Well what do you expect, ignorance is wonderful Christian tradition. As long as you do not talk about it, it is not a problem. The Dark Ages taught us that ig'nance doesn't help anyone, but who actually learns from history. In the hallowed halls of my high school sex ed consisted of "Do not do it!!" I might add that one day two students were caught making hot monkey love in the computer lab. Yup that education worked soooo well.
You know that the Monastic orders were largely responsible for preserving the learning of the Roman and Greek civilizations and keeping literacy and science alive in Europe throughout the middles ages, right? That it's no coincidence that the Renaissance began in Italy and around Rome?
The Church has a far from perfect track record, but it doesn't deserve anything like the scorn and slander heaped on it by people who would jump out of their skins if you tried to say something a fraction as dismissive or insulting about fundamentalist Islam.
RE, Doubtless One: It might actually be in your interest to read the thread before posting.
RE, Doubtless One: It might actually be in your interest to read the thread before posting.
I am a aware it is off the subject currently at hand but noone has successfully answered my question on this thread or the other gigantic abortion thread I started a while back.
It seem as though you are discrediting a fetus's humanity without saying what it is. Everyone says what it is not and only a few say what it is.
It seem as though you are discrediting a fetus's humanity without saying what it is. Everyone says what it is not and only a few say what it is.
"A fetus is not a human"
Then I ask.
"What is a fetus?"
How insightful... sounding. But you might as well ask that question in response to my assertion that a fetus is not a Chicken McNugget.
A fetus, like most entities in this world, is a lot of things: a collection of atoms, a growing multicellular mass, a body warmer than 30 degrees Celsius, blind, partially mobile... the most straightforward answer to "What is a fetus?" is "A fetus."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I am a aware it is off the subject currently at hand but noone has successfully answered my question on this thread or the other gigantic abortion thread I started a while back.
It seem as though you are discrediting a fetus's humanity without saying what it is. Everyone says what it is not and only a few say what it is.
"A fetus is not a human"
Then I ask.
"What is a fetus?"
Well, others have already covered the general gist of the types of answers you might expect to this question. Another reason for you to read this thread might be that then you would be aware that I already made the same argument, although if I may say so, much more eloquently, and that I, personally, had already said that a fetus should be considered as a human being, and therefore your accusing me of anything of the like is a bit silly.
I am a aware it is off the subject currently at hand but noone has successfully answered my question on this thread or the other gigantic abortion thread I started a while back.
It seem as though you are discrediting a fetus's humanity without saying what it is. Everyone says what it is not and only a few say what it is.
"A fetus is not a human"
Then I ask.
"What is a fetus?"
As has been said time and memorial, it is a living being that while it contains the genetic makeup of a human being has nowhere near matured to actually being one (the metaphor I always return to on the issue, a gun. A block of metal has all of what a gun will be inside of it [if it's big enough], but needs to be carved and molded to actually become one by taking on characteristics)
In other words, it is a human being, just not a mature human being. With no other animal, for non-political reasons, would you ever say that a very young monkey, for instance, is not a monkey until it is accepted in the monkey culture. Nor, by your argument, would the mentally retarded and insane actually be considered human beings.
In other words, it is a human being, just not a mature human being. With no other animal, for non-political reasons, would you ever say that a very young monkey, for instance, is not a monkey until it is accepted in the monkey culture. Nor, by your argument, would the mentally retarded and insane actually be considered human beings.
I hope to Christ you're being willfully obtuse here. Look up the word "mature" and see if you can figure out what he actually meant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Founding member of Team Kris Kross. Would you like to join?
I'm well aware of what he meant, but he's attempting to redefine what we mean by a human being. A unique, functioning organism with the DNA of any animal must be said to be that animal, the state of it's maturation completely aside. Thus saying that a fetus is not a human is completely inaccurate; at best you can say it is an undeveloped human.
