The 'Planned' in Planned Parenthood

[The Herald of War]

Bogotanian

The Legendary Guest

XxTheVeganVampirexX

Bogotanian

arrow A foetus of a week isn't a person because it lacks everything that makes it an organism. It's as though we claimed that a rock is a person. Both are equally lacking in any ability to be even remotely aware of their surroundings. They don't know what is going on, they have no brain to speak of or anything. A foetus at that stage is just a clump of cells no more possessing personhood than a clump of weeds or a handful of sand, or skin-cells.

The anti-choice movement is forever appealing to this deepity.

From the RationalWiki Entry on Deepities

In the first reading, this statement is true, but trivial; the zygote is the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo. In the second reading, the statement could be interpreted to mean the zygote is a human person; this is false, but would be profound if true. The statement is obviously false because a person cannot be a single-celled organism any more than he or she could be a paper shredder. The statement would be profound if true because a large percentage of zygotes fail to implant in the uterus, and thus die. The deaths from this would far exceed deaths from such maladies as breast cancer or childhood leukemia, and thus would mandate society to immediately divert massive government funds to stop the crisis. Certainly any problem killing a massive percentage of children deserves a large percentage of NIH funding.

This wiki has a lot of assumptions. "Obviously false?" Yeah, we also used to be those organisms called zygotes, there was never a chance that someone could be a paper shredder. It's also ignoring the issue that abortion is intentional tampering with fetal development. It's a different issue from failure to implant or stillbirths.

Also stop ignoring this argument and address it. You've ignored it twice now.

"The fetus is a person or is not a person, and we either know it or we don’t know it. We end up with four possible outcomes.

In the first case, the fetus is a person and we know it, so abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. In this case, abortion is murder and therefore is always wrong. Alternatively, if the fetus is a person, but we don’t know it, then abortion is killing a person unintentionally—manslaughter. Even if the fetus is not a person, but we don’t know it, abortion qualifies as criminal negligence. Without perfect certainty that the fetus is not a person, doing anything to endanger its potential personhood is morally indefensible. Only in the final case, if the fetus is not a person and we know it definitively, is abortion morally permissible."

Abortion is either murder, unintentional manslaughter, criminal negligence, or morally permissible (and only if we are absolutely sure with no doubts about it).

A fetus isn't a person, easy.

[Bogotanian]

The Herald of War

Bogotanian

The Legendary Guest

XxTheVeganVampirexX

Bogotanian

arrow A foetus of a week isn't a person because it lacks everything that makes it an organism. It's as though we claimed that a rock is a person. Both are equally lacking in any ability to be even remotely aware of their surroundings. They don't know what is going on, they have no brain to speak of or anything. A foetus at that stage is just a clump of cells no more possessing personhood than a clump of weeds or a handful of sand, or skin-cells.

The anti-choice movement is forever appealing to this deepity.

From the RationalWiki Entry on Deepities

In the first reading, this statement is true, but trivial; the zygote is the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo. In the second reading, the statement could be interpreted to mean the zygote is a human person; this is false, but would be profound if true. The statement is obviously false because a person cannot be a single-celled organism any more than he or she could be a paper shredder. The statement would be profound if true because a large percentage of zygotes fail to implant in the uterus, and thus die. The deaths from this would far exceed deaths from such maladies as breast cancer or childhood leukemia, and thus would mandate society to immediately divert massive government funds to stop the crisis. Certainly any problem killing a massive percentage of children deserves a large percentage of NIH funding.

This wiki has a lot of assumptions. "Obviously false?" Yeah, we also used to be those organisms called zygotes, there was never a chance that someone could be a paper shredder. It's also ignoring the issue that abortion is intentional tampering with fetal development. It's a different issue from failure to implant or stillbirths.

Also stop ignoring this argument and address it. You've ignored it twice now.

"The fetus is a person or is not a person, and we either know it or we don’t know it. We end up with four possible outcomes.

