, as it is to criminal courts. But potential is not a sure thing, now is it? I have the potential to make myself a millionaire in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I'm going to be one.
We're not talking about what I believe to be human or what you or Esqui believe to be human, we're talking about the laws that govern humanity and what they believe to be human, and what constitutes a fetus to be considered a human. As of right now, fetuses are not considered human persons until a certain point in the pregnancy.
I agree with these points, Statler. A dead body isn't a person although it's human. A fetus with no brain cannot think or be self aware as is humanity defined. An egg is not a chicken until it's a chicken. Otherwise we'd be eating green chickens and ham. We're trying to go past this, to pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes a person. It's not easy, but it's the only way to get anything done in the direction you're advocating for. Can't you see I'm on your side?

Unprecedented populations are what's new in this debate, Statler. What are your sides' plans to combat these issues? Because there's someone with a plan for those babies, and it involves money. Lots and lots, of money.

Are you really supporting the systematic murder of babies because there’s just too many people and they’re just too darn expensive? Really?

Looks around again*
I was saying that you've got a large burden of proof to make if you are contesting that person-hood begins at conception. I myself am against the use of abortion for myself, but that's only as far as my beliefs go. I will not impose my beliefs on other people, I'll leave that up to the law. If there's a reasonable case lined out for why a fetus is not a human person as defined by the law then I will support the law. Because people far more educated than us are the ones debating it, and as I've stated: potential human life is not the same as a human life. Granted, I would have been anti-slavery. But that was as simple as black and white, this is not. This is far more intricate than that.
What makes you believe a fertilized egg is any different from an unfertilized egg in any way that can be related to the definition of humanity or personhood?

Prove to me more Americans are pro-life today than at any time since Roe--you said it, Pics or it didn't happen.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-a...-time.aspx

Not only this, but for the first time ever, more Americans support illegalizing all abortions under all circumstances over allowing all abortions under any circumstances. We’re making huge progress.

Here's the breakdown of the questionnaires for that poll.

Princeton University Polling Results

And an image from your link.


From the beginning of the poll taking data (1975), to most recent on this chart (2009):
Legality under certain circumstances: ~52%/~52%
Legality under any circumstances: ~20%/~21%
Illegal in all circumstances: ~21%/~21%

It’s Colorado, I am not surprised. What is really sad is that people are ignorant enough to think that personhood is something that can be voted upon in the first place. Slaves were people long before whites freed them.

Ignorant would be allowing or disallowing abortions based on no information whatsoever. The debate needs to be made. Seeing as how the consensus in liberal states is appx 70% against human being being defined from the moment of conception, and then in conservative states like Texas having trouble defining it as such too: I'd say you're claim is untrue.
What it looks like to me is Americans want a clear definition of person-hood and humanity in terms of a fetus.

Right, you got me. Define personhood for me, in your opinion. Preferably the legal definition seeing as we're arguing the legalities of abortion. The distinctions between moral personhood, legal personhood and constitutional personhood are significant. What kind of personhood are you talking about?

No, if I use the legal definition of a person then I am guilty of the Is/Ought Fallacy, simply because that is how we define personhood now does not mean that is the way we ought to define it. The only consistant way to define personhood is any living human being.

Right and I'm saying that your is/ought stance is what's going to waste more efforts, time, and money and in the end cost more "lives". If you want to change the status quo, you need to bend in a way that will improve the situation not just shut it down altogether. Cuz that's not going to happen.

I don't know about yours, but in my "civilized society" the already formed and breathing being, aka: the mother--takes precedence over the baby in all trimesters.
Not to mention those cases where the fetus is going to be born into a horridly diseased life and is terminated 'humanely''. Or in cases where the mother's life is at risk which is completely legal in a many states, even before Roe vs Wade:

All you’re doing is proving that our society is not as civilized as the societies that have outlawed abortion.

Lay in a bed where whenever you vomit you have a seizure and whenever you seizure you vomit. You shit your pants, you have a nurse 24/7 no exceptions and you're constantly suffering. Then let me know if you think your mom having you was humane if she knew you'd be having a life like that. Oh and then go visit your daughters' gravestone from dying in the hospital in front of helpless doctors' eyes because the law said she was not to be touched even if her life was at risk during pregnancy.
I'm proving our society is more humane than others. The fact that you can't see that is telling.

I think from a monetary standpoint, again: abortion is going to win.

Sure, but nobody is arguing otherwise. If my mom had drowned me when I was three years old she would have saved a lot of money (and headaches ), but that does not mean she should have the moral or legal right to do so.

This comparison is non sequiter. You're a human defined as humanity by the law at the age of 3. Potential life is not the same as life. Unless you can prove life in a fertilized egg, in which case go for it. You still have to prove person-hood after that.

Everyone agrees with this. Why is it an issue still? Monetary costs. Where are you going to pull the money from to give towards this direction? Would it not be simpler to use your millions to fight for birth control and rape judgments if you truly care about how many are going to die? Because fight or not, money, or not--there will be abortions. The only difference between your way and another is how many more lawyers and lobbyists get paid.

Why can’t Obama just borrow the extra money from China? It’s a bit ironic when liberals all of the sudden pretend to be fiscally conservative once and only once someone brings up the issue of abortion. This same argument could be used to support infanticide and euthanasia.