Life (organically) begins at conception. That said, what is morally not objectionable will vary depending on the sentience of the organism that you kill. No one goes to court for stomping on a bug. You might get fined for killing some random wild animal. Killing endangered species and sentient humans is a pretty high crime. While I personally find abortion to be abominable, I understand that people are not obligated to follow my belief system, and that is what keeps the U.S. from socially collapsing. Your choice for or against abortion should stem from your beliefs as to how you should act, not to how others should act (in the realm of the Earth).
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
Life (organically) begins at conception. That said, what is morally not objectionable will vary depending on the sentience of the organism that you kill. No one goes to court for stomping on a bug. You might get fined for killing some random wild animal. Killing endangered species and sentient humans is a pretty high crime. While I personally find abortion to be abominable, I understand that people are not obligated to follow my belief system, and that is what keeps the U.S. from socially collapsing. Your choice for or against abortion should stem from your beliefs as to how you should act, not to how others should act (in the realm of the Earth).
Sentience is mystical and impractical. That's not what the social morality is based on. It's based on whether the human has worth. Before birth, according to the law, only the mother is capable of imputing worth upon the child. If she fails to do so, the child is socially worthless.
I might as well say that SCOTUS is going to hear the arguments for and against partial-birth abortion sometime soon. Remember that the only reason that it wasn't banned in 2003 was because of Justice O'Connor, and in her place now is Samuel ****ing Alito, who is in Bush's pocket. We're gonna see the beginning of the end of abortion here.
Life (organically) begins at conception. That said, what is morally not objectionable will vary depending on the sentience of the organism that you kill. No one goes to court for stomping on a bug. You might get fined for killing some random wild animal. Killing endangered species and sentient humans is a pretty high crime. While I personally find abortion to be abominable, I understand that people are not obligated to follow my belief system, and that is what keeps the U.S. from socially collapsing. Your choice for or against abortion should stem from your beliefs as to how you should act, not to how others should act (in the realm of the Earth).
Even if sentience was the only relevant factor here, look at it this way -
If something is not sentient yet, but it is becoming sentient this very moment, and you purposefully stop it from becoming sentient, then it shares consequential weight with ending the sentience of an already sentient being. You are still denying a living thing its chance at life, when if you didn't do that, it would have had that chance.
A fetus is part of a larger life cycle. It's not like a bug or an amoeba or something. Those things cannot and will not grow to become something more. A zygote is currently in the process of becoming an independent human being (and a gamete is not, for clarification). To end that process is functionally the same as if you ended a person's life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Even if sentience was the only relevant factor here, look at it this way -
If something is not sentient yet, but it is becoming sentient this very moment, and you purposefully stop it from becoming sentient, then it shares consequential weight with ending the sentience of an already sentient being. You are still denying a living thing its chance at life, when if you didn't do that, it would have had that chance.
A fetus is part of a larger life cycle. It's not like a bug or an amoeba or something. Those things cannot and will not grow to become something more. A zygote is currently in the process of becoming an independent human being (and a gamete is not, for clarification). To end that process is functionally the same as if you ended a person's life.
Even if that claim were above controversy in itself, there are a lot of things that functionally do bad things that aren't illegal, and some would say aren't immoral either. Eating chocolate, for example, is functionally the same as supporting forced child labour for pennies a day. Selling someone cigarettes is functionally the same as shortening their life span. I guess once you get to that, then its functionally the same as ending their life too- just less immediately so.
How insightful... sounding. But you might as well ask that question in response to my assertion that a fetus is not a Chicken McNugget.
A fetus, like most entities in this world, is a lot of things: a collection of atoms, a growing multicellular mass, a body warmer than 30 degrees Celsius, blind, partially mobile... the most straightforward answer to "What is a fetus?" is "A fetus."
Here's my problem with this statement.... It seems you agree that it is alive, and (tell me if I am wrong) that it is an organism. If it is a living organism, and it isn't a human, then of what species (sp?) is it?
