Debates
18 Sep 07
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonI agree with you but I'm not sure this reasoning works...doesn't it justify infanticide? I'm not sure how developed the "internal autobiography" is at the time just after birth but assuming that there is none I imagine you'd have a problem killing a baby at that stage.
I already went into that a bit when using my braindead patient analogy, but to expand on it, there is a difference between being unconscious and not having self consciousness. a person in deep sleep or something like it still has the ability to return to consciousness and continue their internal autobiography so to speak. (Point four in ATY's post a page or ...[text shortened]... ogy back to humans, a human who is not a person yet can be terminated without it being murder.
I certainly don't remember that day! I have a feeling it's not like in the movie "looking who's talking"...
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo a fetus is human (adj) but not a human (n), however at some point it magically turns human(n)?
Another set of terms we should differentiate is "human" (as an adjective) vs "a human" (as a noun). They are not the same thing. A human hair is human, but it is not a human. Likewise a fetus is human, but whether it's a human is not so clear.
Possibly anything which is a human is a person, but not everything which is human is a person.
This "it's "human" but not "person"" seems to me to be nothing more than a shell game of words for pro-abortionists to justify the killing of innocent human life. Likewise, the words "fetus" instead of "unborn baby."
The argument over something being "human" but not "person" has no credential study behind it. Find it in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person), and the message at the top says it all.
The human embryo, at conception, has a totally unique chromosomal structure; it is in every way, human(noun), an individual human being.
If we decide that an unborn baby is not a "person" and killing it is therefore justified - you have devalued the human(noun) to nothing. Should we do the same with the handicapped as they are not the same physically, mentally as we are?
We can call something anything we want, but what matters is what it truly is. No one has proven to me how something magically turns into a human somewhere in between conception and birth. If it is growing into a fully sized human(noun), how is it not human(noun) and therefore a unique individual person?
I believe a human(noun), begins to grow as a human(noun) and does not magically morph.
02 Oct 07
4 edits
Originally posted by eagleeye222001So a fetus is human (adj)
So a fetus is human (adj) but not a human (n), however at some point it magically turns human(n)?
This "it's "human" but not "person"" seems to me to be nothing more than a shell game of words for pro-abortionists to justify the killing of innocent human life. Likewise, the words "fetus" instead of "unborn baby."
The argument over something b ve a human(noun), begins to grow as a human(noun) and does not magically morph.
Yes.
but not a human (n)
I didn't say that. It might be a human, it might not be.
however at some point it magically turns human(n)
You're using the word "human" as an adjective but labelling it a noun. You're also invoking magic for a purely naturalistic event. This is more accurate:
however at some point it turns into a human (n).
This "it's "human" but not "person"" seems to me to be nothing more than a shell game of words
A human hair is human, but it's not a person. Get it? Also, you're using "person" incorrectly as an adjective.
Likewise, the words "fetus" instead of "unborn baby."
"Fetus" is the scientific term. "Unborn baby" is an attempt to rename the fetus for political purposes. "Baby" is not a scientific term. The fetus, once born, becomes an infant.
The argument over something being "human" but not "person" has no credential study behind it.
So you consider your left testicle (or ovary) to be a person? How about your snot? Is that a person too? What about your feces? Are your turds people? Also, again, you're using "person" incorrectly as an adjective.
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by The Dude 84Well, if we can assume that no autobiography exists for a newborn, then yes, it does justify infanticide. Don't worry, I don't believe infanticide is justified by my argument, and don't personally agree with it in most cases. But it is your assumption that no autobiography exists for newborns that is flawed I think. While memories of being a newborn may not survive into adult life, things like a newborn very quickly having a favourite toy or associating things with certain sounds very quickly suggests they have a capacity for self-awareness and autobiography that they are using. They have a capability to have desires and wishes. This capability is based on their brain which becomes sufficiently developed for such things at some point in the second term I believe.