In the first case, the fetus is a person and we know it, so abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. In this case, abortion is murder and therefore is always wrong. Alternatively, if the fetus is a person, but we don’t know it, then abortion is killing a person unintentionally—manslaughter. Even if the fetus is not a person, but we don’t know it, abortion qualifies as criminal negligence. Without perfect certainty that the fetus is not a person, doing anything to endanger its potential personhood is morally indefensible. Only in the final case, if the fetus is not a person and we know it definitively, is abortion morally permissible."

Abortion is either murder, unintentional manslaughter, criminal negligence, or morally permissible (and only if we are absolutely sure with no doubts about it).

A fetus isn't a person, easy.

A legal definition is not satisfactory when discussing the philosophical concept of personhood. Just leaving the mother seems to be the definition for when a person starts. That drawn line seems very arbitrary and nonsensical.

[The Herald of War]

Bogotanian

The Herald of War

Bogotanian

The Legendary Guest

XxTheVeganVampirexX

arrow A foetus of a week isn't a person because it lacks everything that makes it an organism. It's as though we claimed that a rock is a person. Both are equally lacking in any ability to be even remotely aware of their surroundings. They don't know what is going on, they have no brain to speak of or anything. A foetus at that stage is just a clump of cells no more possessing personhood than a clump of weeds or a handful of sand, or skin-cells.

The anti-choice movement is forever appealing to this deepity.

From the RationalWiki Entry on Deepities

In the first reading, this statement is true, but trivial; the zygote is the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo. In the second reading, the statement could be interpreted to mean the zygote is a human person; this is false, but would be profound if true. The statement is obviously false because a person cannot be a single-celled organism any more than he or she could be a paper shredder. The statement would be profound if true because a large percentage of zygotes fail to implant in the uterus, and thus die. The deaths from this would far exceed deaths from such maladies as breast cancer or childhood leukemia, and thus would mandate society to immediately divert massive government funds to stop the crisis. Certainly any problem killing a massive percentage of children deserves a large percentage of NIH funding.

This wiki has a lot of assumptions. "Obviously false?" Yeah, we also used to be those organisms called zygotes, there was never a chance that someone could be a paper shredder. It's also ignoring the issue that abortion is intentional tampering with fetal development. It's a different issue from failure to implant or stillbirths.

Also stop ignoring this argument and address it. You've ignored it twice now.

"The fetus is a person or is not a person, and we either know it or we don’t know it. We end up with four possible outcomes.

In the first case, the fetus is a person and we know it, so abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. In this case, abortion is murder and therefore is always wrong. Alternatively, if the fetus is a person, but we don’t know it, then abortion is killing a person unintentionally—manslaughter. Even if the fetus is not a person, but we don’t know it, abortion qualifies as criminal negligence. Without perfect certainty that the fetus is not a person, doing anything to endanger its potential personhood is morally indefensible. Only in the final case, if the fetus is not a person and we know it definitively, is abortion morally permissible."

Abortion is either murder, unintentional manslaughter, criminal negligence, or morally permissible (and only if we are absolutely sure with no doubts about it).

A fetus isn't a person, easy.

A legal definition is not satisfactory when discussing the philosophical concept of personhood. Just leaving the mother seems to be the definition for when a person starts. That drawn line seems very arbitrary and nonsensical.

I'll take you arguing against things I didn't say as a concession.

[Bogotanian]

The Herald of War

Bogotanian

The Herald of War

Bogotanian

The Legendary Guest

The anti-choice movement is forever appealing to this deepity.

This wiki has a lot of assumptions. "Obviously false?" Yeah, we also used to be those organisms called zygotes, there was never a chance that someone could be a paper shredder. It's also ignoring the issue that abortion is intentional tampering with fetal development. It's a different issue from failure to implant or stillbirths.

Also stop ignoring this argument and address it. You've ignored it twice now.

"The fetus is a person or is not a person, and we either know it or we don’t know it. We end up with four possible outcomes.

