Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I used to think that way as well. The argument as presented makes it so clear. Perhaps the issue is the argument as presented. Well, I believe it must, by necessity, hinge on understanding why organisms are alive and rocks are not alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I used to think that way as well. The argument as presented makes it so clear. Perhaps the issue is the argument as presented. Well, I believe it must, by necessity, hinge on understanding why organisms are alive and rocks are not alive. Is a collection of cells alive? Is it immoral to remove them from your body? I would say the question doesn't hinge on that understanding, but rather on the definition of at what point do we consider this collection of cells a human being. Does science address this? Would you argue that a fetus in its earliest stages of development is the same as a baby, like those posters which dress a baby up and have it talking like a fetus? Why photos of babies, and not adults saying, "When I was 10 weeks old I wiggled my toes!"? It's a flawed analogy based on emotional responses to babies. A baby is not a fetus, any more than an adult is one. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Look A-man, we like to rationalize things so as to assuade our own consciences. But I see no need for it. When I kill, I call it "killing". It is an inconvenient fact for our conscience that a fetus is alive, a complete organism. So what do we do? We rationalize. We say, "Well, you know, a fetus is not really alive." Screw that. If a person is unable or unwilling to bring a fetus to term then kill it, and call it "killing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Look A-man, we like to rationalize things so as to assuade our own consciences. But I see no need for it. When I kill, I call it "killing". It is an inconvenient fact for our conscience that a fetus is alive, a complete organism. So what do we do? We rationalize. We say, "Well, you know, a fetus is not really alive." Screw that. If a person is unable or unwilling to bring a fetus to term then kill it, and call it "killing". Is a fetus a "complete organism" though. It cannot survive on its own without a host. So if it's not viable on its own, is it "complete"? Is killing an incomplete organism still killing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 It cannot survive on its own without a host. "It" he says. "Host" he says. not "They" not "mother" How long do you think a 1 year old child would live without a parental figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Look A-man, we like to rationalize things so as to assuade our own consciences. But I see no need for it. When I kill, I call it "killing". I assume then if you had your appendix removed you would refer to this as your doctor killing, or murdering, your appendix? I somehow doubt this. And yes, the appendix needs your body to survive. Granted. So does a fetus. So that can't be what makes it a person or not. It is an inconvenient fact for our conscience that a fetus is alive, a complete organism. So what do we do? We rationalize. We say, "Well, you know, a fetus is not really alive." This is assigning emotional motivations as to why people hold legitimate differences of view. That's not an argument, but a red herring. "You only think that because you're trying to rationalize away your immorality!". That's not a rational argument. Screw that. If a person is unable or unwilling to bring a fetus to term then kill it, and call it "killing". What defines a person, that would make this an act of killing versus a surgical removal of a collection of cells not yet developed into what we call a human person? DNA? Is that cell under a microscope a human? These are questions that science doesn't address. Can you agree with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 It cannot survive on its own without a host. "It" he says. "Host" he says. not "They" not "mother" How long do you think a 1 year old child would live without a parental figure? How long would an adult survive without a farmer to grow food? Not a valid argument. Another human can feed the infant and it will survive, just like we feed an invalid, just a we depend on others outside us. The argument is about being inside a body, not yet born, not yet a human baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 These are questions that science doesn't address. Can you agree with that? No, I cannot agree with that. Science is in fact beginning to grapple in a substantive way with the question... "What is life?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 It cannot survive on its own without a host. "It" he says. "Host" he says. not "They" not "mother" How long do you think a 1 year old child would live without a parental figure? Look- honestly I'm more with you than you think. I'm kinda playing devils advocate here. I'm arguing a different side than I normally would (yours) to see if you have ideas I haven't thought of, reasons to NOT change my current position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Every organism is suited to different environments, and sometimes the same organism is suited for different environments. Tadpoles and frogs come to mind. A fetus is a human who is suited for the environment of their mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 These are questions that science doesn't address. Can you agree with that? No, I cannot agree with that. Science is in fact beginning to grapple in a substantive way with the question... "What is life?" What is life, is not the same as questions of what society and individuals consider the same as 'human', or humanness, or person-hood. Those are philosophical, and moral questions. That's not the domain of science. And therefore, just because