I agree with you but I'm not sure this reasoning works...doesn't it justify infanticide? I'm not sure how developed the "internal autobiography" is at the time just after birth but assuming that there is none I imagine you'd have a problem killing a baby at that stage.
I certainly don't remember that day! I have a feeling it's not like in the movie "looking who's talking"...
Despite what eagle-eye suggests, it is not a single magic moment but a process (called growth). You start with a bunch of cells and it progressively becomes more and more human.
Doctors, based on the best information they have available choose a window of time (not a point in time) on either side of which they can say with confidence that the foetus is not a human yet. I thus don't need magic to invoke a human, but simply a window within which I am confident the process is completed. A window before which the foetus is only human but after such a window it is a human with the capability of possessing a personality. (something a ball of human cells is not able to posess)
(I'd not even considered the noun/adjective thing ATY, simplifies my human/person point nicely).
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Knowing in advance that you got a birth defect ridden retard on the way is a good justification. I work with them, euthanasia after birth is illegal, even if it's the best thing to do, so abort before you have a violent idiot monster that will ruin your life and cost millions of dollars in care by everyone involved in the process.
I was wondering how people justify abortion? I mean, how is a fetus not "human." Last time I checked, an unborn baby doesn't magically turn human - or does it?
What's the point?
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThat human life is important and should be protected. otherwise it becomes an arbitrary point of who decides who should live and who should die. I doubt anyone could readily find someone to defend Hitler's actions but he did what abortionists do and that is devalue human life to a point where it becomes "justified" in killing humans.
Knowing in advance that you got a birth defect ridden retard on the way is a good justification. I work with them, euthanasia after birth is illegal, even if it's the best thing to do, so abort before you have a violent idiot monster that will ruin your life and cost millions of dollars in care by everyone involved in the process.
What's the point?
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo if a "something" grows into a human being, what is it before then? Obviously not a human being, right?
[b]So a fetus is human (adj)
Yes.
but not a human (n)
I didn't say that. It might be a human, it might not be.
however at some point it magically turns human(n)
You're using the word "human" as an adjective but labelling it a noun. You're also invoking magic for a purely naturalistic event. This is more accurate ...[text shortened]... Also, again, you're using "person" incorrectly as an adjective.[/b]
If it is not a "human being" when it is growing into a human being, then how can it attain human beingness if it was not a human being when it was developing?
It would be purely naturalistic for a developing human being to be a human being in the first place-and not something alien! Hence, my sarcasm at using magic to turn an alien into a human being. It would not be natural to "however at some point it turns into a human." I agree at conception you have a human being. Not before.
Fetus is a euphemism to hide the scientific fact that it is a human being. Call it whatever you want but it is a developing human being.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/euphemism
The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive
I use the word "person" as a noun.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
1. HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL
here is another dictionary's definition
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/person?view=uk
noun (pl. people or persons) 1 a human being regarded as an individual. 2 an individual’s body: concealed on his person.
I believe these definitions of "person" do not include "snot" "feces" etc but rather include a developing human being.
03 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Who ever said it was alien? It is human, but it is not a human being (hence your dictionary definition is shot out) or a person yet. Neither of those things can be achieved in a single moment, they are a gradual developmental process. Provided abortion, foetus killing, whichever you prefer, takes place before this developmental process has gone too far down the line. Technically you're right, we shouldn't be using the word foetus, as it refers to the embryo from about three months on according to your very own Merriam Websters...
So if a "something" grows into a human being, what is it before then? Obviously not a human being, right?
If it is not a "human being" when it is growing into a human being, then how can it attain human beingness if it was not a human being when it was developing?
It would be purely naturalistic for a developing human being to be a human being " do not include "snot" "feces" etc but rather include a developing human being.
Main Entry: fe·tus
Variant: or chiefly British foe·tus /'fEt-&s/
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural fe·tus·es or chiefly British foe·tus·es or foe·ti /'fEt-"I/
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
Compare Embryo (Merriam Websters again)...
