23 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't see how you can possibly interpret "individual" as "chordate animal" in the given context. It is clear from the context that it refers to an organism of the Homo Sapiens species.
On the contrary, I am reading it in the context of the use you put it to. Since you used the AMA-sponsored UDA definition to say what a living human being was (and therefore what a human being was), I'm pointing out that the definition classifies dead cows and elephants (or most/all chordates in general) as "dead human beings". Which, by the very logi ...[text shortened]... w what a human being is; the definition of a human being cannot be derived from UDA.
I know that definitions do not instantiate reality, so the UDA creating a definition does not result in entities fitting that definition taking on any new or special properties.
The real question is which 'properties' are important when dealing with 'human rights' and not which properties have been included in a particular definition that has been named 'human being', or 'dead human being'.
23 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks for that. I've been consistently saying (from the start of my involvement on this thread) what you just said - a human being is an organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. And no biologist would argue that a fetus, an embryo or a zygote is anything less.
I don't see how you can possibly interpret "individual" as "chordate animal" in the given context. It is clear from the context that it refers to an organism of the Homo Sapiens species.
I know that definitions do not instantiate reality, so the UDA creating a definition does not result in entities fitting that definition taking on any new or special p n a particular definition that has been named 'human being', or 'dead human being'.
Of course, what this means is that some human beings have rights, while others do not. You seem to be comfortable with that, no1 (plus maybe a few other pro-abortionists) and virtually all pro-lifers are not.
But now the question for you would be the one you raised - what properties do you consider important in determining whether a particular human being qualifies for human rights?
EDIT: And your point about context is essentially the same as the point of my post -- the UDA assumes that everyone knows what a human being is; the definition of 'human being' cannot be derived from the UDA.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerActually I did not say that. What is meant by the words 'human being' is entirely dependent on which definition you choose to use. The 'general usage' of the term in the English language is not very specific.
Thanks for that. I've been consistently saying (from the start of my involvement on this thread) what you just said - a human being is an organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. And no biologist would argue that a fetus, an embryo or a zygote is anything less.
You actually have not stated whether a dead member of the homosapiens species is a human being or what constitutes death in your opinion.
Of course, what this means is that some human beings have rights, while others do not. You seem to be comfortable with that, no1 (plus maybe a few other pro-abortionists) and virtually all pro-lifers are not.
Using the words human being in this context is not wrong as you may choose to use a definition which fits and you have given your definition above. However it is hard to avoid reinterpreting the word to a different definition (for example one which possibly includes only members of the homo sapiens species that have already been born.) It would be much better to say something along these lines:
At some stages of development or in some situations, some members of the homosapiens species do not have 'human rights'. For example after death.
But now the question for you would be the one you raised - what properties do you consider important in determining whether a particular human being qualifies for human rights?
I personally believe that the existence of a brain is a requirement.
Some situations to ponder:
There are cases where siames twins develop in such a way that one of the twins does not have a brain.
A brain dead, but other wise living individual.
23 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe incredibly stilted way you attempt to "reason" leads you to such ridiculous conclusions routinely. Most non-idiots realize that a definition of an actual thing need not contain in the definition itself every possible fact relating to the definition. In logical terms, there are implied premises that don't need stating.
On the contrary, I am reading it in the context of the use you put it to. Since you used the AMA-sponsored UDA definition to say what a living human being was (and therefore what a human being was), I'm pointing out that the definition classifies dead cows and elephants (or most/all chordates in general) as "dead human beings". Which, by the very logi w what a human being is; the definition of a human being cannot be derived from UDA.
But I dispute your assertion that the definition of death of a human being doesn't presuppose that a living human being has the systems described in the definition. Otherwise, the definition would make no sense IN THE REAL WORLD, not in Lucifershammer'sWorld. For if the failure of these systems causes the death i.e. end of the life of the human being, even someone like you should be able to see that their total absence implies non-human beingness.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe definition was created so that doctors could identify when the life of a human being had ended FOR ALL PURPOSES. Yes, that has practical effects and is meant to.
Of course that's what the AMA was saying. Why do you think 'brain death' was introduced in the first place? The AMA didn't want doctors and hospitals keeping (or being forced to keep) people endlessly alive on artificial support when their bodies had practically no chance of ever recovering (not to mention the liability if a doctor ever "pulled the pl ...[text shortened]... y the main concern of the AMA would be what defines death for those human beings.
