The reason religion is so powerful

[Belacqua]

Acardiac twin is an in utero development abnormality creating a twin incompatible with human life. It does not therefore deserve X rights. 

No one is arguing that something dead, or something incompatible with human life deserves human rights. If you think they are you haven't understood the arguments here.

[John 6IX Breezy]

No one is arguing that something dead, or something incompatible with human life deserves human rights.

But even if we were what does that even mean lol? In fact, I'll commit to that position right now:

I think ALL dead people have the right to free speech. I'll sign it into law the moment I become president. (And I'll throw in something about souls to justify it.)

[brewer]

Acardiac twin is an in utero development abnormality creating a twin incompatible with human life. It does not therefore deserve X rights. 

No one is arguing that something dead, or something incompatible with human life deserves human rights. If you think they are you haven't understood the arguments here.

Again, the original position was unborn human rights at conception.

[Belacqua]

No one is arguing that something dead, or something incompatible with human life deserves human rights. If you think they are you haven't understood the arguments here.

Again, the original position was unborn human rights at conception.

The original position has to do with the actualization of potential. Things which have no potential are not included in the argument.

[brewer]

Again, the original position was unborn human rights at conception.

The original position has to do with the actualization of potential. Things which have no potential are not included in the argument.

I don't remember Neo stating anything about actualized or potential.

I do remember me stating "potential humans". Go back and read posts 23,25,26.

[Belacqua]

The original position has to do with the actualization of potential. Things which have no potential are not included in the argument.

I don't remember Neo stating anything about actualized or potential.

I do remember me stating "potential humans". Go back and read posts 23,25,26.

I don't recall if Neo used those exact words or not. Sometimes if a person is clearly not understanding the argument, it helps to rephrase the same idea in different language. But that's what the argument is about, and Neo, who understands the foundation and history of the argument, knows that.

Again, we are not talking about "potential humans" -- things or elements which have the potential to change into humans. We are talking about discrete objects which already contain the necessary qualities to develop as humans develop. 

If you can prove (and not only assert) that an embryo at some point in its development goes from being non-human to human, as you seem to think it does, then you can talk about "potential humans." Under that belief, then an embryo is a potential human. But that's not what I mean when I talk about the actualization of potential. I'm talking about the potential already contained in an object which then undergoes continuous development, not ontological change.

[brewer]

I don't remember Neo stating anything about actualized or potential.

I do remember me stating "potential humans". Go back and read posts 23,25,26.

I don't recall if Neo used those exact words or not. Sometimes if a person is clearly not understanding the argument, it helps to rephrase the same idea in different language. But that's what the argument is about, and Neo, who understands the foundation and history of the argument, knows that.

Again, we are not talking about "potential humans" -- things or elements which have the potential to change into humans. We are talking about discrete objects which already contain the necessary qualities to develop as humans develop. 

If you can prove (and not only assert) that an embryo at some point in its development goes from being non-human to human, as you seem to think it does, then you can talk about "potential humans." Under that belief, then an embryo is a potential human. But that's not what I mean when I talk about the actualization of potential. I'm talking about the potential already contained in an object which then undergoes continuous development, not ontological change.

Of course you don't recall, wouldn't let you prattle on. I requested that Neo define the issue/terms, he did not respond.

That's just the thing, he said "conception" (fertilization/embryo) which does not necessarily already contain the necessarily qualities to develop as humans (mole embryo). Other have the qualities and then lose them during development (acardiac twin).

I'm claiming either, never a human(proof-mole, no potential), or human to non human(proof-acardiac, loses potential). That is the proof.

You're kind of dense.

[John 6IX Breezy]

To the same extent that I know a rabbit doesn't have full personhood because its brain isn't capable of undertaking person-level activities, I know a fetus with fewer brain cells than a rabbit isn't yet a person.

Hmm I don't know much about personhood. But I think you should be careful here. These are some issues:

1. The brain is nowhere near developed at birth; it develops throughout the lifespan. And unless personhood looks like a bell curve, you might be ignoring natural variations across individuals.

2. There are very few cognitive traits that you can't live without. And the parts of the brain that are more life-threatening are hardly the ones doing person-level activities. (And just keep in mind that entire hemispheres of the brain have been removed successfully in surgery.)

3. Psychologists use animals ranging from mice to macaques in the study of behavior because we share many traits with them. I don't know how rabbits compare, but I suspect you've set a deceptively high bar. (Consider that you've potentially removed consciousness as a criteria for personhood.)

---

That's just the thing, he said "conception" (fertilization/embryo) which does not necessarily already contain the necessarily qualities to develop as humans (mole embryo).

That there are instances where fertilization goes astray, does not change the fact that new organisms begin at conception. Hamburgers don't stop being made at McDonald's the moment McDonald's accidently puts out a soft taco.

[Ranjr]

What's the problem?

Women become pregnant in circumstances they foresee having net negative outcomes.  There are various ways to avoid such outcomes.  Those ways offend the religious or idealistic beliefs of many whom are otherwise unaffected by her actions.  The problem is theirs.

The solutions?  Let people make decisions regarding their own body and life for themselves, and don't hold them to idealistic, imaginary standards that are secondary to their immediate circumstances.  Strive for conditions where women don't fear having and caring for a child.  Create a system where children no one wants receive the same love, acceptance and chance to thrive as children who are wanted.  There are more solutions if we try.

Or just lock them all up, since that's what you really want.

[GUBU]

I see Breezy is too cowardly to answer the question I posed him earlier in the thread, so I'll ask him again:

Why is it that christian groups who want to criminalise abortion as murder think it's ok to murder living breathing children through medical negligence for "sincerely held religious views"?  Shouldn't you be dealing with the absolute crimes of your own community before you move onto the imagined crimes outside it?