Quote from Stax »
The metaphor I always return to on the issue, a gun. A block of metal has all of what a gun will be inside of it [if it's big enough], but needs to be carved and molded to actually become one by taking on characteristics
Yet for some reason you've never responded to my response to that analogy...
In the previous thread, we discussed this topic ad nauseum, or however, it's spelled. Let me just try to tell you why I think your analogy does not work, which I myself have done quite a few number times....
Your analogy uses comparisons to the relevant discussion in such a manner that would obviously "prove" your position. No, a block of steel is not a gun, the same way that a sperm cell is not a human being. All of the materials in a gun mixed into a bowl is not a gun, the same way that a sperm cell and an egg cell sitting next to each other, but not combined, are not a human being. But when you take the sperm cell and have it penetrate the egg cell, mix their respective haploids, generate an entirely new set of DNA, and "fertilize" the egg, the fertilized egg is now indeed a human.
Think of fertilization as a special way to combine the components of a human (or a gun) in order to create a human (or gun).
And also, to say that the egg is not alive is scientifically and biologically incorrect. The discussion is about whether or not the zygote is a human, not alive.
As has been said time and memorial, it is a living being that while it contains the genetic makeup of a human being has nowhere near matured to actually being one.
You know, Stax, this is what really irritates me about your arguements. Just because you have said your opinion in this thread, doesn't mean it's validated. Neither of us has invalidated the other's stance, yet for some reason you talk about your opinion as though it is the word of God. Maybe instead of talking about your opinion as though it is fact, you should simply present your take on the matter and not refer to it as though everyone have come to a consensus on the issue. Please, get of your high horse.
Legally speaking, a fetus is not a human being until the 23rd week of development, because that's the point where the brain and central nervous systems rapidly begin to develop. Until then, aborting a fetus is not murder.
Even if that claim were above controversy in itself, there are a lot of things that functionally do bad things that aren't illegal, and some would say aren't immoral either. Eating chocolate, for example, is functionally the same as supporting forced child labour for pennies a day. Selling someone cigarettes is functionally the same as shortening their life span. I guess once you get to that, then its functionally the same as ending their life too- just less immediately so.
Your comparisons aren't accurate. Ending a being's life cycle is essentially exactly the same as ending it's life, even if it's not "awake" yet. Eating foods produced by immoral means is not the same as enforcing those means or taking them up yourself, especially since there are a lot of different elements influencing both circumstances. And I might argue tat selling tobacco is immoral, but it's beside the point, since the difference between giving someone a posionous substance and physically kill that perosn is much larger than the difference between ending someone's life cycle before or after they are "a person."
Here's an example by analogy. Let us say that it is very important for us all to eat Chinese food - we consider eating Chinese food a right, and anything which unnecessarily denies someone their Chinese food is undesirable.
Let's say, then, that if someone is eating Chinese food, taking that food away from them is immoral. We'll pretend there are laws against taking Chinese food away from people. Now, let's say we then have a situation in which someone has just ordered some Chinese food, but not received it yet. Then, someone does something to cancel that person's order, and he never receives the food.
Someone could argue "well, they weren't actually taking anything away from the person, they were just stopping them from getting it. They didn't actually have any Chinese food yet, so nothing was taken away, so it wasn't immoral." But that's nothing more than wriggling and excuses, since stopping someone from getting their food is consequentially equivalent to taking away food that is already there if we consider it important for people to be allowed their Chinese food.
The reason we would be against taking away peoples' food is because we consider it important for them to be allowed to have it, and so we should be against preventing people from getting their food for the same reason.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Your comparisons aren't accurate. Ending a being's life cycle is essentially exactly the same as ending it's life, even if it's not "awake" yet. Eating foods produced by immoral means is not the same as enforcing those means or taking them up yourself, especially since there are a lot of different elements influencing both circumstances. And I might argue tat selling tobacco is immoral, but it's beside the point, since the difference between giving someone a posionous substance and physically kill that perosn is much larger than the difference between ending someone's life cycle before or after they are "a person."