In the first case, the fetus is a person and we know it, so abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. In this case, abortion is murder and therefore is always wrong. Alternatively, if the fetus is a person, but we don’t know it, then abortion is killing a person unintentionally—manslaughter. Even if the fetus is not a person, but we don’t know it, abortion qualifies as criminal negligence. Without perfect certainty that the fetus is not a person, doing anything to endanger its potential personhood is morally indefensible. Only in the final case, if the fetus is not a person and we know it definitively, is abortion morally permissible."

Abortion is either murder, unintentional manslaughter, criminal negligence, or morally permissible (and only if we are absolutely sure with no doubts about it).

A fetus isn't a person, easy.

A legal definition is not satisfactory when discussing the philosophical concept of personhood. Just leaving the mother seems to be the definition for when a person starts. That drawn line seems very arbitrary and nonsensical.

I'll take you arguing against things I didn't say as a concession.

Okay we'll start over. Why isn't a fetus a person?

[The Herald of War]

Bogotanian

The Herald of War

Bogotanian

The Herald of War

Bogotanian

The Legendary Guest

The anti-choice movement is forever appealing to this deepity.

This wiki has a lot of assumptions. "Obviously false?" Yeah, we also used to be those organisms called zygotes, there was never a chance that someone could be a paper shredder. It's also ignoring the issue that abortion is intentional tampering with fetal development. It's a different issue from failure to implant or stillbirths.

Also stop ignoring this argument and address it. You've ignored it twice now.

"The fetus is a person or is not a person, and we either know it or we don’t know it. We end up with four possible outcomes.

In the first case, the fetus is a person and we know it, so abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. In this case, abortion is murder and therefore is always wrong. Alternatively, if the fetus is a person, but we don’t know it, then abortion is killing a person unintentionally—manslaughter. Even if the fetus is not a person, but we don’t know it, abortion qualifies as criminal negligence. Without perfect certainty that the fetus is not a person, doing anything to endanger its potential personhood is morally indefensible. Only in the final case, if the fetus is not a person and we know it definitively, is abortion morally permissible."

Abortion is either murder, unintentional manslaughter, criminal negligence, or morally permissible (and only if we are absolutely sure with no doubts about it).

A fetus isn't a person, easy.

A legal definition is not satisfactory when discussing the philosophical concept of personhood. Just leaving the mother seems to be the definition for when a person starts. That drawn line seems very arbitrary and nonsensical.

I'll take you arguing against things I didn't say as a concession.

Okay we'll start over. Why isn't a fetus a person?

Lack of sentience. Not the sole requirement, but certainly one of them.

Also it makes no sense to consider it a person without a reason to consider it a person. So short of evidence being provided that it is a person then there's no real argument to be had.

[VeganIncubus]

Bogotanian

You're assuming that sentience = person. That can't be proven. Also, the fetus does have brain development. A baby is not as sentient as an adult, so are they any less person? Would it be humane to kill a baby? Or for that matter, are people sentient when they are sleeping? By your definition, someone who's sleeping is not sentient, so they are not human throughout that time frame.

arrow I am not assuming sentience= personhood. I am saying that something that doesn't even resemble a person cannot be a person. Something without any emotions or desires or any kind of sign of being alive cannot be a person. No brain-waves, no breathing, no circulatory system. What is a person, according to you?
arrow At what stage is there brain development? At a week? No. At week 5, there's barely a neural chord forming.
arrow There's brain activity during sleep. People who are sleeping have brains, and any creature who has brains is sentient to some degree, therefore something without a brain isn't a person or a being who has any awareness of anything, and therefore doesn't need the protection of a fully formed person. An implanted zygote isn't a person.

[Bogotanian]

XxTheVeganVampirexX

Bogotanian

You're assuming that sentience = person. That can't be proven. Also, the fetus does have brain development. A baby is not as sentient as an adult, so are they any less person? Would it be humane to kill a baby? Or for that matter, are people sentient when they are sleeping? By your definition, someone who's sleeping is not sentient, so they are not human throughout that time frame.

arrow I am not assuming sentience= personhood. I am saying that something that doesn't even resemble a person cannot be a person. Something without any emotions or desires or any kind of sign of being alive cannot be a person. No brain-waves, no breathing, no circulatory system. What is a person, according to you?