Hey considering the deficit has been cut by half since Obama took office (look it up), I'd say he probably does have the money for it. Just like foster care is run today--is it preferable? Hell no. Foster care and adoption services are sub par at best. You can't buy love or happiness. You can however, buy an abortion. If your intentions were pure you'd see that to stop abortions, you have to actually do the hard work that goes with it rather than throw your money to the wind in a pissing contest.

'We' might be, but what is the constitutional definition of a baby? That's what matters, in the end, after all. The law. Obviously it's not what we consider it to be. How do you plan on changing law? There's more money in aborting than saving the fetuses, hands down bar none: long term and short term repercussions considered.

There are ways to change the law, we can pass a constitutional amendment like we did with abolishing slavery and establishing women’s suffrage. Another tactic is to have states outlaw abortions thus forcing the Supreme Court to hear the issue again. It can be done.

Do you hear yourself? The Supreme Court heard this issue. And nothing has come up since that has caused it to sway its' decision. As far as I can tell you lost, and you haven't accepted it yet.

You still haven't proven how your side has science on its' side, either.

We now know that at the moment of conception the baby is alive and has it’s own unique and complete human genome. Therefore, scientifically it’s a living human being from the moment of conception. Abortionists used to argue that it was not alive, and was not fully human, they were clearly on the wrong side of the facts and cannot argue this anymore.

There in lies your problem. You can't prove what's a living human being because you don't have YOUR definition as the official terminology. If I were you I'd look into why that is.

Nor have you shown me how you plan to plow through established law with money "like the 'abolitionishts'" who, by the way, caused a civil war.

That’s a bit of an over-simplification of why the Civil War was fought.

Agreed
But you have yet to demonstrate why I should take your side over the other. Whats your plan for illegalization of abortion?

I checked out the National Abortion Federation, and they are indeed incorrect on the very science they claim 'anti-choice' proponents to be. They are also highly biased in their views. Maybe it's all the money. Either way, money and government have always been tied together. Maybe someone aught to fix that problem first, eh?

We can do it together

Okay then! Let's do this. How are you proposing to do this? I already stated my proposition.

Are we talking about the moralistic murder of another human being, or the legal standpoint on the matter? The two vary, is why I ask.

The moralistic definition; which is what we try to follow with our legal definitions.

Define moralistic definition and legal definition as you know it before we continue please.

I'd beg the question to both of you, what constitutes an HLA in criminal court, so that an unborn fetus can be considered a person in a murder case and why is this reasoning not applied to all unborn fetuses?

I was going to bring this up above! Well played.

Husband kills wife and unborn baby= double murder.
Wife kills unborn baby= legal birth control.

Something is wrong with that picture.

A potential life being interrupted by outside forces like murder where the life would have been had it not been for the act of the murder---and a potential life ended by the very being that carries it and supports it biologically, are not the same thing.

[Esquilax]

You seemed to claim that a fetus is not a person simply because you believe it is not a person; or is there actually a legitimate reason why a fetus is not a person? If there is, then I am interested in hearing it.

A fetus is not a person because it doesn't qualify as one. It's got nothing to do with opinion or belief, but simply with facts: something without self awareness or consciousness at all is not a person.

It’s not my definition, it’s the dictionary’s. That’s the difference between you and me; I do not base any of this upon my own arbitrary opinion.

I'll ignore your continued strawmanning even after I explained my position, but I'm aware it's a dictionary definition you used; if you want to use that definition, then you'll have to contend with the limitations of it, something you're unable to do, so far.

That is not part of the definition of being a human being; that’s your own arbitrary and self-serving qualifier that you’ve added to the definition of being a human (it’s no different than saying you must be white to be human, or you must have a penis to be human). A human is simply any organism possessing a human genome.

See, I knew you were going to go here, but clearly you aren't aware of how poorly this new definition serves you too. For example, parts of a human body also possess human DNA, and therefore a human genome: is my liver a human being too? My fingernails? When I go to the bathroom, what I leave in a toilet bowl has traces of human DNA too, is that a person?

My point, which you've skipped over in your rush to strawman my argument, is that there's a reason that scientists- including those in the medical field- use very exacting definitions for things; they need to refer to one thing and one thing only without any room for misunderstanding. A thing is a thing, it cannot be another thing. You started by employing a circular "a person is a human is a person" definition, and now you're adding this genome requirement, but numerous things that aren't human possess human DNA.

That's why the definition of a human is much more expansive than that, detailing physiology and- yes- DNA too, but not just one or the other. What you're asking is that we use your definition for some things but not others despite the fact that they fulfill the same requirements, which makes your definition functionally useless, both as a word and a legal concept.

I'm aware of the argument you're making and I also understand the (emotional, squeamish and religious) reasonings behind it, but if you're going to recourse to this argument over legal definitions to support it, then it's up to me to show you how poorly formed that case is.

Why not just be honest? You think abortion is wrong because bible. I think the real fear is that you know your case rests on nothing but opinion; it's the same with every religious argument. You look to your presupposition to tell you what the reality is, and then you search for facts that support what the book tells you.

That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. But let's not pretend it has any bearing on what's actually going on.