Also, an analogy
You're assuming people WANT this chinese food, which if you bring it back to the main issue of abortions, they obviously don't. Your analogy is flawed.
Here's an example by analogy. Let us say that it is very important for us all to eat Chinese food - we consider eating Chinese food a right, and anything which unnecessarily denies someone their Chinese food is undesirable.
This premise seems to beg the question, which is whether denying someone their right to life (Chinese food) before they have life is undesirable.
You're assuming people WANT this chinese food, which if you bring it back to the main issue of abortions, they obviously don't. Your analogy is flawed.
Um, no . . . your understanding of my analogy is flawed.
I'm starting to think that using an analogy is never a good idea on MTGS, since someone always jumps to misinterpret them.
In this analogy, the closest analog to "Chinese food" is life, not a baby. What in the world would make you think I was trying to make such a connection.
Look, when it comes to morality, we have certain things we value (we think they're important). Generally, if an action threatens those important things, we would think that action immoral. I'm saying if we value having Chinese food, then simply taking away Chinese food isn't the only thing we'd be against, but anything which denies people their Chinese food.
I don't see why you'd think I was comparing Chinese food to babies, unless you are trying to argue that fetuses obviously don't want to live.
Quote from Azerbaijan »
This premise seems to beg the question, which is whether denying someone their right to life (Chinese food) before they have life is undesirable.
What? How? If we think people need Chinese food, then why wouldn't we want people to have it if they are already in the process of receiving it?
I think you rather miss the point. It's not about ownership or justification, it's about what we think is important, and what we do to protect important things. If someone has already ordered their food, and they will receive it, and you prevent them from receiving it, you still denied someone their food, regardless of whether or not they already physically owned it.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Um, no . . . your understanding of my analogy is flawed.
I'm starting to think that using an analogy is never a good idea on MTGS, since someone always jumps to misinterpret them.
In this analogy, the closest analog to "Chinese food" is life, not a baby. What in the world would make you think I was trying to make such a connection.
Look, when it comes to morality, we have certain things we value (we think they're important). Generally, if an action threatens those important things, we would think that action immoral. I'm saying if we value having Chinese food, then simply taking away Chinese food isn't the only thing we'd be against, but anything which denies people their Chinese food.
I don't see why you'd think I was comparing Chinese food to babies, unless you are trying to argue that fetuses obviously don't want to live.
Well, a good analogy is simple and short. You'd be better off just describing the situation. I'm not arguing that a fetus doesn't want to live. I'm arguing that fetuses are not human beings(again, until week 23) and as such, killing them is not murder. I'm also not very fond of putting morality into law, because that's the sort of thing America was founded to avoid.
Quote from mamelon »
What? How? If we think people need Chinese food, then why wouldn't we want people to have it if they are already in the process of receiving it?
I think you rather miss the point. It's not about ownership or justification, it's about what we think is important, and what we do to protect important things. If someone has already ordered their food, and they will receive it, and you prevent them from receiving it, you still denied someone their food, regardless of whether or not they already physically owned it.
You're taking it as a given that a fetus is a human being. This is not a given, this is the issue at hand, so please start addressing it.
Well, a good analogy is simple and short. You'd be better off just describing the situation. I'm not arguing that a fetus doesn't want to live. I'm arguing that fetuses are not human beings(again, until week 23) and as such, killing them is not murder. I'm also not very fond of putting morality into law, because that's the sort of thing America was founded to avoid.
My analogy is simple. If we value people having Chinese food, then only taking issue with taking away Chinese food people already have is not practical. It's like saying it's not unkind to deny sick people medical care so long as they never had it to begin with, or it's okay to oppress poor people financially so long as they were never rich before. It's disingenuous.
Secondly, your argument did not refute mine. I am saying that the argument "a fetus is not yet a human being" is not sufficient, because a fetus is inarguably a part of the human life cycle, and severing a human life cycle is undesirable if we think it's important for people to be allowed to live (which we do), regardless of at which point the severance takes place.