Doctors care for embryos and non-viable fetuses to the extent that the pregnant woman wishes them to. The AMA respects a pregnant woman's right to self-autonomy (guess what their position on abortion is?) unlike you and the anti-abortionist ilk.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe usual grandiose, false claim. "No biologist"? How about Garrett Hardin:
Thanks for that. I've been consistently saying (from the start of my involvement on this thread) what you just said - a human being is an organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. And no biologist would argue that a fetus, an embryo or a zygote is anything less.
Of course, what this means is that some human beings have rights, while othe ...[text shortened]... knows what a human being is; the definition of 'human being' cannot be derived from the UDA.
Whether the fetus is or is not a human being is a matter of
definition, not fact and we can define any way we
wish."
http://www.fishnet.us/cim/briefing/abort.html
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderHow about reading what I actually wrote for a change? Would Garrett Hardin claim that a fetus is not an organism belonging to the species Homo sapiens sapiens?
The usual grandiose, false claim. "No biologist"? How about Garrett Hardin:
Whether the fetus is or is not a human being is a matter of
definition, not fact and we can define any way we
wish."
http://www.fishnet.us/cim/briefing/abort.html
23 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat you wrote is then irrelevant to any position I have taken or the discussion in this thread.
How about reading what I actually wrote for a change? Would Garrett Hardin claim that a fetus is not an organism belonging to the species Homo sapiens sapiens?
EDIT: I take that back; what you wrote is this: a human being is an organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. And no biologist would argue that a fetus, an embryo or a zygote is anything less.
Yes, he does refute that in the quote given.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderRead everything in your EDIT after "I take that back" slowly to yourself.
What you wrote is then irrelevant to any position I have taken or the discussion in this thread.
EDIT: I take that back; what you wrote is this: a human being is an organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. And no biologist would argue that a fetus, an embryo or a zygote is anything less.
Yes, he does refute that in the quote given.
23 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDo medical doctors also care for the pets and plants of their patient to the extent she wishes them to?
The definition was created so that doctors could identify when the life of a human being had ended FOR ALL PURPOSES. Yes, that has practical effects and is meant to.
Doctors care for embryos and non-viable fetuses to the extent that the pregnant woman wishes them to. The AMA respects a pregnant woman's right to self-autonomy (guess what their position on abortion is?) unlike you and the anti-abortionist ilk.
(And I know all about the AMA's politics on the pro-abortion front - you don't have to remind me how American scientists are selling themselves.)
Your argument that doctors created that definition "FOR ALL PURPOSES" (do you really think typing that in caps helps?) is ridiculous. It was created for a legal context to help their colleagues (most of whom, unlike you, would not think it provides a definition of what a human being is) -- not to be the be-all and end-all of all intellectual thought.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderA definition, by definition, includes every relevant fact. What are the "implied premises" in this case?
The incredibly stilted way you attempt to "reason" leads you to such ridiculous conclusions routinely. Most non-idiots realize that a definition of an actual thing need not contain in the definition itself every possible fact relating to the definition. In logical terms, there are implied premises that don't need stating.
But I dispute your as ...[text shortened]... omeone like you should be able to see that their total absence implies non-human beingness.
The definition makes sense in "THE REAL WORLD" because it is intended for a specific purpose -- for medical professionals in hospitals dealing with post-natal human beings (and some pre-natal ones). It makes sense because it is tailored to the context it is used in.
Not because, as you fallaciously continue to suggest, it is a blanket definition for human life.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerKeep lying to yourself.
Do medical doctors also care for the pets and plants of their patient to the extent she wishes them to?
(And I know all about the AMA's politics on the pro-abortion front - you don't have to remind me how American scientists are selling themselves.)
Your argument that doctors created that definition "FOR ALL PURPOSES" (do you really think typing ...[text shortened]... n of what a human being is) -- not to be the be-all and end-all of all intellectual thought.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerGee, I though it was only for a "specific legal purpose". Change your "mind"?
A definition, by definition, includes every relevant fact. What are the "implied premises" in this case?
The definition makes sense in "THE REAL WORLD" because it is intended for a specific purpose -- for medical professionals in hospitals dealing with post-natal human beings (and some pre-natal ones). It makes sense because it is tailored to the c ...[text shortened]... because, as you fallaciously continue to suggest, it is a blanket definition for human life.
Your baseless assertion aside, it was meant to define death for all purposes.