Again, that is not how we define humanity. Humanity is defined by our genetics, not our morphology. Given your reasoning, a person born without legs would not be a human because they didn’t look like the rest of us; or an eight year old boy would not be a human because he didn’t possess fully developed sex organs.

Ah, wrong again: leaving aside my argument above, the examples you give here would still be human because they possess numerous other traits that check them out as human. I'm not saying one needs possess every trait before they're considered human; I'm merely asking how many you're willing to take away and retain the label. We've already established that the minimalist threshold you're working under won't work, so where do we draw the line?

It’s this exact same mentality that leads to people believing those who merely look different than they do are not humans.

Oh, you're going to try poisoning the well by attaching me to racism and a bunch of other -isms, are you? In that case, I'd simply point you to above; one's humanity isn't about looks or DNA, but a combination of both. Why do you seem so set in making this a simplistic, all or nothing case? Why not debate the argument I'm actually making?

Whenever we find remains we always test their DNA in order to determine if they are human remains or not.

Yes, and when you extract that DNA, does it become its own individual person? Exactly.

Sure, but every entity that possesses its own human DNA is a human being; trying to argue against that leads to absurdities that neither you nor I will accept.

Ever heard of human chimeras, Stat? They possess two distinct sets of human DNA. According to your definition, they are two people. Your definition leads to absurdities all on its own: how many exceptions are we to find before it loses all its teeth?

It’s not the flesh, it’s the DNA. That’s the dictionary’s definition, and the only reason you do not like it is because it proves abortion is murder.

Begging the question is not an argument.

It’s troubling that you insist on using the same reasoning white supremacists use…

“Well he doesn’t look like the rest of us, so therefore he must not be a person and we’re therefore justified in killing him!”

“Well the fetus doesn’t look like the rest of us, so therefore it must not be a person and we’re therefore justified in killing it!”

You know, simplifying my argument doesn't mean that's what I'm arguing. I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether you're actually not getting this, or just lying about it for convenience. If you persist with this "he's racist!" stuff after this post, I'll have to conclude it's the latter, because I've explained it in pretty good detail now.

Whenever your argument can be used to deduce conclusions that you will not accept, it’s an indicator that you need to relinquish that argument.

I'll say. However, it's actually your argument that does that. Well, yours, and the silly little pantomime of my argument that you've created because you're unable or unwilling to rebut it on its own terms.

[Statler Waldorf]

I assume that this is admission that Christians really do believe that rape, slavery, mass murder, and torture are acceptable behaviors. Even abortion, as the God of the Bible has no qualm ordering the slaughter of infants in and out of the womb. Or, in at least one instance, using swords to remove it. Because killing babies is awesome when God commands it done. That's to say nothing of how he designed the human body so that the majority of potential babies die long before they become viable.

What on Earth are you talking about? Inducing a miscarriage (even by accident) was punishable by death under the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament. The Israelites were far more civilized than we are when it comes to protecting innocent life.

Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.

How do they know this? Psychic?

Praise God, for the number of abortions to his credit must number in the tens, if not hundreds, of billions more than all human abortionists, combined. Shitty design or killing for fun? You decide.

This does nothing to prove that you have the right to take the life of anyone else; so this is nothing more than a fallacious red herring.

Naturally, you will respond with some horseshit about how nothing can be evil if it is God's will, as you and your kind always do, but when your only recourse is to make a special plea, it’s an indicator that you need to relinquish that argument.

Nope, all I had to do was point out that your entire post was a red herring. God having the right to kill someone does not prove that you also have the right to kill someone; that’s a logical non-sequitur.

you know what I find funny, Statler? Is how you keep using genetics as your case-in-point argument while at the same time being a creationist who denies evolution. Which is hilarious since DNA is something that completely proves evolution, given how our DNA strands have extreme similarities to everything else in this world, implying a common ancestry point...

Cherry picker.

Another red herring! I could just as easily point out how ironic it is that you believe in Evolution but then deny using genetics to establish humanity and personhood upon conception in regards to abortion. Cherry picker!

How do you know that similarities in genetic code imply a common ancestor and not a common designer? You seem to be overplaying your hand a bit there.

Looks around*
Are you--are you talking to me?
I thought we'd talked about this several times already. I don't justify 21.6 million abortions. I'm against the use of abortion. I am also pro choice. Make of that what you will, but certainly don't draw a line in black and white for me to choose a side. I'll always choose humanity. That includes the mother who is a human. Potential human life is the same thing as human life to me, as it is to criminal courts. But potential is not a sure thing, now is it? I have the potential to make myself a millionaire in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I'm going to be one.
We're not talking about what I believe to be human or what you or Esqui believe to be human, we're talking about the laws that govern humanity and what they believe to be human, and what constitutes a fetus to be considered a human. As of right now, fetuses are not considered human persons until a certain point in the pregnancy.

Are you really scolding me for trying to force you to be consistent?
Additionally, a fetus is not a potential human, it’s already a human. If you deny that fact it leads to logical absurdities because you’re forced to also discount the humanity of those that everyone agrees are human.
Lastly, pointing to how the law defines something in order to support your position regarding morality is committing the Is/Ought fallacy. Are you really going to take the position that black slaves were not human or people in the 18th century because American law did not view them that way?
Not to mention, many nations do have laws that classify a fetus as a human and a person, so are fetuses people in those countries but then lose their humanity and personhood simply because they entered the US? That does not make sense.