And lastly, America does not try to prevent morality from figuring into legality, especially since that is impossible. American government does not wish to involve religion with law, which is not at all the same as trying to prevent morality from being involved with law.
Quote from Phoenix Wright »
You're taking it as a given that a fetus is a human being. This is not a given, this is the issue at hand, so please start addressing it.
No, I am not. Drop this "not yet a human being" stuff. I don't care whether or not a fetus is technically a human being. I'm saying that if something is becoming a human being, and you willfully prevent it, it has the same weight as if you stopped someone's life.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
My analogy is simple. If we value people having Chinese food, then only taking issue with taking away Chinese food people already have is not practical. It's like saying it's not unkind to deny sick people medical care so long as they never had it to begin with, or it's okay to oppress poor people financially so long as they were never rich before. It's disingenuous.
No, it isn't. The difference between the poor and rich is not the same as the difference between a developed human being and a fetus. I mean no offense by this, but your replacing of the word life with chinese food makes my head hurt and I want to make sure of something: by equating Chinese food to life, does your analogy acknowledge that a fetus is not a human life? I'm not sure if it does and I'd like you to clarify this.
And lastly, America does not try to prevent morality from figuring into legality, especially since that is impossible. American government does not wish to involve religion with law, which is not at all the same as trying to prevent morality from being involved with law.
But morality is subjective, so my point remains unchanged.
Secondly, your argument did not refute mine. I am saying that the argument "a fetus is not yet a human being" is not sufficient, because a fetus is inarguably a part of the human life cycle, and severing a human life cycle is undesirable if we think it's important for people to be allowed to live (which we do), regardless of at which point the severance takes place.
So, I am not. Drop this "not yet a human being" stuff. I don't care whether or not a fetus is technically a human being. I'm saying that if something is becoming a human being, and you willfully prevent it, it has the same weight as if you stopped someone's life.
That logic is flawed. The chances of a fetus fully developing aren't anywhere near 100%. For all we know, it could corrupt and die, or a million other things could happen to it in the womb. So it's not the same as killing someone who is undeniably alive, nor should it carry an equal punishment.
Drop this "not yet a human being" stuff. I don't care whether or not a fetus is technically a human being. I'm saying that if something is becoming a human being, and you willfully prevent it, it has the same weight as if you stopped someone's life.
This is an assumption which underlies your analogy, right? Or is this an assertion which your analogy is meant to prove?
No, it isn't. The difference between the poor and rich is not the same as the difference between a developed human being and a fetus. I mean no offense by this, but your replacing of the word life with chinese food makes my head hurt and I want to make sure of something: by equating Chinese food to life, does your analogy acknowledge that a fetus is not a human life? I'm not sure if it does and I'd like you to clarify this.
Forget about the analogy, then, for goodness' sakes. Analogies never match up pefectly to things to which they are being compared. If you feel my analogy is a "bad" analogy, then just eschew it, and I'll be more direct. The entire point was to show a similar relationship between "have-have not" as is present with this "does a fetus have humanity?" discussion. I'm trying to show how the presence of humanity in a fetus doesn't matter by using less loaded and emotionally clouded terms like "Chinese food." If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, and I"ll try it a different way.
If something doesn't have "humanity" yet, but it's getting it, then making sure that it doesn't get it is still denying it's humanity. It doesn't matter whether or not it has it yet.
It seems to me that your argument is founded on the idea that it's not necessarily immoral to harm, kill, or otherwise hinder something so long as it's not a human. But you have to think about why we would value humans.
I'll ask you this: why should we care about humans? Why should we have laws protecting human safety? Why humans, and not other things?
Quote from Phoenix Wright »
But morality is subjective, so my point remains unchanged.
That doesn't mean quite what I think you think it does. Morality can be subjective or objective, that's true, but goverment is not amoral. If we can agree that we like life and humankind, and we want to protect them, then that's our morality. Our government seems to think similarly - we have laws that serve a certain purpose (i.e. social order, human rights, so on), and the reasons behind those laws would be moral. That's what morality is. It doesn't matter if it's subjective, intersubjective, or objective - if the majority of us agree to value a certain thing (which would be a moral value), then insofar as we agree, that moral value is definitely a part of our social order and something we should consider.
