Pro-Life or Pro-Choice--HELP

by Quincy 123 Replies latest social relationships

funkyderek

reason, hands, legs, heart or lungs, a human without any or all of these is a person and an animal with any or all of these it's not a man without the DNA of a human.

I've tried and tried but I can't quite parse this "sentence". My best guess is that you're saying that having "the DNA of a human" is the ultimate determining factor in what makes someone a person with human rights. If so, what about something with over 98% of human DNA? As all humans (apart from identical twins) have different DNA, how do you define "the DNA of a human"?
Xander

shows a complete disregard for the sanctity of life
....
And not hide behind an argument of it being a clump of cells with no brain waves.
....
there for a require no proof of a sole from a person before I consider him/her alive
....
may or may not be or a sole that may or may not be it's about life and death that are.

Okay, then. Since having a 'soul' appears to be completely irrelevant to the issue for you two, you claim to only consider that if something is 'alive' that alone is enough to deserve protection...
I'm assuming you're both vegetarian?
Because the arguments you are presenting are just as easy to apply to any animal (not just humans). What DOES MAKE us different is our soul - our being self-aware.
That's IT.
And it doesn't even happen until nearly 30 weeks into a pregnancy, at best.
amac

Because the arguments you are presenting are just as easy to apply to any animal (not just humans). What DOES MAKE us different is our soul - our being self-aware.

I agree that what sets us apart from animals is being self-aware or conscious. But I do not equate conscious with a soul, however, I can see why someone would make that connection.
However, this is all besides my point. My point being that everyone acknowledges that a fetus is most likely going to be born into a human being that is conscious (or self-aware, or that has a soul.) To start the production of a life and then abort it out of inconvenience is morally wrong in my eyes. If other people have a different moral view on it, that is fine, but they shouldn't hide behind the old "it's not even a real human yet, it's just a blob" line. It doesn't matter how you look at it, it is LIFE that is being aborted. It can't survive on it's own, just like an infant can not, but it is LIFE nevertheless. Everything about the child is already in place, it is on its way to growing into a full fledged human. Aborting an unborn is still stoping a life that was trying to develop into a human "with a soul." Anyone who justifies differently is only rationalizing their decision.
And to throw a rebuttal to your 30 week theory, I do not believe consciousness is fully understood by the scientific community. It is possible that full consciousness is not achieved until well after the birth of the child. So being self-aware or fully conscious can not be used as a measuring stick of when someone earns their right to live.
willy_think

funkyderek
"the DNA of a human" is the ultimate determining factor in what makes someone a person with human rights
No, it's the courts that are the determining factor in what makes someone a person with human rights. What I meant is a life form with human DNA can be nothing other then a human, the condition or shape of the body is irrelevant.
As to how I define "the DNA of a human"? I didn't, but it has been defined.

Dander,
A live beaver has protection under the law, so does a cougar and even the bug mantis and yes people too have protection under the law, I never implied we should protect all life equally. I say we should protect all human life equally.
I don't know were you learned that "our being self-aware" "happens until nearly 30 weeks into a pregnancy, at best," it happens long after the baby is born.
If a sole is being self-aware we don't receive it until we stop disappearing when we cover our eyes playing peek-a-boo, maybe 2 years old.
You are starting to go over the edge.
funkyderek

No, it's the courts that are the determining factor in what makes someone a person with human rights.

So if the courts have decided abortion is OK, you agree?
I never implied we should protect all life equally. I say we should protect all human life equally.
And you define human life as anything having human DNA? Does a skin sample being kept alive in a petri dish after its host human is dead qualify? Is not, why not?
LucidSky

Interesting discussion all around. I think the arguments will eventually boil down to either sentiment or science. Both are valid, but from different viewpoints.
I agree that what sets us apart from animals is being self-aware or conscious
Without changing the topic too much, can someone explain this vague concept of "sentience" to me??? Ever since I had to re-evaluate my beliefs, I started wondering why humans happen to be classified as "special". Really, if it weren't for civilization, where would you be now? I also bring this up because people in general are generally only opposed to human murder. W e're just prejudiced specists, I guess.
Xander

My point being that everyone acknowledges that a fetus is most likely going to be born into a human being that is conscious (or self-aware, or that has a soul).