A dead body isn't a person although it's human.

A dead body is a dead human and is therefore a dead person. A fetus is a living human and is therefore a living person.

A fetus with no brain cannot think or be self aware as is humanity defined.

That’s not how humanity is defined; we do not forfeit our humanity when we become unconscious.

An egg is not a chicken until it's a chicken.

This is a meaningless tautology. When does it become a chicken then?

Otherwise we'd be eating green chickens and ham.

I don’t know about you, but I try to avoid eating fertilized chicken eggs myself.

We're trying to go past this, to pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes a person. It's not easy, but it's the only way to get anything done in the direction you're advocating for. Can't you see I'm on your side?

No, to be honest I have a very difficult time telling whose side you actually are on. The only logically consistent way to define personhood is at the moment of conception. Any other definition of personhood leads to logical arbitrariness, inconsistencies, and absurdities. This issue is not nearly as complex as you claim it is. People want to be able to have abortions whether it is murder or not, that is the only reason it is still legal.

I was saying that you've got a large burden of proof to make if you are contesting that person-hood begins at conception. I myself am against the use of abortion for myself, but that's only as far as my beliefs go. I will not impose my beliefs on other people, I'll leave that up to the law. If there's a reasonable case lined out for why a fetus is not a human person as defined by the law then I will support the law. Because people far more educated than us are the ones debating it, and as I've stated: potential human life is not the same as a human life. Granted, I would have been anti-slavery. But that was as simple as black and white, this is not. This is far more intricate than that.

This is what I was referring to, it is nearly impossible to determine whose side you’re on. Let me get this straight, you are fine with abortion being legal because you do not want to impose your beliefs on others but you would have imposed your beliefs upon slave owners in the 18th century? How is being black rather than white lesser of a distinction than being unborn versus born? Both are simply arbitrary standards that are not relevant to the personhood of the individual. The exact same arguments used to argue that a fetus is not a person can (and have been) be used to argue that blacks are not people. I reject both arguments, you seem to accept one but arbitrarily reject the other.

What makes you believe a fertilized egg is any different from an unfertilized egg in any way that can be related to the definition of humanity or personhood?

The fertilized egg has a complete and functioning genome just like you and I do, the unfertilized egg does not, it only has half of one.

Ignorant would be allowing or disallowing abortions based on no information whatsoever. The debate needs to be made. Seeing as how the consensus in liberal states is appx 70% against human being being defined from the moment of conception, and then in conservative states like Texas having trouble defining it as such too: I'd say you're claim is untrue.

I am not following you. Are you really arguing that slaves were not people until they were recognized as such by whites? If not, then why are you trying to argue that the unborn are not people until recognized by a majority of the already born?

What it looks like to me is Americans want a clear definition of person-hood and humanity in terms of a fetus.

We already have a clear definition, the fact of the matter is that many people just do not care; all they want is to be able to have abortions. Slave owners knew that their slaves were people, they just did not care.

Right and I'm saying that your is/ought stance is what's going to waste more efforts, time, and money and in the end cost more "lives". If you want to change the status quo, you need to bend in a way that will improve the situation not just shut it down altogether. Cuz that's not going to happen.

Sure it can, there are nations today where abortions are illegal; we can easily join them. I am optimistic that the country that freed the slaves can also save the unborn.

Lay in a bed where whenever you vomit you have a seizure and whenever you seizure you vomit. You shit your pants, you have a nurse 24/7 no exceptions and you're constantly suffering. Then let me know if you think your mom having you was humane if she knew you'd be having a life like that. Oh and then go visit your daughters' gravestone from dying in the hospital in front of helpless doctors' eyes because the law said she was not to be touched even if her life was at risk during pregnancy.

Appeals to emotion are logically fallacious, but I am sure you already knew that. If the pro-choice community has such a strong position how come all of their arguments are logically fallacious? Are they just hiding the really good arguments for later?

I'm proving our society is more humane than others. The fact that you can't see that is telling.

The fact that you think that the systematic murdering of 1.2 million humans per year for the sake of convenience is “humane” is what is really telling.

This comparison is non sequiter. You're a human defined as humanity by the law at the age of 3. Potential life is not the same as life. Unless you can prove life in a fertilized egg, in which case go for it. You still have to prove person-hood after that.

Why is it a non-sequitur?

The age of three? You therefore support killing any child before the age of three?
A fertilized egg fits all of the biological qualifications for life, and there is no distinction between a human and a person, all humans are people.

Hey considering the deficit has been cut by half since Obama took office (look it up), I'd say he probably does have the money for it.

Kool-Aid? Perhaps you should “look it up”.

2007- Deficit- 161 Billion
2008 (Bush)- Deficit- 459 Billion
2009 (Obama)- Deficit- 1413 Billion
2010- Deficit- 1294 Billion
2011- Deficit- 1299 Billion
2012- Deficit- 1100 Billion
2013 (projected)- Deficit- 759 Billion

Yes, it’s reigned in a bit since the GOP took over the House in 2011, but it is still 66% higher than when Obama took office and he spent more in deficit spending his first three years than Bush did in eight years of office. Do not believe everything the man says (and no he does not get credit for tripling the deficit and then cutting that amount in half).