it is 'living' inside you, does not mean that fact alone addresses these considerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I see valid reasons for both sides. It's a tough one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 A fetus is a human who is suited for the environment of their mother. A parasite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 You did make a valid point about the viability component tho Leege. I'll definitely give you that. I think about that part often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 These are questions that science doesn't address. Can you agree with that? No, I cannot agree with that. Science is in fact beginning to grapple in a substantive way with the question... "What is life?" What is life, is not the same as questions of what society and individuals consider the same as 'human', or humanness, or person-hood. Those are philosophical, and moral questions. That's not the domain of science. And therefore, just because it is 'living' inside you, does not mean that fact alone addresses these considerations. I have only asserted that a fetus is a complete organism. Full genotype and full phenotype. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 You did make a valid point about the viability component tho Leege. I'll definitely give you that. I think about that part often. Thank you for being brave enough to say so Mac. I think abortion should be socially permissable under a vast array of circumstances, including the mother's whim up until the point of viability or about 20 weeks or so of pregnancy. But I absolutely cannot stand the twisted rationalization of saying "They are not really alive." They are alive. Let us not decieve ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 These are questions that science doesn't address. Can you agree with that? No, I cannot agree with that. Science is in fact beginning to grapple in a substantive way with the question... "What is life?" What is life, is not the same as questions of what society and individuals consider the same as 'human', or humanness, or person-hood. Those are philosophical, and moral questions. That's not the domain of science. And therefore, just because it is 'living' inside you, does not mean that fact alone addresses these considerations. I have only asserted that a fetus is a complete organism. Full genotype and full phenotype. Nothing more. Then there is no debate apparently. I don't think anyone who feels aborting a fetus is not murdering a human being believes otherwise. On what then hinges the debate? Definitions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Definitions? realities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Lol. Just when you think its over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Definitions? realities Reality is all about definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Definitions? realities Reality is all about definitions. You think so huh? You going to define away the moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Definitions? realities Reality is all about definitions. You think so huh? You going to define away the moon? The fact that it exists? No. But that you consider it lovely and another a fearful object in the night sky is in fact a matter of subjective reality. Agreeing upon what makes a human a human being is in fact a subjective reality. Is it simply a matter of having human DNA that makes us a person? Again, this is a subjective reality, a matter of how we define reality, how we perceive and interpret the world. Bottom line, you are stuck with those who, despite agreeing that the fetus is alive as you do, differ in calling that a human being, as you would a baby. That is a matter of how one sees what one is looking at. Can you define that for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 A-man, it is probably not wise of us (that's you and that's me) to linger long here. "Life" is not a subjective thing. It has an objective basis. If a natural system is an organism then it will fulfill certain minimum requirements in order to qualify being called an organism. That is, there are necessary conditions which must obtain. If we maintain that this is not true, then we have ceded "life" to magic, and thereby placed it beyond hope of understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Legion, he kicked your ass. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with the ideas. A fetus isn't a baby. That's why only the pro-life movement and its cronies calls it a baby. It's a fetus. If it's not a full baby, then it hardly matters what I do with it if one develops inside of me. If it is, then the issue still comes down to whether or not I get to decide who camps out in my uterus. You don't get to tell me I have to donate my blood to you, or my organs, and you certainly don't get to hook yourself up to my body via IV lines for 9 months and then subject me to a risky, potentially fatal operation to remove you after you're all done--and there is no question whatsoever of your humanity. Don't ask me to agree that I should give more consideration and rights to a clump of cells whose humanity is far more in doubt. You're using very emotional arguments here, and the very fact that you're doing it makes me think you don't really have anything beyond your own perceptions to argue it. And that's okay, just don't expect me to change my mind just based on your emotional response to a medical situation that you will never even face yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 If we maintain that this is not true, then we have ceded "life" to magic, and thereby placed it beyond hope of understanding. Didn't know we could really define hope within a natural system L. Just pickin on you tarhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts