|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:33 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 18:42, 27 Jun 2008.
|
@Death:
Quote:
1) You give life to someone
2) You torture him
3) That someone wants to suicide to end the pain; is it grateful for that?
The thing is, you are not allowed to torture him. That's the problem with your example above. If you got rid of (2), you are not obligated to help the guy reconsider about the suicide (let's suppose he still wants)
Quote:
Oh, and religion does not say that plants or other beings are not alive
They are alive but don't have a soul.
Again, my "alive" term wasn't a very good choice back then. (But then what would you define by alive? What's the difference between a cell and a computer video card that makes it alive?)
@Corribus:
Quote:
Ah, so capability of thought is the criterium for having a soul/being alive? What about a coma patient? What about a dog? Dogs have brains and can think. Are they alive?
A coma patient has a brain and can think, but only subconscious (like when you are dreaming)
And yes a dog is "alive".
Quote:
And I'm still waiting for you to pick a point in neural embryonic development where the fetus "gains a nervous system" and is thus alive by your definition. Unless you can't....
Well, I don't know exactly when but I'd say after the first month.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:38 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:47, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Why is torture such a special thing, when all it does in the end is kill? 
or maybe you're telling me that you have the right to kill somebody (you gave life to) if you use a weapon that does not make any pain (or do it while he/she is sleeping)?
Quote:
They are alive but don't have a soul.
If you're talking about virii/whatever then probably yes. If you're talking about a dog, it has a soul, not a human soul, but it has one.
Besides the article already gave the whenabouts the soul starts existing, and it's when biological life starts (in fact, it's immediately before that).
Let's take this religiously: The soul is not dependent on the body. It's not dependent on when the body gains a 'brain'. The body is dependent on the soul, not vice-versa. (scientifically, you can say that the DNA is similar to the soul, but of course not the same!).
As long as the process (body process) has started, it has a soul. The soul doesn't "grow" in time, the body does.
Quote:
Well, I don't know exactly when but I'd say after the first month.
So that's how this is going to be? A guess?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:48 PM |
|
|
@Asheera
Quote:
Ah, so capability of thought is the criterium for having a soul/being alive? What about a coma patient? What about a dog? Dogs have brains and can think. Are they alive?
A coma patient has a brain and can think, but only subconscious (like when you are dreaming)
And yes a dog is "alive".
What about a mouse? How about an insect? Can an insect think? Does it have a soul? I'm just trying to figure out where your line is, since you can't seem to define it for me very precisely.
Quote:
Quote:
And I'm still waiting for you to pick a point in neural embryonic development where the fetus "gains a nervous system" and is thus alive by your definition. Unless you can't....
Well, I don't know exactly when but I'd say after the first month.
So let me get this straight. You've made this grand proclamation about what fetuses get to live and what fetuses can be exterminated, based on what you consider to be the definition of "alive", and you don't even know at what point the fetus adheres to this definition with any better precision than, basically, "Sometime after the first month." Hmm...
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:53 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 18:56, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Let's take this religiously: The soul is not dependent on the body. It's not dependent on when the body gains a 'brain'
I don't think there exists a soul in Heaven that can't think. So I guess it SHOULD have a brain before it can exist.
And what's that "biological life"? What's the difference between a human that's composed of cells and a video card (about life)? In the religious way it's because it has a soul. In the non-religious way it's just because... but even in the non-religious way abortions are legal and thus it means that a fetus is not "alive".
Quote:
What about a mouse? How about an insect?
As far as I know they can think.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:58 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:00, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
I don't think there exists a soul in Heaven that can't think. So I guess it SHOULD have a brain before it can exist.
So basically you're telling me in Heaven you need a brain to think 
Or does the brain give this capacity to the soul? Strange, never heard of this kind of religion before, honest
Quote:
And what's that "biological life"? What's the difference between a human that's composed of cells and a video card (about life)?
Life
EDIT: ok to give my impression about it. LIke I said, a video card won't turn into a human, no matter what you do to it. A fetus will.
Just like patients in vegetable state -- they are not 'viable' (can't survive on their own), but some do recover (if it's not serious). You see, tomorrow they recover, sometime in the future. Just like the fetus, it becomes viable.