Just like foster care is run today--is it preferable? Hell no. Foster care and adoption services are sub par at best. You can't buy love or happiness. You can however, buy an abortion. If your intentions were pure you'd see that to stop abortions, you have to actually do the hard work that goes with it rather than throw your money to the wind in a pissing contest.

Seems like more red herring arguments. None of this justifies allowing abortion to remain legal.

Do you hear yourself? The Supreme Court heard this issue. And nothing has come up since that has caused it to sway its' decision. As far as I can tell you lost, and you haven't accepted it yet.

The current Supreme Court is far more Pro-Life, we just have to get the case to them.

There in lies your problem. You can't prove what's a living human being because you don't have YOUR definition as the official terminology. If I were you I'd look into why that is.

My definition is the official biological definition, the fact you do not like it is irrelevant. A living human being is simply any organism that fulfills the qualifications for life and has a human genome. The fertilized egg and fetus does fulfill this definition. Scientists know that a living human being is present from the moment of conception on.

“That the most partially formed human embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed, in an especially vivid sense, by the new debate over stem-cell research and the bioethics of cloning. If an ailing or elderly person can be granted a new lease on life by a transfusion of this cellular material, then it is obviously not random organic matter. The original embryonic “blastocyst” may be a clump of 64 to 200 cells that is only five days old. But all of us began our important careers in that form, and every needful encoding for life is already present in the apparently inchoate. We are the first generation to have to confront this as a certain knowledge.” – the late Christopher Hitchens

Agreed
But you have yet to demonstrate why I should take your side over the other. Whats your plan for illegalization of abortion?

If you condemn murder, then that should be the only justification you need for taking my side. I have already given you several pathways that could be taken to illegalize abortion.

Define moralistic definition and legal definition as you know it before we continue please.

The legal definition is going to differ based upon where you are, so it is not relevant to the issue. The moralistic definition is simple, we do not possess the right to take the life of another innocent human being.

A potential life being interrupted by outside forces like murder where the life would have been had it not been for the act of the murder---and a potential life ended by the very being that carries it and supports it biologically, are not the same thing.

Why do you keep using the term “potential life”? It’s an established life, not a potential life. Given your definition a person could be charged for a triple murder for killing a woman who simply planned to have two children later in her life.
If a man can be charged for a double murder for killing a woman and her fetus, then the same woman should be charged for murder for intentionally killing her fetus. Murder is murder regardless of which person commits it.

A fetus is not a person because it doesn't qualify as one. It's got nothing to do with opinion or belief, but simply with facts: something without self awareness or consciousness at all is not a person.

Why not? Because you say so? Why is personhood dependent upon self-awareness and consciousness? Many toddlers are not self-aware; are they therefore not people and you now support infanticide? Chimps are both self-aware and conscious, are they now people? You’re simply asserting that it is not a person because of some arbitrary standard, well I am allowed to simply reject that standard and postulate my own.

I'll ignore your continued strawmanning even after I explained my position, but I'm aware it's a dictionary definition you used; if you want to use that definition, then you'll have to contend with the limitations of it, something you're unable to do, so far.

Obviously, you only feel the dictionary’s definition is limited because it would render abortion as murder. Naturally, you must therefore now adopt your own arbitrary standards to justify abortion. It’s the exact same rationalization slave owners used to justify slavery. “Well blacks are not people because they’re not white!”

See, I knew you were going to go here, but clearly you aren't aware of how poorly this new definition serves you too. For example, parts of a human body also possess human DNA, and therefore a human genome: is my liver a human being too? My fingernails? When I go to the bathroom, what I leave in a toilet bowl has traces of human DNA too, is that a person?

Please pay attention to what I actually write. I clearly stated that a human being is any organism that possesses human DNA. Your liver is an organ, not an organism- so it’s obviously just tissue. Fertilized eggs and fetuses possess their own separate DNA and from a biological perspective are separate organisms from both of their parents.

My point, which you've skipped over in your rush to strawman my argument, is that there's a reason that scientists- including those in the medical field- use very exacting definitions for things; they need to refer to one thing and one thing only without any room for misunderstanding. A thing is a thing, it cannot be another thing. You started by employing a circular "a person is a human is a person" definition, and now you're adding this genome requirement, but numerous things that aren't human possess human DNA.

There’s no circularity in my definition. All human beings are people, and I have clearly defined human beings for you. You simply did not pay attention to my definition.

P1. Any organism that possesses human DNA is a human being
P2. A fertilized egg is an organism that possesses human DNA
C. Therefore, a fertilized egg is a human being.

P1. All human beings are people
P2. A fertilized egg is a human being
C. Therefore a fertilized egg is a person

What you are now relegated to doing is postulating your own arbitrary reasons as to why not all human beings are people (which is exactly what slave owners did).

That's why the definition of a human is much more expansive than that, detailing physiology and- yes- DNA too, but not just one or the other. What you're asking is that we use your definition for some things but not others despite the fact that they fulfill the same requirements, which makes your definition functionally useless, both as a word and a legal concept.

Nope, my definition as I first stated it still stands. Your definition of personhood however concludes that infants and many toddlers are not people (not only this but apparently once a person becomes unconscious they magically and mysteriously cease to be a person).

