Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[CleanShavenJesus]

Are you that dense? Why would I be arguing morality when you guys can't even admit that a human fetus is an individual human?

Do you want me to admit that green cars are orange, too?

[Esquilax]

As long as you guys keep arguing that it's a fish, or a hair, or toenail, there's no fucking reason to discuss morality. You need to concede what it is before you can discuss the morailty of whacking it, understand?

Apparently not, since you made up your mind on that score long before coming into this thread.

Seriously, can you not see that this is a digression of a digression that was nothing more than you being unable/unwilling to even acknowledge our basic points to begin with? Go back and look, we stated our opinion not only on this question, but on the original fucking morality thing pages and pages ago. Your inability to alter your argument based on new information doesn't somehow make all of us less smart.

Look back: we tell you things, and it just flows off of you like water off a duck's back. No matter what we say, your question has remained the same, over and over, regardless of what answers we give you. It's become boring.

[catfish]

Are you that dense? Why would I be arguing morality when you guys can't even admit that a human fetus is an individual human?

Do you want me to admit that green cars are orange, too?

No, no, you're already looking pretty dumb, no need to confirm it...

If it's not an individual human, you only have two choices.

1. It's multiple humans.
2. It's not human.
Will you dare answer this question with "fish"??? lol!

[EGross]

According to Physisicst, Dr. Lawrence Krauss concerning making moral decisions, which will get to the point here:

Let me give you in the last two slides some examples. Stem cells are a big issue, certo? And there're big debate But there're certain facts that if you don't understand them you cannot make sensible moral decisions. Blastocysts, which are the things people work with, are not fully functionig embryos. Are not gonna turn into human beings. The embryos destroyed in stem cell research are not gonna be... are gonna be destroyed anyway. They're not gonna be used for reproduction. They are largely donated for research purpuses, they're in storage, and they're just gonna be thrown away.

And finally, one of the big misconceptions that the Catholic Church suffers under is that there's a moment of conception.

There is no moment of conception.

I have been gone to in-vitro fetilization clinics. I was amazed to see the incredible number of steps, starting from what we call the fertilization process to a fully functioning embryo, and every single one of them is as important as the one before. There's no moment where you can see... where you can suddenly define a living being there. It's a continuous process. It's not a moment.

While those cells are coming together and transitioning, and skiping from one form to the next, it is a biological form that requires nurturing in order to continue it's journy from one classification to the next. The Church would have you believe that it is alive as a small cluster of cells. A new law in the USA calls it a human once there is a heartbeat, which is in 40 days or so. Theology and feelings are trying to define a scientific classification where none objectively exists.

Catfish has the opinion of the Church, that something the size of spit is a a person.

Esquilax holds that that it is not a person until it is a human, and has defined that ad nauseum.

Neither are going to agree. And this is a macrocosm of what the debates are in the political world.

[catfish]

Look back: we tell you things, and it just flows off of you like water off a duck's back. No matter what we say, your question has remained the same, over and over, regardless of what answers we give you. It's become boring.

LOL, all you do is deny basic biologic definitions.
Look back, laugh at some of the shit you guys have claimed.

But just to drive a point home, you said: "there's something valuable about human lives, but not about their genetics and individual cells.". And this is why you won't admit that a zygote/fetus is an individual human life, because then you'd be a hypocrite... After all, an individual human lifeform encompasses all of it's cells, even if only 1.

---

Catfish has the opinion of the Church, that something the size of spit is a a person.

Bull Fucking Shit! Speak for yourself, your stupid strawmen will be called bullshit every time you voice them.

---

Oh yeah, LOL! at "no conception" then talk about a fertilization process... And WTF is up with Dr. Lawrence Krauss ? "I have been gone to in-vitro fetilization clinics". Typo or english as a second language? Besides, it's an appeal to authority, try again...

---

Esquilax holds that that it is not a person until it is a human, and has defined that ad nauseum.

And this is what is stupid. When is it not a human?

[NoraBrimstone]

Catfish has the opinion of the Church, that something the size of spit is a a person.

Erm, no. The Bible states (more than once) that a baby doesn't count until a month after birth.

[Esquilax]

But just to drive a point home, you said: "there's something valuable about human lives, but not about their genetics and individual cells.". And this is why you won't admit that a zygote/fetus is an individual human life, because then you'd be a hypocrite... After all, an individual human lifeform encompasses all of it's cells, even if only 1.

Yes, there is something valuable about human lives. But I do not think that a zygote or fetus is a complete human life. I've said this multiple times; it is to humans as a tadpole is to a frog.

Okay? Now you have that. You have my answer. But I bet your next post will be another one asking me if I'll admit that a fetus is fully human. You are showing a profoundly dishonest debate tactic here, trying to poison the well before the debate proper even begins, and in doing so dragging out the initial portions obscenely.

I think you're doing this on purpose, because if this is just how you argue, then you're a goddamn toddler. You have our answer: in a real debate, you'd move on from there and examine the opposing viewpoint. Your tactic so far has just been to insist that we all agree to your (intentionally biased toward the appeals to emotion you'll no doubt make in a real debate) definition of things, and to repeat that insistence over and over until we give up. You asked a question, and you think that the proper response when you don't get an answer you like is to repeat the question and hope that the answer will change.

You're trying to gear the conversation in your favor through dishonest and amateurish means before it's even started. And now you need to stop, if you want to be taken seriously; we can either actually debate this issue, or you can chip away at your remaining credibility by asking a question you already have an answer to.

We don't agree with your opinion of this. The way to change our minds isn't to simply restate your original position over and over until we become tired. You know this.

I've also attempted to allude to some of the more complex concepts this debate could include, some more in depth discussions of life, but time after time you've dragged us back to a question we refuse to give you the answer you want on.

Now move on, catfish. Ask your next question.

[catfish]

If a zygote/fetus is not a complete human life, what makes up the other portion of that life?
If you value something about human life, is that value limited to "completeness"?

[Esquilax]

If a zygote/fetus is not a complete human life, what makes up the other portion of that life?

Thank you, and that's a good question. The zygote only gets one as far as the body, the physical makeup of a person. But that's not what we mourn when a person dies; the body is just a vehicle, after all. The other portion of life is experience, a mind that thinks, senses the world around it, and develops a personality. We as people are nothing more than our personalities and memories, after all, and a fetus has none of that, until it's born and starts actively experiencing the world.

If you value something about human life, is that value limited to "completeness"?

No, because I don't think there's a point at which a person ever becomes complete. But the value is in the person as a constantly evolving being; putting special significance on the zygote is akin to putting significance in the container. It serves a purpose, for sure, bodies are important, but they aren't us.

[justin]

I can't give a simple yes or no. It would depend on the case really. I am pro-choice and and pro death penalty but only with certain things. But seeing as i would come to that conclusion with some cases it would make me pro choice and death penalty. It would have to be handled with extreme care though.