God's Not Pro-Life

[Gods Jester]

But you havn't disproven anyones claim. Yet...  

[Sinner]

kajun_chicken

But you havn't disproven anyones claim. Yet...

That would be because this portion of the debate isn't over yet. However, I have challenged the assertion that a fetus is a person, and that assertion hasn't been adequately defended thus far.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

First, I have to disprove your claim. Once that's done, we can continue.

But you haven't disproven your oppositions claims. You've said that 'person' in the Bill of Rights is different then 'human', yet you've failed to say how. That's making claims without backing them up, that is.  

[Sinner]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Sinner

First, I have to disprove your claim. Once that's done, we can continue.

But you haven't disproven your oppositions claims. You've said that 'person' in the Bill of Rights is different then 'human', yet you've failed to say how. That's making claims without backing them up, that is.

Oh, that's nice. Try to spin this around on me, when this is the post that this discussion is stemming from:

Cometh The Inquisitor

Well fine then.

I assume you live in America, so American morality is the morality you ascribe to. According to the Declaraction of Independence : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".


Of course, we can, of course, assume that, by the term 'men' mankind is what is meant. Now, we look to the phrase 'created'. This is not 'born' (as is the Universal declaration of Human Rights), but created. Therefore, humans are given rights at the point of conception (which is when they are 'created').

At which point I simply objected the assumptions you made. (There were two, but I only focused on one.) The first, that "men" is meant to mean "mankind" and the second (the one I focused on) is that humans are "created" at conception.

When I challenged the second assumption, you moved to back it up. I used the analogy of a car, at which point the debate began to get distorted until its collapse on the last page.

So, what exactly were the justifications for your assumptions again?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

So, what exactly were the justifications for your assumptions again?

Men = Mankind. We know that this is not the literal translation of hte word 'men', as we know that it has been ruled (many times) that women have rights as well. Considering Man's secondary (and original, I might add) definition as 'mankind', then it is obvious that the secondary definition is what was meant.

Created = Point of Conception. This was wrong, for the most part. A human is created when that human becomes an individual on a genetic level. This is because they are no longer fully one or another of their parents.

There, my points have been made and backed up. Your turn.  

[Sinner]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Men = Mankind. We know that this is not the literal translation of hte word 'men', as we know that it has been ruled (many times) that women have rights as well. Considering Man's secondary (and original, I might add) definition as 'mankind', then it is obvious that the secondary definition is what was meant.

You're saying that since the literal definition isn't intended, the alternative definition must be "mankind". But there are other definitions available. Just looking at a dictionary, I see the words "individual" and "person" used several times. So that makes two alternative definitions: "Mankind" and "People".

Now, "mankind" would make sense if this was in the context of a biological document. But the Declaration has little to no bearing on biology, it's a philosophical and political document. So your assumption that it refers to the biological definition is absurd. More likely is that the Declaration is saying "All people are created equal", not "All humans are created equal".

Cometh The Inquisitor

Created = Point of Conception. This was wrong, for the most part. A human is created when that human becomes an individual on a genetic level. This is because they are no longer fully one or another of their parents.

There, my points have been made and backed up. Your turn.

From a biological point of view, quite possibly. Although I would raise the issue of identical genetics (identical twins), as they are not genetically distinct from one another. Does that mean that a pair of identical twins are just one person?

And while we're playing with genes, how about cancers? Cancerous cells have a different DNA than the... "host". (Is that the right term here?) Since they are individual on a genetic level from the "parent" organism, wouldn't that make them roughly equivalent to a fetus?

But even if these issues are resolved, I'd like to see why genetics should be considered the determining factor in what is or isn't an individual with a right to life.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

You're saying that since the literal definition isn't intended, the alternative definition must be "mankind". But there are other definitions available. Just looking at a dictionary, I see the words "individual" and "person" used several times. So that makes two alternative definitions: "Mankind" and "People".

Retards and other such disadvantaged humans who have roughly the same mental capabilities as an animal (the smarter animals, albeit), have rights, yet animals are not afforded the same rights as any human. Obviously, mankind was meant.

Quote:

From a biological point of view, quite possibly. Although I would raise the issue of identical genetics (identical twins), as they are not genetically distinct from one another. Does that mean that a pair of identical twins are just one person?

But Identical twins are different, just not at a genetic level.

Quote:

And while we're playing with genes, how about cancers? Cancerous cells have a different DNA than the... "host". (Is that the right term here?) Since they are individual on a genetic level from the "parent" organism, wouldn't that make them roughly equivalent to a fetus?

No. Cancers are not and never will be sentient. Also, they are not human (though they are derived from a human).

Quote:

But even if these issues are resolved, I'd like to see why genetics should be considered the determining factor in what is or isn't an individual with a right to life.

Because genetics is science and, as such, as one heck of a better claim to legality the philosophy or religion.  

[Sinner]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Sinner

You're saying that since the literal definition isn't intended, the alternative definition must be "mankind". But there are other definitions available. Just looking at a dictionary, I see the words "individual" and "person" used several times. So that makes two alternative definitions: "Mankind" and "People".

Retards and other such disadvantaged humans who have roughly the same mental capabilities as an animal (the smarter animals, albeit), have rights, yet animals are not afforded the same rights as any human. Obviously, mankind was meant.