I'm aware of the argument you're making and I also understand the (emotional, squeamish and religious) reasonings behind it, but if you're going to recourse to this argument over legal definitions to support it, then it's up to me to show you how poorly formed that case is.

If you understood my argument then why did you try to argue that an organ was an organism?

Why not just be honest? You think abortion is wrong because bible. I think the real fear is that you know your case rests on nothing but opinion; it's the same with every religious argument. You look to your presupposition to tell you what the reality is, and then you search for facts that support what the book tells you.

Nope, if killing other people is wrong then abortion is wrong. There is no way around that. As a materialist you really have no reason to believe killing another person is wrong. That is why you arbitrarily believe it is wrong with some people but not others.

That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. But let's not pretend it has any bearing on what's actually going on.

I have presented logical arguments to support my position; you have provided nothing but your own arbitrary standards.

The internal monologue of the abortion supporter- “Abortion must be legal, but if it’s the killing of another person people will have a good reason to make it illegal….so let’s see….we can’t say a fetus is not alive….that won’t work….we can’t say that it is not human….that won’t work either….let’s say it is not a person!...ok so how do we do that?.....well let’s make up a definition of personhood that excludes it….well that will be tough…how about we say that you have to be able to survive on your own in order to be a person?....well no that would make people on dialysis and respirators no longer people…..how about we say you have to look like people?...well no that would mean that people who have been in disfiguring accidents cease to be people….how about we say that you must be fully developed to be a person?....well no that would mean that we’re not people until we are past puberty since that is a stage of development…how about we say you must be conscious to be a person?...well no that would mean that we cease to be people when we are asleep…how about we say that you must be self-aware to be a person?....yes!.....wait, no that would mean that we’re not people until the age of two or three and many animals are self-aware to boot…..well I give up….how about we just call the other side bigots who hate women?.....that might work!!!!”

Ah, wrong again: leaving aside my argument above, the examples you give here would still be human because they possess numerous other traits that check them out as human.

As does a fetus.

I'm not saying one needs possess every trait before they're considered human; I'm merely asking how many you're willing to take away and retain the label.

A human being is a living organism that possesses human DNA. That’s really simple, that definition encompasses the disfigured, children, babies, adults, the elderly, males, females, blacks, whites, the awake, the unconscious, the born and the unborn; yet it excludes animals. It’s the only consistent definition.

We've already established that the minimalist threshold you're working under won't work, so where do we draw the line?

No, all that we have established is that you did not read my definition closely.

Oh, you're going to try poisoning the well by attaching me to racism and a bunch of other -isms, are you?

Nope, I am just reducing your argument to absurdity. Remember, if your argument can be used to justify positions you do not agree with then you either need to change your position or change your argument. My argument could never be used by a racist.

In that case, I'd simply point you to above; one's humanity isn't about looks or DNA, but a combination of both. Why do you seem so set in making this a simplistic, all or nothing case? Why not debate the argument I'm actually making?

No, that leads to arbitrariness and then humanity and personhood can be defined as whatever you want it to be. “You must have human DNA but you must also have a Y chromosome.” “You must have human DNA but you must also be white.” We’re either all people (including fertilized eggs) or none of us are. That’s how deduction works.

Yes, and when you extract that DNA, does it become its own individual person? Exactly.

No, because it’s dead tissue, not a dead organism; please refer back to my definition of a human being.

Ever heard of human chimeras, Stat? They possess two distinct sets of human DNA. According to your definition, they are two people. Your definition leads to absurdities all on its own: how many exceptions are we to find before it loses all its teeth?

No, a chimera is a single organism, so according to my definition (if you read it closely) is a single human being. You see, no matter how hard you try you cannot find an exception to my definition that should be included.

Begging the question is not an argument.

Well it is, it’s just not a logically valid argument; I didn’t beg the question though.

You know, simplifying my argument doesn't mean that's what I'm arguing. I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether you're actually not getting this, or just lying about it for convenience. If you persist with this "he's racist!" stuff after this post, I'll have to conclude it's the latter, because I've explained it in pretty good detail now.

You claimed a fetus was not “human-looking”. Not sure what “human-looking” even means.

I'll say. However, it's actually your argument that does that. Well, yours, and the silly little pantomime of my argument that you've created because you're unable or unwilling to rebut it on its own terms.

You based nearly that entire post off of your inability to read my definition closely, what a waste of both of our time.

[Mystical]

Statler, my computer is in the shop and my mobile doesn't like long posting but I will get back to you as soon as I can

[Esquilax]

Why not? Because you say so? Why is personhood dependent upon self-awareness and consciousness? Many toddlers are not self-aware; are they therefore not people and you now support infanticide? Chimps are both self-aware and conscious, are they now people? You’re simply asserting that it is not a person because of some arbitrary standard, well I am allowed to simply reject that standard and postulate my own.

Hey Stat, could you do me a favor and just discuss my entire position from now on, and not just the little bit that you quote? Because I'm pretty sure you read my post before you replied, and so you know that this isn't my entire position.

Please pay attention to what I actually write. I clearly stated that a human being is any organism that possesses human DNA. Your liver is an organ, not an organism- so it’s obviously just tissue. Fertilized eggs and fetuses possess their own separate DNA and from a biological perspective are separate organisms from both of their parents.