I bolded the parts of your argument that aren't true

Quote:

arrow At what stage is there brain development? At a week? No. At week 5, there's barely a neural chord forming.

Fetal Development

Week 6: This week sees the formation of the brain hemispheres and also some wave activity. The neural tube that connects the brain and spinal cord also closes in this duration.
Week 7: By this week, the brain is growing at a rapid rate.
Week 9: The nervous system, by now, is quite developed for proper functioning
Week 10: Brain development is also very rapid as the brain is forming 250,000 neurons per minute.
Week 19: The brain becomes capable of forming millions of motor neurons, enabling the baby to develop and make muscle movements voluntarily. The forebrain further develop into left and right cerebral hemispheres of the brain. The nerve cells required for the processing of all the senses are also developing rapidly.

Quote:

arrow There's brain activity during sleep. People who are sleeping have brains, and any creature who has brains is sentient to some degree, therefore something without a brain isn't a person or a being who has any awareness of anything, and therefore doesn't need the protection of a fully formed person. An implanted zygote isn't a person.

The brain of a fetus at 6 weeks is already sending electrical signals to various muscles and organs within the body. There is brain activity going on in a fetus, and electrical signals have been recorded in the brain region. A zygote doesn't have a brain. A fetus does.

[Lightning the Lulu]

Bogotanian

This wiki has a lot of assumptions.

Such as? It's not being presented as an argument, you realize that right? It's a definition.

Quote:

"Obviously false?"

Obviously. Are you a single-celled organism? Perhaps you are a paper shredder....

Quote:

Yeah, we also used to be those organisms called zygotes, there was never a chance that someone could be a paper shredder.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the example presented in order to demonstrate the meaning of "deepity".

Quote:

It's also ignoring the issue that abortion is intentional tampering with fetal development.

Because it's got [******** to do with abortion, what with it being an explanation of what a deepity is and s**t.

Quote:

It's a different issue from failure to implant or stillbirths.

It's not an issue at all. It's a very specific example.

Quote:

Also stop ignoring this argument and address it. You've ignored it twice now.

What argument am I ignoring? One that I do not need to address until you assume your burden of proof?

Don't you dare get demanding with me, you pompous a**. I've asked for more demonstrations than I can count from you and you've failed to provide a single one. You are in no position to accuse me of tap-dancing while your own dance shoes have burnt holes in the stage.

Quote:

"The fetus is a person or is not a person, and we either know it or we don’t know it. We end up with four possible outcomes.

In the first case, the fetus is a person and we know it, so abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. In this case, abortion is murder and therefore is always wrong. Alternatively, if the fetus is a person, but we don’t know it, then abortion is killing a person unintentionally—manslaughter. Even if the fetus is not a person, but we don’t know it, abortion qualifies as criminal negligence. Without perfect certainty that the fetus is not a person, doing anything to endanger its potential personhood is morally indefensible. Only in the final case, if the fetus is not a person and we know it definitively, is abortion morally permissible."

Demonstrate how any of the above is true and then we'll talk. I am not about to enter into a discussion about hypotheticals with someone who does not understand science and cannot employ critical thinking.

Quote:

Abortion is either murder, unintentional manslaughter, criminal negligence, or morally permissible (and only if we are absolutely sure with no doubts about it).

The laws regarding murder, manslaughter and criminal negligence all explicitly exclude abortion. It qualifies as none of the above and the science does not support your stance on any of those three options. That leaves the burden all on you, and you will assume it or be disregarded.

I will not permit you to shirk it.

Get moving.

[Arcoon Effox]

The Legendary Guest

Bogotanian

The Herald of War

Mik Laid

If you guys want to talk about Biblical genocides and whether or not God should be held accountable for them, I've got a thread for that...

Shameless self-promotion over. Carry on.