Main Entry: em·bryo
Pronunciation: 'em-brE-"O
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural em·bry·os
1 archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching
2 : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception —compare FETUS
(I'm presuming we won't be using the archaic form as foetus takes over from definition 2)
And finally another example (Merriam Websters again)...
Main Entry: ba·by
Pronunciation: 'bA-bE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural babies
1 : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT —see BLUE BABY
2 : an extremely young animal —baby adjective —ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun —ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective
To expand on that, let's look at that "especially infant" bit...
Main Entry: in·fant
Pronunciation: 'in-f&nt
Function: noun
1 a : a child in the first year of life : BABY b : a child several years of age
2 : a person who is not of full age : MINOR —infant adjective
(Once more, it's from Merriam Websters.)
So it seems that if anyone is twisting the English language to modify the emotional response of the reader, it is you, I call a spade a spade, which to summarise is:
First term of pregnancy: Embryo
Rest of gestation: Foetus (English spelling, American Spelling is fetus just so we're clear)
First year after birth: Infant.
I and others are simply using the most appropriate term for what we are discussing. You are trying to anthropomorphise an embryo to give it the same meaning as a fully grown adult (which requires more than genetic individuality as a human, which is the actual meaning of the snot reference, which you seem to have misinterpreted), yet continue to avoid such issues as naturally aborted embryos from the rythm method which you have said you do agree with. If you can humanise one but not the other, where does the embryo suddenly and magically stop being a baby just because it's "infanticidal parents" are using the rythm method to paraphrase your good self?
EDIT: Placed most relevant definitions in bold.
EDIT2: corrected some formatting and spelling errors.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Hitler wouldn't be making the choice, everyone has been very clear that it is the mothers decision and no one elses (Though I believe I'm not alone in saying that the father should have some nominal input).
That human life is important and should be protected. otherwise it becomes an arbitrary point of who decides who should live and who should die. I doubt anyone could readily find someone to defend Hitler's actions but he did what abortionists do and that is devalue human life to a point where it becomes "justified" in killing humans.
So your slippery slope to Naziism argument doesn't fly.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamSome people shouldn't be allowed to work with disabled people. Your view of the people you work with is absolutely disgusting.
Knowing in advance that you got a birth defect ridden retard on the way is a good justification. I work with them, euthanasia after birth is illegal, even if it's the best thing to do, so abort before you have a violent idiot monster that will ruin your life and cost millions of dollars in care by everyone involved in the process.
What's the point?
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by agrysonSo I start using the more accurate words....it is still an individual unique human being developing.
Who ever said it was alien? It is human, but it is not a human being (hence your dictionary definition is shot out) or a person yet. Neither of those things can be achieved in a single moment, they are a gradual developmental process. Provided abortion, foetus killing, whichever you prefer, takes place before this developmental process has gone too far down ...[text shortened]... definitions in bold.
EDIT2: corrected some formatting and spelling errors.
As I have said before, you can call it anything you want, but what matters is what it is.
It is a unique human individual being and therefore should be protected.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20being
human being
Main Entry: human being
Function: noun
: human
Is my definition shot out? I don't think so.
Okay let's look up "human"
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human
Pronunciation: \ˈhyü-mən, ˈyü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2: consisting of humans
3 a: having human form or attributes b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature
You question about who said it was "alien" but you disagree that it is a human being. Well,l you can look at the dictionary entries I posted here and you can look some up yourself but your shell game of it being "human" but not a "person" fails.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
Main Entry: per·son Listen to the pronunciation of person
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-sən\
Function: noun
here are the relevent entries, although if you want to double check feel free. I'm not trying to hide anything.
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
4 aarchaic : bodily appearance b: the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing
5: the personality of a human being : self
You try to only use definition #5 in your not "person" but "human" shell game but you neglect definition #1 and #4 for some reason.
Again, call it whatever you want, just understand that it is a unique human individual being-and yes it is a person too.