It's arguable as to which kinds if morality varying governments heed or use - but they do use some kind of morality.
I think you may be using a much more specific definition of morality than I am.
Quote from Phoenix Wright »
That logic is flawed. The chances of a fetus fully developing aren't anywhere near 100%. For all we know, it could corrupt and die, or a million other things could happen to it in the womb. So it's not the same as killing someone who is undeniably alive, nor should it carry an equal punishment.
It really doesn't matter whether the chance of it "becoming a human" is 100%. It's a natural part of a fetus' growth to become an infant. It's true that disease, accident, or other causes could interfere with that natural growth, but that doesn't justify ending it's development. That'd be kind of like saying killing an adult is justified because "there's no guarantee that the victim would have survived the day, anyway. They could have bee hit by a car, or something."
Quote from Azerbaijan »
This is an assumption which underlies your analogy, right? Or is this an assertion which your analogy is meant to prove?
The analogy was meant to show the same relationship of "has already vs. doesn't have yet but is getting" as is being shown in the case of humanity in a fetus. The analogy is meant to demonstrate how being in the "doesn't have yet but is getting" status doesn't change matters much.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
You know that the Monastic orders were largely responsible for preserving the learning of the Roman and Greek civilizations and keeping literacy and science alive in Europe throughout the middles ages, right? That it's no coincidence that the Renaissance began in Italy and around Rome?
The Church has a far from perfect track record, but it doesn't deserve anything like the scorn and slander heaped on it by people who would jump out of their skins if you tried to say something a fraction as dismissive or insulting about fundamentalist Islam.
RE, Doubtless One: It might actually be in your interest to read the thread before posting.
I am a aware it is off the subject currently at hand but noone has successfully answered my question on this thread or the other gigantic abortion thread I started a while back.
It seem as though you are discrediting a fetus's humanity without saying what it is. Everyone says what it is not and only a few say what it is.
"A fetus is not a human"
Then I ask.
"What is a fetus?"
How insightful... sounding. But you might as well ask that question in response to my assertion that a fetus is not a Chicken McNugget.
A fetus, like most entities in this world, is a lot of things: a collection of atoms, a growing multicellular mass, a body warmer than 30 degrees Celsius, blind, partially mobile... the most straightforward answer to "What is a fetus?" is "A fetus."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Social value might not be imputed upon it yet.
Well, others have already covered the general gist of the types of answers you might expect to this question. Another reason for you to read this thread might be that then you would be aware that I already made the same argument, although if I may say so, much more eloquently, and that I, personally, had already said that a fetus should be considered as a human being, and therefore your accusing me of anything of the like is a bit silly.
As has been said time and memorial, it is a living being that while it contains the genetic makeup of a human being has nowhere near matured to actually being one (the metaphor I always return to on the issue, a gun. A block of metal has all of what a gun will be inside of it [if it's big enough], but needs to be carved and molded to actually become one by taking on characteristics)
I hope to Christ you're being willfully obtuse here. Look up the word "mature" and see if you can figure out what he actually meant.
Sentience is mystical and impractical. That's not what the social morality is based on. It's based on whether the human has worth. Before birth, according to the law, only the mother is capable of imputing worth upon the child. If she fails to do so, the child is socially worthless.
Even if sentience was the only relevant factor here, look at it this way -
If something is not sentient yet, but it is becoming sentient this very moment, and you purposefully stop it from becoming sentient, then it shares consequential weight with ending the sentience of an already sentient being. You are still denying a living thing its chance at life, when if you didn't do that, it would have had that chance.
A fetus is part of a larger life cycle. It's not like a bug or an amoeba or something. Those things cannot and will not grow to become something more. A zygote is currently in the process of becoming an independent human being (and a gamete is not, for clarification). To end that process is functionally the same as if you ended a person's life.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Yet for some reason you've never responded to my response to that analogy...
