|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:16 pm
kp606 Nethilia To spark some new discussion: This article. Basic jist: It's been theorized and possibly determined that fetuses are unconcious until birth, much like a deep sleep with no dreams. Consciousness only comes after the act of birth, when the surge in oxygen almost literally shocks them awake. How do you think a study like this affects the abortion debate? Quite honestly it makes the pro-choice movement look a little worse. how?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 5:07 am
suupashiranui i wasnt trying to, i was simply taking a argument that i have heard many times before and placed a theory out on it. and how does it not effect humanity? it seemingly is just a vessle untill it is born (breathing on its own ect)
Not only that but there are many people in comas, I don't consider them any less human. I don't see why it wouldn't have an effect of humanity for one and not the other. And since there's really nothing to do with a woman's body in here the "because it's in her body" doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 2:47 pm
cactuar tamer Things can have human DNA and not be human. Sorry for bringing something up from farther back, but pretty much everything else in this little series of posts was based on what appeared to be a personal argument between Cactuar and Free. This has always bothered me: What, besides a human fetus, has human DNA and yet is considered inhuman by any large group of people? *CoughsincetheNazi'sviewofJewscough* Honestly, I'm sorry, but... Prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:10 pm
I.Am cactuar tamer Things can have human DNA and not be human. Sorry for bringing something up from farther back, but pretty much everything else in this little series of posts was based on what appeared to be a personal argument between Cactuar and Free. This has always bothered me: What, besides a human fetus, has human DNA and yet is considered inhuman by any large group of people? *CoughsincetheNazi'sviewofJewscough* Honestly, I'm sorry, but... Prove me wrong.Cancer. Molar pregnancies. Dead People. Cheek cells. Sperm. Eggs. blood. Oh, and BTW, the Jews weren't considered inhuman. They were considered a pest in the human race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:13 pm
Nethilia I.Am cactuar tamer Things can have human DNA and not be human. Sorry for bringing something up from farther back, but pretty much everything else in this little series of posts was based on what appeared to be a personal argument between Cactuar and Free. This has always bothered me: What, besides a human fetus, has human DNA and yet is considered inhuman by any large group of people? *CoughsincetheNazi'sviewofJewscough* Honestly, I'm sorry, but... Prove me wrong.Cancer. Molar pregnancies. Dead People. Cheek cells. Sperm. Eggs. blood. Oh, and BTW, the Jews weren't considered inhuman. They were considered a pest in the human race. Their's documentions of people calling them unhumans all the time... and people call fetii "pestilence" as well. All the time. EDIT: Proof from a hard source, a book. "Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human" Adolf Hitler, 1923 "Someday, Europe will perish of the Jewish Disease" Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister, 1939
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:39 pm
Nethilia I.Am cactuar tamer Things can have human DNA and not be human. Sorry for bringing something up from farther back, but pretty much everything else in this little series of posts was based on what appeared to be a personal argument between Cactuar and Free. This has always bothered me: What, besides a human fetus, has human DNA and yet is considered inhuman by any large group of people? *CoughsincetheNazi'sviewofJewscough* Honestly, I'm sorry, but... Prove me wrong.Cancer. Molar pregnancies. Dead People. Cheek cells. Sperm. Eggs. blood. Oh, and BTW, the Jews weren't considered inhuman. They were considered a pest in the human race. Cancer does not have a unique DNA, so it is part of the human it is in. Molar pregnancies.. I don't believe I've heard of those before..? Dead people are human just dead, cheek cells/sperm/eggs/blood: See cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:43 pm
You are most certainly welcome my dearest I.Am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 7:42 pm
I.Am Nethilia I.Am cactuar tamer Things can have human DNA and not be human. Sorry for bringing something up from farther back, but pretty much everything else in this little series of posts was based on what appeared to be a personal argument between Cactuar and Free. This has always bothered me: What, besides a human fetus, has human DNA and yet is considered inhuman by any large group of people? *CoughsincetheNazi'sviewofJewscough* Honestly, I'm sorry, but... Prove me wrong.Cancer. Molar pregnancies. Dead People. Cheek cells. Sperm. Eggs. blood. Oh, and BTW, the Jews weren't considered inhuman. They were considered a pest in the human race. Cancer does not have a unique DNA, so it is part of the human it is in. Molar pregnancies.. I don't believe I've heard of those before..? Dead people are human just dead, cheek cells/sperm/eggs/blood: See cancer. Even If I were to somehow be carrying a viable clone of myself, I assume you'd still think the fetus human, and not a part of me. My answer to your question lies in the part you didn't quote. DNA and the other things on the list. I don't think "Humanity" is based on that. I don't think status as a human being should be casually dealt out on those basis. If a fetus managed to grow and be born *completely* braindead, I mean permanant vegetable, I would not think it could really be called human. I've really been thinking about this a lot lately. Perhaps I'm not finished formulating my view yet, but I honestly don't think biological existance is the only qualification for humanity. Thank you, God, for people to debate with who aren't trolls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 7:55 pm
I.Am Nethilia I.Am cactuar tamer Things can have human DNA and not be human. Sorry for bringing something up from farther back, but pretty much everything else in this little series of posts was based on what appeared to be a personal argument between Cactuar and Free. This has always bothered me: What, besides a human fetus, has human DNA and yet is considered inhuman by any large group of people? *CoughsincetheNazi'sviewofJewscough* Honestly, I'm sorry, but... Prove me wrong.Cancer. Molar pregnancies. Dead People. Cheek cells. Sperm. Eggs. blood. Oh, and BTW, the Jews weren't considered inhuman. They were considered a pest in the human race. Cancer does not have a unique DNA, so it is part of the human it is in. Molar pregnancies.. I don't believe I've heard of those before..? Dead people are human just dead, cheek cells/sperm/eggs/blood: See cancer.