Fair enough. I still disagree, and evidently so does the government in many places, but if you want to subscribe to a self-serving definition solely because it supports your argument on a single issue, that's fine. I'm not obligated to do likewise.

There’s no circularity in my definition. All human beings are people, and I have clearly defined human beings for you. You simply did not pay attention to my definition.

P1. Any organism that possesses human DNA is a human being
P2. A fertilized egg is an organism that possesses human DNA
C. Therefore, a fertilized egg is a human being.

P1. All human beings are people
P2. A fertilized egg is a human being
C. Therefore a fertilized egg is a person

Good thing the world doesn't run on Stat logic then, huh? Oh, and PS: if I inject a chicken with my blood, does that make it a person?

What you are now relegated to doing is postulating your own arbitrary reasons as to why not all human beings are people (which is exactly what slave owners did).

Yeah, and Hitler ate sugar. Are you going to keep up this dishonest tactic, or are you going to actually argue the merits of the argument. Because even if I'm wrong, that doesn't automatically make you right.

Nope, my definition as I first stated it still stands. Your definition of personhood however concludes that infants and many toddlers are not people (not only this but apparently once a person becomes unconscious they magically and mysteriously cease to be a person).

Again, please address my entire argument, and not the fragment of it you've quoted. I don't understand what you hope to gain from this; people can still see my initial post, it's right there for everyone to see. I can demonstrate that what you're doing is dishonest just by linking back to that.

If you understood my argument then why did you try to argue that an organ was an organism?

Honest mistake, sorry about that.

Nope, if killing other people is wrong then abortion is wrong. There is no way around that. As a materialist you really have no reason to believe killing another person is wrong. That is why you arbitrarily believe it is wrong with some people but not others.

Seriously, do you have some kind of selective amnesia? Or did you just go to the Ray Comfort school of selective editing? You do understand that my position in its clear entirety is available in this same thread, right?

I have presented logical arguments to support my position; you have provided nothing but your own arbitrary standards.

That little monologue thing was kind of sad, wasn't it? Think you could maybe try something a little more mature than schoolyard reinterpretation of the other party's motivations?

As does a fetus.

Once it reaches a certain developmental threshold, sure. That's also, incidentally, around about the time I would cut off access to abortion (outside of saving the mother's life, of course.) But a little bundle of cells? No.

A human being is a living organism that possesses human DNA. That’s really simple, that definition encompasses the disfigured, children, babies, adults, the elderly, males, females, blacks, whites, the awake, the unconscious, the born and the unborn; yet it excludes animals. It’s the only consistent definition.

I'll get the syringes, you get the chickens. Let's make some people.

Nope, I am just reducing your argument to absurdity. Remember, if your argument can be used to justify positions you do not agree with then you either need to change your position or change your argument. My argument could never be used by a racist.

It's only absurd if you desperately address fragments of my argument one at a time, and not the entire thing.

No, that leads to arbitrariness and then humanity and personhood can be defined as whatever you want it to be. “You must have human DNA but you must also have a Y chromosome.” “You must have human DNA but you must also be white.” We’re either all people (including fertilized eggs) or none of us are. That’s how deduction works.

No, that's how a false dichotomy works. Unless you can address why a series of biological classifiers- the same ones that have worked for every other organism in the world without any of this arbitrariness you think is inherent- would be insufficient? Just asserting it isn't enough.

You claimed a fetus was not “human-looking”. Not sure what “human-looking” even means.

I never even used the words human-looking, so those quotation marks are a tad inaccurate. Why don't you go and read a book on taxonomic classifications, hmm? Maybe it'll help you out.

[Statler Waldorf]

Statler, my computer is in the shop and my mobile doesn't like long posting but I will get back to you as soon as I can

I shall wait patiently for your response with great anticipation sitting in front of my computer and refreshing the browser every ten seconds!

Hey Stat, could you do me a favor and just discuss my entire position from now on, and not just the little bit that you quote? Because I'm pretty sure you read my post before you replied, and so you know that this isn't my entire position.

Whether it is your entire position or not is irrelevant, you have yet to provide any basis as to why personhood requires the organism to be self-aware and conscious. People are not always conscious and do not become self-aware until around the age of two; so that cannot be part of the definition of a “person”. An organism is either a person or not regardless of whether it is aware of it.

Fair enough. I still disagree, and evidently so does the government in many places, but if you want to subscribe to a self-serving definition solely because it supports your argument on a single issue, that's fine. I'm not obligated to do likewise.

Many governments agree with me, so that point was irrelevant. You’re right though, you are not required to be logical, but I prefer to be. I have presented a definition that is consistent and defensible; you have done no such thing.

Good thing the world doesn't run on Stat logic then, huh? Oh, and PS: if I inject a chicken with my blood, does that make it a person?

You mean sound logic? I wish the world did. What does this have to do with abortion? Unborn babies are composed of human DNA, not injected with it.

Yeah, and Hitler ate sugar. Are you going to keep up this dishonest tactic, or are you going to actually argue the merits of the argument. Because even if I'm wrong, that doesn't automatically make you right.

It’s not a dishonest tactic, if your rationalizations can be used to rationalize that which you do not accept then you’re being inconsistent in using them. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with using disjunctive reasoning. The unborn are either persons or they are not; if I can prove that the position arguing that they are not persons is false then it proves that they are indeed persons.
“A” or “Not A”, Not “Not A”, therefore “A”.