Your analogy uses comparisons to the relevant discussion in such a manner that would obviously "prove" your position. No, a block of steel is not a gun, the same way that a sperm cell is not a human being. All of the materials in a gun mixed into a bowl is not a gun, the same way that a sperm cell and an egg cell sitting next to each other, but not combined, are not a human being. But when you take the sperm cell and have it penetrate the egg cell, mix their respective haploids, generate an entirely new set of DNA, and "fertilize" the egg, the fertilized egg is now indeed a human.
Think of fertilization as a special way to combine the components of a human (or a gun) in order to create a human (or gun).
And also, to say that the egg is not alive is scientifically and biologically incorrect. The discussion is about whether or not the zygote is a human, not alive.
You know, Stax, this is what really irritates me about your arguements. Just because you have said your opinion in this thread, doesn't mean it's validated. Neither of us has invalidated the other's stance, yet for some reason you talk about your opinion as though it is the word of God. Maybe instead of talking about your opinion as though it is fact, you should simply present your take on the matter and not refer to it as though everyone have come to a consensus on the issue. Please, get of your high horse.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
Your comparisons aren't accurate. Ending a being's life cycle is essentially exactly the same as ending it's life, even if it's not "awake" yet. Eating foods produced by immoral means is not the same as enforcing those means or taking them up yourself, especially since there are a lot of different elements influencing both circumstances. And I might argue tat selling tobacco is immoral, but it's beside the point, since the difference between giving someone a posionous substance and physically kill that perosn is much larger than the difference between ending someone's life cycle before or after they are "a person."
Here's an example by analogy. Let us say that it is very important for us all to eat Chinese food - we consider eating Chinese food a right, and anything which unnecessarily denies someone their Chinese food is undesirable.
Let's say, then, that if someone is eating Chinese food, taking that food away from them is immoral. We'll pretend there are laws against taking Chinese food away from people. Now, let's say we then have a situation in which someone has just ordered some Chinese food, but not received it yet. Then, someone does something to cancel that person's order, and he never receives the food.
Someone could argue "well, they weren't actually taking anything away from the person, they were just stopping them from getting it. They didn't actually have any Chinese food yet, so nothing was taken away, so it wasn't immoral." But that's nothing more than wriggling and excuses, since stopping someone from getting their food is consequentially equivalent to taking away food that is already there if we consider it important for people to be allowed their Chinese food.
The reason we would be against taking away peoples' food is because we consider it important for them to be allowed to have it, and so we should be against preventing people from getting their food for the same reason.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
You're assuming people WANT this chinese food, which if you bring it back to the main issue of abortions, they obviously don't. Your analogy is flawed.
Um, no . . . your understanding of my analogy is flawed.
I'm starting to think that using an analogy is never a good idea on MTGS, since someone always jumps to misinterpret them.
In this analogy, the closest analog to "Chinese food" is life, not a baby. What in the world would make you think I was trying to make such a connection.
Look, when it comes to morality, we have certain things we value (we think they're important). Generally, if an action threatens those important things, we would think that action immoral. I'm saying if we value having Chinese food, then simply taking away Chinese food isn't the only thing we'd be against, but anything which denies people their Chinese food.
I don't see why you'd think I was comparing Chinese food to babies, unless you are trying to argue that fetuses obviously don't want to live.
What? How? If we think people need Chinese food, then why wouldn't we want people to have it if they are already in the process of receiving it?
I think you rather miss the point. It's not about ownership or justification, it's about what we think is important, and what we do to protect important things. If someone has already ordered their food, and they will receive it, and you prevent them from receiving it, you still denied someone their food, regardless of whether or not they already physically owned it.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Well, a good analogy is simple and short. You'd be better off just describing the situation. I'm not arguing that a fetus doesn't want to live. I'm arguing that fetuses are not human beings(again, until week 23) and as such, killing them is not murder. I'm also not very fond of putting morality into law, because that's the sort of thing America was founded to avoid.