However you didn't ask whether anything else had unique human DNA. You asked whether anything with human DNA was considered inhuman by any large group of people. Nethilia answered your question. Please don't try to change the question after it's been answered.
Cancer is created by the host. It has the same DNA, yet it is considered inhuman because it latches on to the body, sapping it's strength and eventually killing it. The same happens with a lot of pregnancies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 9:18 pm
MipsyKitten
However you didn't ask whether anything else had unique human DNA. You asked whether anything with human DNA was considered inhuman by any large group of people. Nethilia answered your question. Please don't try to change the question after it's been answered.
Cancer is created by the host. It has the same DNA, yet it is considered inhuman because it latches on to the body, sapping it's strength and eventually killing it. The same happens with a lot of pregnancies.I'm pretty certain Nethilia knows that the real argument from the Pro-Life side is "unique human DNA", I just assumed that she had not put in the unique part for whatever reason. She may correct me if I'm wrong. ...There are a lot of pregnancies with the same DNA as the mother? That's news to me. I haven't even heard that there is a very large percentage of normal, unique-DNA type pregnancies wherein the fetus saps the mother to death. And I don't believe I've ever heard the term "inhuman" used about cancer, except in the same way it's used about body parts; It's not the whole human. Yes, cancer is a bad thing. However, it is part of the body even so. It's just a part of the body that has, sadly, started growing uncontrollably. However, the point is, it's not considered inhuman because it has latched to the body. For one thing, it's grown from the body, not latched to the body. For another thing, it's considered inhuman because it is only one part of the whole. A human who is completely covered in cancerous growth would still be called a human, even though the cancer has taken over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 9:54 pm
cactuar tamer Even If I were to somehow be carrying a viable clone of myself, I assume you'd still think the fetus human, and not a part of me. [/qoute]Oi. Clones are a whole 'nother issue. But, if it ever did happen, yes I would have to say it's a human. In that case, I can't be sure how I would argue. Personally, I hope it never becomes an issue; There's something sick about wanting to have yourself for a child. Hmm... Would it then be considered suicide to kill your full grown clone? Quote: My answer to your question lies in the part you didn't quote. DNA and the other things on the list. I don't think "Humanity" is based on that. I don't think status as a human being should be casually dealt out on those basis. If a fetus managed to grow and be born *completely* braindead, I mean permanant vegetable, I would not think it could really be called human. The problem is, we are talking about -all- abortions here, not just the ones wherein there are problems with the fetus. That's why I singled out the "human DNA" part; All the other things it is possible to have and not be human. Extremely common, in fact. But I have never heard a good reason why something that has unique human DNA is not human. Anyways, back to the problemed-fetus. As is brought up quite often, is a handicapped person not human? If a fetus were born paralyzed, would the newborn not be human? Were all those babies that die soon after birth never really human? Would you be willing to tell that to the face of a parent who's gone through that? Quote: I've really been thinking about this a lot lately. Perhaps I'm not finished formulating my view yet, but I honestly don't think biological existance is the only qualification for humanity. Thank you, God, for people to debate with who aren't trolls.Of course biological existance isn't. However, we have yet to pinpoint and prove when/if the soul exists, and until then, the physical is all we can measure. Heh, thanks...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:27 pm
I.Am There's something sick about wanting to have yourself for a child. The egomaniac's dream child... yup. it's pretty twisted. Quote: Quote: My answer to your question lies in the part you didn't quote. DNA and the other things on the list. I don't think "Humanity" is based on that. I don't think status as a human being should be casually dealt out on those basis. If a fetus managed to grow and be born *completely* braindead, I mean permanant vegetable, I would not think it could really be called human. The problem is, we are talking about -all- abortions here, not just the ones wherein there are problems with the fetus. That's why I singled out the "human DNA" part; All the other things it is possible to have and not be human. Extremely common, in fact. But I have never heard a good reason why something that has unique human DNA is not human. Anyways, back to the problemed-fetus. As is brought up quite often, is a handicapped person not human? If a fetus were born paralyzed, would the newborn not be human? Were all those babies that die soon after birth never really human? Would you be willing to tell that to the face of