Again, please address my entire argument, and not the fragment of it you've quoted. I don't understand what you hope to gain from this; people can still see my initial post, it's right there for everyone to see. I can demonstrate that what you're doing is dishonest just by linking back to that.

Then do it! I have not intentionally misrepresented your argument in anyway (if I have, then show me how I have, do not merely assert that I have). I asked you why the unborn are not people, and you answered with because they are not self-aware or conscious. Now I have given you two examples: one of organisms that possess human DNA that are also not self-aware (toddlers), and one of organisms that possess human DNA that are not conscious (a sleeping adult). Are they or aren’t they people?

Seriously, do you have some kind of selective amnesia?

I don’t remember….

Or did you just go to the Ray Comfort school of selective editing? You do understand that my position in its clear entirety is available in this same thread, right?

Perhaps you should lay it all out in one paragraph. Right now what I have is…

A person is an organism with human DNA that is self-aware, conscious, can survive on its own, and morphologically looks like a human. Accurate?

That little monologue thing was kind of sad, wasn't it? Think you could maybe try something a little more mature than schoolyard reinterpretation of the other party's motivations?

Motivations? Says the guy who asserted that the only motivation I have for being pro-life is because I am religious…? I personally thought the monologue was rather cute.

Once it reaches a certain developmental threshold, sure. That's also, incidentally, around about the time I would cut off access to abortion (outside of saving the mother's life, of course.) But a little bundle of cells? No.

How are we anything other than little bundles of cells? I thought you were a materialist.

I'll get the syringes, you get the chickens. Let's make some people.

No that’s fallacious reasoning, “A” being placed inside of “B” does not make “A” part of “B”; inject all the blood you want but it will never be part of the chicken and will only kill it. Nice try though! You really don’t want fetuses to be people.

It's only absurd if you desperately address fragments of my argument one at a time, and not the entire thing.

Apparently you’ve yet to present the entire thing because as it stands now it’s not defensible.

No, that's how a false dichotomy works. Unless you can address why a series of biological classifiers- the same ones that have worked for every other organism in the world without any of this arbitrariness you think is inherent- would be insufficient? Just asserting it isn't enough.

You’re not using biologic classifiers, you’re using arbitrary standards. There is no biologic classifier stating that a deer must be self-aware and conscious in order to be a deer. I assure you, when deer sleep they are still deer. A deer is any organism possessing specific deer DNA, just as a human being is any organism possessing human DNA. It’s very simple.

I never even used the words human-looking, so those quotation marks are a tad inaccurate. Why don't you go and read a book on taxonomic classifications, hmm? Maybe it'll help you out.

You never used that term? Did someone else sneak onto your computer and post this for you in Post#78 on 30th August 2013, 10:52?

Is a dead body a person? Because that's all you're really arguing, that it's the flesh that ascribes personhood, and given that a fetus isn't in any way human looking as it develops, this is hardly the best definition you should be using.

[Emphasis added by SW]

Perhaps rather than me misrepresenting your position what is really happening is that you’re forgetting your position?

There is nothing in taxonomy requiring a human to be self-aware and conscious. It’s all genetics now.

[Creed of Heresy]

Another red herring! I could just as easily point out how ironic it is that you believe in Evolution but then deny using genetics to establish humanity and personhood upon conception in regards to abortion. Cherry picker!

How do you know that similarities in genetic code imply a common ancestor and not a common designer? You seem to be overplaying your hand a bit there.

First: Not a red herring, just commenting on a point I find highly amusing. Not to mention you just strawman'd since I have not denied anything to establish humanity and personhood; I have gone on record as stating that what defines a human being is personhood, genetics being a PART but not the encompassing WHOLE of what defines a human being. Good try, though, you almost had something...even if that something was going in a horribly erroneous direction.

And how do YOU know that similarities in so on and so on imply a common designer? I know they don't because I've seen no evidence so far to imply that it was (not to mention the endless moving of the goalposts that make the hollowness of the claims of "creation" even more blatantly obvious) and the original claims in the bible stated that the world was created in seven days which is not possible anymore given what we know, as is the evidence that humans spontaneously existed alongside everything else...which the fossil record disproves with indescribable ease. You are starting with a presupposition and assuming it's right without any knowledge to instigate that belief other than what you are told without even knowing anything about its sources, contexts, or reliability, not to mention the fact that the supposed basis of beliefs are based on eye-witness testimony from millenia ago. It's long been shown that eyewitness testimonies are the weakest kind of evidence to bring to bear in a court of law because so often, they are contradictory, faulty, fabrications, and/or misrememberings.

Bring forth the tangible evidence that shows the common creator, but just remember Ockham's Razor when you make the desperately empty attempt to do so; it'll cut you pretty badly.

There is nothing in taxonomy requiring a human to be self-aware and conscious. It’s all genetics now.

Wrong.

[downbeatplumb]

Inducing a miscarriage (even by accident) was punishable by death under the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament. The Israelites were far more civilized than we are when it comes to protecting innocent life.

I can't have read his right. Surely he can't mean this!

[Mystical]

Yep. Those gold bull making fornicating cheating arrogant complaining disbelieving chicken shit mass murdering pieces of shit were apparently the upstanding model of Christian civility.