You're taking it as a given that a fetus is a human being. This is not a given, this is the issue at hand, so please start addressing it.
My analogy is simple. If we value people having Chinese food, then only taking issue with taking away Chinese food people already have is not practical. It's like saying it's not unkind to deny sick people medical care so long as they never had it to begin with, or it's okay to oppress poor people financially so long as they were never rich before. It's disingenuous.
Secondly, your argument did not refute mine. I am saying that the argument "a fetus is not yet a human being" is not sufficient, because a fetus is inarguably a part of the human life cycle, and severing a human life cycle is undesirable if we think it's important for people to be allowed to live (which we do), regardless of at which point the severance takes place.
And lastly, America does not try to prevent morality from figuring into legality, especially since that is impossible. American government does not wish to involve religion with law, which is not at all the same as trying to prevent morality from being involved with law.
No, I am not. Drop this "not yet a human being" stuff. I don't care whether or not a fetus is technically a human being. I'm saying that if something is becoming a human being, and you willfully prevent it, it has the same weight as if you stopped someone's life.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
No, it isn't. The difference between the poor and rich is not the same as the difference between a developed human being and a fetus. I mean no offense by this, but your replacing of the word life with chinese food makes my head hurt and I want to make sure of something: by equating Chinese food to life, does your analogy acknowledge that a fetus is not a human life? I'm not sure if it does and I'd like you to clarify this.
But morality is subjective, so my point remains unchanged.
That logic is flawed. The chances of a fetus fully developing aren't anywhere near 100%. For all we know, it could corrupt and die, or a million other things could happen to it in the womb. So it's not the same as killing someone who is undeniably alive, nor should it carry an equal punishment.
Forget about the analogy, then, for goodness' sakes. Analogies never match up pefectly to things to which they are being compared. If you feel my analogy is a "bad" analogy, then just eschew it, and I'll be more direct. The entire point was to show a similar relationship between "have-have not" as is present with this "does a fetus have humanity?" discussion. I'm trying to show how the presence of humanity in a fetus doesn't matter by using less loaded and emotionally clouded terms like "Chinese food." If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, and I"ll try it a different way.
If something doesn't have "humanity" yet, but it's getting it, then making sure that it doesn't get it is still denying it's humanity. It doesn't matter whether or not it has it yet.
It seems to me that your argument is founded on the idea that it's not necessarily immoral to harm, kill, or otherwise hinder something so long as it's not a human. But you have to think about why we would value humans.
I'll ask you this: why should we care about humans? Why should we have laws protecting human safety? Why humans, and not other things?
That doesn't mean quite what I think you think it does. Morality can be subjective or objective, that's true, but goverment is not amoral. If we can agree that we like life and humankind, and we want to protect them, then that's our morality. Our government seems to think similarly - we have laws that serve a certain purpose (i.e. social order, human rights, so on), and the reasons behind those laws would be moral. That's what morality is. It doesn't matter if it's subjective, intersubjective, or objective - if the majority of us agree to value a certain thing (which would be a moral value), then insofar as we agree, that moral value is definitely a part of our social order and something we should consider.
It's arguable as to which kinds if morality varying governments heed or use - but they do use some kind of morality.
I think you may be using a much more specific definition of morality than I am.
It really doesn't matter whether the chance of it "becoming a human" is 100%. It's a natural part of a fetus' growth to become an infant. It's true that disease, accident, or other causes could interfere with that natural growth, but that doesn't justify ending it's development. That'd be kind of like saying killing an adult is justified because "there's no guarantee that the victim would have survived the day, anyway. They could have bee hit by a car, or something."
The analogy was meant to show the same relationship of "has already vs. doesn't have yet but is getting" as is being shown in the case of humanity in a fetus. The analogy is meant to demonstrate how being in the "doesn't have yet but is getting" status doesn't change matters much.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20