a parent who's gone through that? Certainly not, I would not say anything like that. All of the things you mentioned would certianly qualify for "human" in my mind. Physical disablitiy, stillbirth or infant death of an otherwise viable fetus, and even retardation do not effect "humanity" in my opinion. Maybe I'm being too vague, but I chose the specific example of "*completely* braindead, permanant vegetable" deliberately. I also believe that after a certain point, it becomes morally wrong to abort a fetus except for self-preservation. After all, it's silly to argure that some magical transformation happens to make the fetus a person as it passes through the birth canal in my opinion. I don't believe in souls, but this is a pretty hard question to answer at any rate. A large part of my idea of humanity concerns "self." In corrolation to my worldview, death is not the death of the physical but the death of the self. It is the latter that we fear, and try to prevent. Murder is the act of extinguishing someone's "self" If it were hypothetically possible to synthetically create human "blanks", perfect humans in every way except completely "blank" , would it be murder to kill one? I don't really think so. Murder is the act of and deliberatley crushing another distinctive "self" out of the world. It's not just a loss of a person, it's a loss of everything that they were. Self cannot be quantified, once again, but it is a powerful thing to me. Quote: Quote: I've really been thinking about this a lot lately. Perhaps I'm not finished formulating my view yet, but I honestly don't think biological existance is the only qualification for humanity. Thank you, God, for people to debate with who aren't trolls.Of course biological existance isn't. However, we have yet to pinpoint and prove when/if the soul exists, and until then, the physical is all we can measure. Heh, thanks...I agree. we have to work with what evidence about the physical we have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:53 pm
cactuar tamer Certainly not, I would not say anything like that. All of the things you mentioned would certianly qualify for "human" in my mind. Physical disablitiy, stillbirth or infant death of an otherwise viable fetus, and even retardation do not effect "humanity" in my opinion. Maybe I'm being too vague, but I chose the specific example of "*completely* braindead, permanant vegetable" deliberately. I also believe that after a certain point, it becomes morally wrong to abort a fetus except for self-preservation. After all, it's silly to argure that some magical transformation happens to make the fetus a person as it passes through the birth canal in my opinion. I don't believe in souls, but this is a pretty hard question to answer at any rate. A large part of my idea of humanity concerns "self." In corrolation to my worldview, death is not the death of the physical but the death of the self. It is the latter that we fear, and try to prevent. Murder is the act of extinguishing someone's "self" If it were hypothetically possible to synthetically create human "blanks", perfect humans in every way except completely "blank" , would it be murder to kill one? I don't really think so. Murder is the act of and deliberatley crushing another distinctive "self" out of the world. It's not just a loss of a person, it's a loss of everything that they were. Self cannot be quantified, once again, but it is a powerful thing to me. I like that way of thinking. Very deep, and it rings true to me. However, the reason I would argue for the illegality of abortion on that case; How can we tell? Who knows when? My belief is that it is at conception; Just as soon as the sperm takes root in the egg, the soul, or "self", enters into it. The "self" might even just be at a fetal stage itself, but it is there. And if it's not there, I prefer to err on the side of caution. Better for the women who want abortions to have to deal then to take the chance of snuffing that "self". If we could be sure that it is a "blank" person, then no it really wouldn't be murder. In the case that we know, without a possibility of a doubt, that it is a "blank" I would say it should be legal, but I'd think of it as a rather tasteless thing to do, if you have no really good reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 7:08 am
toxic_lollipop suupashiranui i wasnt trying to, i was simply taking a argument that i have heard many times before and placed a theory out on it. and how does it not effect humanity? it seemingly is just a vessle untill it is born (breathing on its own ect)
Not only that but there are many people in comas, I don't consider them any less human. I don't see why it wouldn't have an effect of humanity for one and not the other. And since there's really nothing to do with a woman's body in here the "because it's in her body" doesn't work.i am not here to gang up on anyone,nor am i here to argue about religion. i dont want to start anything with anyone that is going to end up with one or the other screaming. it was a theory i thought up. nothing more. my apologies if it offends you for that is not my intent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Visadi]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/e3/0b/5d21bcda1b0be3_flip.png?t=1194055185_6.00_00)