How can you base your entire argument on the premise that something cannot be done if it MIGHT result in human life?
I mean, does that mean male masturbation is wrong? Since sperm could, in the right circumstances, become a human?
It doesn't matter how you look at it, it is LIFE that is being aborted.
And that is why I asked about the vegetarian thing. I mean, if 'life' is all that is important. I don't think 'life' alone is. That something could or could not eventually become a human is irrelevant.
What matters in order for this to be a homicide is: is it a human NOW? And, it's not. At least until week 30 or so when we start seeing brainwaves you might deduce are human.
human life as anything having human DNA
I think that seems to be the assumption, and I believe it is wrong.
Having human DNA does not make you 'human'. Cancer cells have 'human DNA'. As your example - skin in a petri dish has 'human DNA'. A corpse has 'human DNA'. I could go on and on. DNA alone does not a 'human' make.
What DOES make a human is the 'soul,' or self-awareness (or ki or whatever else you want to call it).
----------------------------
Just a question to those 'pro-lifers' here. If a baby has a specific birth defect (Anencephaly) and is born with no brain, is it 'human'? (Not literally no brain - just no cerebral cortex). It has all the genetic code of a 'human'. Might even be technically alive. You could certainly put it on life support and extend it's life quite some time. Human?
By your definition of 'human' - you have to answer 'yes' and try to make it live. Doing otherwise is immoral, no?
amac

How can you base your entire argument on the premise that something cannot be done if it MIGHT result in human life?
I mean, does that mean male masturbation is wrong? Since sperm could, in the right circumstances, become a human?

I don't base my argument on something that might happen. I base my argument on when LIFE starts, not when consciousness starts. I believe once LIFE starts to grow, we should accept the responsibility of starting that process. We shouldn't mask the abortion of life as the abortion of some unliving blob of cells.
No, that does not make masturbation wrong because jerking off in the shower does not result in a unique DNA and human life. However, if for whatever reason masturbation does result in pregnancy, I believe the couple that allowed that to happen would be responsible for the LIFE that was developing.
That something could or could not eventually become a human is irrelevant.
That's funny, I see it as completely relevant. I always have had the tendency to value human life more than animal life. But that's just my personal opinion.
What matters in order for this to be a homicide is: is it a human NOW? And, it's not. At least until week 30 or so when we start seeing brainwaves you might deduce are human.
What else might you be expecting to come out of that belly? A dog? I think we can assume that most fetus are human fetus that are growing.
What DOES make a human is the 'soul,' or self-awareness (or ki or whatever else you want to call it).
How do you know that the Soul comes into existence in 30 weeks...for all we know about consciousness, it may not appear until well after child birth. In which case, infanticide would be justified.
If a baby has a specific birth defect (Anencephaly) and is born with no brain, is it 'human'? (Not literally no brain - just no cerebral cortex). It has all the genetic code of a 'human'. Might even be technically alive. You could certainly put it on life support and extend it's life quite some time. Human?
By your definition of 'human' - you have to answer 'yes' and try to make it live. Doing otherwise is immoral, no?
You are missing the biggest part of this scenario. Whoever has the burden of this decision is no doubt going to be asking themselves one MAJOR question. Does this Human Life have the possibility of ever developing into a full conscious human? If so, they will no doubt feel obliged to sustain it's life. If there is no chance, than they would have to make that decision, but personally, I would not feel morally obliged to prolong it's life. That would be the difference between your scenario and an aborted child.
willy_think

Funky,
So if the courts have decided abortion is OK, you agree?
No, I only agree that the court has the power to make the determination I don't agree with the decision, any more then I agreed with the decision to incarcerate all the Japanese Americans in the 40s.
And you define human life as anything having human DNA? Does a skin sample being kept alive in a petri dish after its host human is dead qualify? Is not, why not?
no skin sample in a dish would not qualify as human death any more then the skin you loose with a sun burn would, or even if a lost an arm or leg. but let us not say that skin in a dish can not die or is not alive. to kill part of a person is not considered killing under the law unless it leads to the breakdown of the bodies ability to feed it's curent cells and reproduce new living cells, which would not happen in the case you mentioned. I'm not saying that extraordinary measures need to be taken to protect all living human cells, only ordinary measures need to be taken to protect the human as a whole so he can keep producing cells.
If one lives he/she has not been killed, some times aborted babies live, let us not tell them it wasn't you that we tried to abort only a fetus. You magically appeared in the body later. sorry for all the damage kid. I just can't see it like that.
At the risk of being redundant here it is.
Things you can use DNA tests to find the truth about.
If there is a leg on the ground and you clam it is your leg and DNA tests show it is not your leg, I don't care what you say your lying the same holds true with any thing you clam as part of you.
DNA tests show a feuds is not a mutation of the mothers cells, like a cancer, but is a separate life form.
DNA tests can be used to determine the species of the sample. If the sample tested is human DNA, it cannot be something other then a human.
feuds questions answered by DNA tests:
is the feuds alive, yes
is it the mother, no
is it human, yes
amac

Couldn't find this thread under Active Forums for some reason...so bttt to test

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice--HELP

Share this