Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 11-17-2005, 03:38 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, if a Biology text-book claims that "human life begins at conception", it is not based on science, but is the ideological belief of the author(s).


[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you said it doesnt make it so. Here are some quotes for you:

(clipped)

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the quotes you pasted:

[ QUOTE ]
"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

[/ QUOTE ]

Life is a continuum. It doesn't begin with conception.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-17-2005, 03:45 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

Life is a continuum. A human life, i.e., a human organism, begins existence at conception. Or do you think that sperm cells spontaneously form human beings?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-17-2005, 03:46 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are severely brain damaged, you are a different person -- but still a person. I have an uncle that was shot in the head and has 1/4 of his brain missing. He's not the same person now as he was before he was shot. But, he's still a person.


[/ QUOTE ]

Almost. He is the same person, he is just a more limited version of that person. But you are essentially in agreement with me here, which goes against your theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't know my uncle. He was not the same person. He was partly the same, and partly different. The man we knew and loved no longer existed, I can tell you that for sure. We learned to love the new person, though.

But, this doesn't disprove my theory at all. I'm not sure how you think it does. I said it is the brain functions that denote personhood. His brain functions changed, so he changed. He still has a brain, so he's still a person.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what criteria defines personhood?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely subjective if you believe, as you seem to, that personhood is dependendent on some sort of functional characteristics. I contend that these functions are a result of personhood, not vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, personhood creates brain function? Of COURSE personhood is dependent upon functionality. That's how we know when someone is DEAD -- they are no longer functioning. And what is it exactly that is not functioning? Their brain.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus personhood begins with the only clear dividing line we have in human development, the moment of conception.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a clear dividing line -- conception takes up to 24 hours. I also want to say that just as death does not have a clear dividing line, neither should life have to.

Which leads me to my next question:

What criteria denotes the end of personhood?
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-17-2005, 03:50 PM
hmkpoker hmkpoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 116
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
Just because personhood isnt fully developed doesnt mean it isnt worthy of certain fundamental protections, i.e., not being eliminated for the convenience of another person. Even your strung out no-life loser is entitled to not be murdered indiscriminately.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to existing laws, yes, that is correct. And I'm not saying that it's wrong either. The question nevertheless is should the mother be allowed to eliminate the potential human for her good (and possibly for others' good, including the father or others affected, etc.)

This is a very heavy argument, unfortunately, and the real answer is probably going to go deep into ethical philosophy, if we are to approach this issue from a secular perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-17-2005, 03:51 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
Life is a continuum. A human life, i.e., a human organism, begins existence at conception. Or do you think that sperm cells spontaneously form human beings?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh yes... that little word "A". I've listed definitions above that I think will help this discussion tremendously. If you want to say "a human life" instead of "person", that's fine, but it's very confusing.

So, you agree that human life is a continuum. You are saying "a human life" begins at conception -- or "a person begins at conception". Can "a human life" not be a person? It seems that you are using the terms interchangeably.

So, let's just stick with "person" OK?

No, a sperm does not just spontaneously form a person. Neither does a fertilized egg. And neither does a pre-twin zygote. Nothing is spontaneous, actually. It all takes time. Fertilization included.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-17-2005, 07:44 PM
TM1212 TM1212 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Atlantic City New Jersey
Posts: 84
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
Really, at least in America, the morality of abortion is pretty much moot. The Supreme Court cannot make abortion illegal. All they can do is allow the individual states to make it illegal. Therefore, if you are a pro-life person, then you are just against women in the red states getting abortions. Abortion will still be legal in the blue states. As a pro-life person, all you are really doing is making women from Oklahoma or Nebraska or Kansas drive to Illinois to get an abortion.

However, at least you so-called pro-lifers will be able to sit up tall and proud on your moral high horses if Roe is overturned. Even though in reality you will have accomplished very little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your horribly mistaken. A supreme court ruling overturning roe v. wade would effect the federal standing of Abortion and make it illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-19-2005, 12:42 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

I'm not sure if you've given up on this discussion... but I'd still like to hear what criteria defines personhood? What is it that a human being must have in order to be considered a person (meaning, a living human being with the right to life)?

Whatever this criteria is, we should use it in determining when a person is dead. If someone meets this criteria, then it should be illegal to bury them in the ground. If they don't meet the criteria, then it should be legal to bury them in the ground.

So... what is it? When thinking about it, please keep in mind artificial organs (ie: heart), life-support machines, twinning/cloning, DNA-anomalies, and future medical technology (such as extra-utero fertilization and gestation).
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-20-2005, 01:52 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

No I havent given up, thanks for the reminder. Simply put, personhood is having a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-20-2005, 03:12 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
No I havent given up, thanks for the reminder. Simply put, personhood is having a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You used the word "personal" in the definition of personhood. That's a bit troublesome, I'd think. And "performing... acts"... that's a bit... vague, too.

So, anyway, how is a zygote a person by that criteria, but a heart is not? How is a sperm not a person?

And how exactly would a doctor use that criteria to determine if someone is dead or alive?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-20-2005, 04:24 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
ou used the word "personal" in the definition of personhood. That's a bit troublesome, I'd think. And "performing... acts"... that's a bit... vague, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal acts=speaking,reasoning, loving, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
So, anyway, how is a zygote a person by that criteria, but a heart is not? How is a sperm not a person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully the answer to this should be obvious now.

[ QUOTE ]
And how exactly would a doctor use that criteria to determine if someone is dead or alive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this matter?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.