Did I say that personhood was solely defined by intelligence? No? Alright then, now come up with a real reason for it to refer to humanity and not people.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Quote:

From a biological point of view, quite possibly. Although I would raise the issue of identical genetics (identical twins), as they are not genetically distinct from one another. Does that mean that a pair of identical twins are just one person?

But Identical twins are different, just not at a genetic level.

So how come people are created when they become genetically distinct, but people who aren't genetically distinct are still different people?

Cometh The Inquisitor

No. Cancers are not and never will be sentient. Also, they are not human (though they are derived from a human).

How, exactly, are they not human? They still have essentially human DNA, don't they? (It's entirely possible that they do not, since I know very little about cancer. But if they do, my point stands.)

Anyways, now you're saying that sentience is required. But a fetus isn't sentient (well... mostly). Please, explain.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Because genetics is science and, as such, as one heck of a better claim to legality the philosophy or religion.

Close, but you still haven't shown why it should apply. Plenty of things are science, but why are genetics the determining factor?  

[Tarrou]

Sinner

How, exactly, are they not human? They still have essentially human DNA, don't they? (It's entirely possible that they do not, since I know very little about cancer. But if they do, my point stands.)

Oh, they certainly do have human DNA (if they form in a human, of course); it's just that it happens to be mutated human DNA. It would seem that Cometh is falling back on the potentiality argument, though, so the question of whether or not cancers are 'human' is probably moot -- unless we discover a cancer that eventually manages to turn itself into a human, that is. My course of action would be to bring up the fact of spontaneous natural abortions, which proves that, regardless of 'potential', there's no guarantee that a given fertilized egg will ever become a human.  

[Sinner]

Tangled Up In Blue

Oh, they certainly do have human DNA (if they form in a human, of course); it's just that it happens to be mutated human DNA.

Okay, but it's still distinctly human, right? Like, if you had cancerous cells from a toad and a human, could you tell the difference?

It really doesn't matter for the purpose of the discussion, but now I'm curious about the nature of the mutation involved.  

[Tarrou]

Sinner

Okay, but it's still distinctly human, right? Like, if you had cancerous cells from a toad and a human, could you tell the difference?

It really doesn't matter for the purpose of the discussion, but now I'm curious about the nature of the mutation involved.

I believe that you could. I mean, for cancer to form, you need certain genes controlling cell replication to have mutated. But even though those genes have been altered, the rest of the DNA in the cancerous cells should be human (or toad-ish, depending on whose cancer we're looking at).

It's rather like any other genetic defect, really. I mean, the lungs of a person with cystic fibrosis, despite having a mutated protein, are still human lungs insomuch as the base DNA is human. Same goes for cancer cells; part of your body may be going bonkers, but it's still your body and not some alien organism.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

Did I say that personhood was solely defined by intelligence? No? Alright then, now come up with a real reason for it to refer to humanity and not people.

Because people is just stupid. No, really. There is no actual definition of a 'person' beyond something vaguely deserving of a description. Really now.

Quote:

So how come people are created when they become genetically distinct, but people who aren't genetically distinct are still different people?

There are two things that get you rights. Being human or sentience.

Quote:

How, exactly, are they not human? They still have essentially human DNA, don't they? (It's entirely possible that they do not, since I know very little about cancer. But if they do, my point stands.)

Anyways, now you're saying that sentience is required. But a fetus isn't sentient (well... mostly). Please, explain.

Ah, but cancer has mutated genes, not different genes, so it falls under the catagory of someone right to decide upon their own body.

Quote:

Close, but you still haven't shown why it should apply. Plenty of things are science, but why are genetics the determining factor?

Do you have a better alternative?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Quote:

My course of action would be to bring up the fact of spontaneous natural abortions, which proves that, regardless of 'potential', there's no guarantee that a given fertilized egg will ever become a human.

There is no garuntee that you will live to see two more days. Therefore, if I killed you now, then it would simply be alright?  

[Sinner]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Because people is just stupid. No, really. There is no actual definition of a 'person' beyond something vaguely deserving of a description. Really now.

That doesn't change anything. The lack of a proper definition means that we should come to a definition, not that we should discount it as a possibility.

Cometh The Inquisitor

There are two things that get you rights. Being human or sentience.

Why?

Cometh The Inquisitor

Ah, but cancer has mutated genes, not different genes, so it falls under the catagory of someone right to decide upon their own body.

What the hell are you talking about?

Cometh The Inquisitor

Do you have a better alternative?

Still irrelevant.

If your claims are backed up solely by "Well, what's your idea?" then you really ought to reconsider your stance.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

That doesn't change anything. The lack of a proper definition means that we should come to a definition, not that we should discount it as a possibility.

Well, conveniently, I did come up with a definition. You seem to have a problem to my definition, but have failed to come up with any solid counter-point/counter-definition (such as stating just why my definition is faulty, as opposed to questioning how I came to that conclusion).

Quote:

Why?

Because, they are the best way of determining eligibility for rights that we have currently.

Don't think so? Come up with a better way.

Quote:

What the hell are you talking about?

Well, feti have their own individual DNA, being that they have both maternal and paternal genes. Cancer simply has a mutated strain of the original host's DNA, thus, it is not an individual.

Quote:

Still irrelevant.

If your claims are backed up solely by "Well, what's your idea?" then you really ought to reconsider your stance.

Actually, the 'because it's the best thing we have' is a tried and true method of logic.