But you don't mean that it's ok to kill them (the people in the coma)?
Quote:
In the religious way it's because it has a soul. In the non-religious way it's just because... but even in the non-religious way abortions are legal and thus it means that a fetus is not "alive"
Whoa, who said that if abortions are legal a fetus is not alive? What's the association with the law?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:02 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 19:03, 27 Jun 2008.
|
@Death
That life article is the same mvass posted earlier, and he already explained that you cannot classify a fetus with it, and thus it's not alive.
mvass's quote:
Quote:
The seven criteria of life, from Wikipedia:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature. (Is a fetus able to maintain homeostasis by itself? No.)
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. (Depends on the stage of the fetus.)
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. (Yes.)
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. (Some)
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. (No.)
Quote:
You see, tomorrow they recover, sometime in the future. Just like the fetus, it becomes viable.
But by that analogy, there is a day when we'll all die, does that make us dead NOW?
EDIT: btw, I don't think I can post much more in this because of the post limit
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That life article is the same mvass posted earlier, and he already explained that you cannot classify a fetus with it, and thus it's not alive.
Actually no, of course it can't survive on it's own -- a bacteria can't survive without energy and food as well. And it is not 'developed' immediately. By that logic, not even babies are alive (they can't reproduce)??
The point is, they will gain that capability, much like a fetus, being provided necessary supplies. That is why it is alive
(the article discusses about species, as a whole, and a fetus is in human species).
Quote:
But by that analogy, there is a day when we'll all die, does that make us dead NOW?
That's not the point. The point was, is it ok to kill the person in coma (even if he/she will recover) since 'today' it is not 'viable' (can't survive on it's own)?
Yes we'll all die some day but it's something that we all go through. The fetus does not, because not all of us die in the womb -- because if we live, obviously we were not aborted nor considered a mistake.
The fetus is a human because he has the necessary components to become one. In fact, the reason you need to stop him (abortion) from 'becoming a human' is because he is alive and has already started the process. That is, by far, the best reason he is to be considered alive and human (not to mention the DNA but well, nevermind).
Quote:
EDIT: btw, I don't think I can post much more in this because of the post limit
Don't feel bad, it's not that big deal, we're beating a dead horse anyway especially if we're going to be so subjective about it 
if you REALLY feel interested in debating this you can edit your post, but frankly I am also growing tired of repeating the same stuff, so you're not alone
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:17 PM |
|
|
Ok, one last thing:
Quote:
The fetus is a human because he has the necessary components to become one.
No, it does NOT have the necessary components to become one. It needs hormones from the mother. It will NOT become a human without the aid of the mother.
As I said, if you "create" a beggar, you are NOT obligated to help him or give him food. Food = hormones in the baby example.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:19 PM |
|
|
Actually, parents have an obligation to support their child, so I do not understand where you get your ideas. In fact, you need food yourself -- does it matter that it comes from the mother or not?
Giving life to someone and then not providing food is torture by the way
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:22 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:23, 27 Jun 2008.
|
mvass's analysis of those criteria for life was not a fair analaysis because they were meant to be used at the organism level. I.e., they are attributes that all living organisms are (allegedly) supposed to have. You can't apply them to a fetus and expect a positive result any more than you can apply them to a 2 year old child. Example: Can a 2 year old child reproduce? No. So a child is not alive? Please. The fetus is a stage in the life cycle of a human organism; that it fails a few of them does not mean that the fetus is not "alive" (whatever that means). Those rules must be applied to the entire life cycle of a human, and even then the rules themselves are somewhat open to interpretation.
The whole point is that whatever line you draw between "alive" and "not alive" is completely arbitrary. As is pointing out a certain gestational time when the fetus is "viable" or "not viable". Even if you COULD easily draw a line in the sand and say, "OK, before this point, the fetus is not alive and after this point, the fetus is alive," fetal development is statistical - like everything else in nature - and so whatever that line is, it would change on a case by case basis, meaning that even if you COULD make a nonarbitrary decision about when "life begins", the very statistical nature of development means that, in application, the line becomes arbitrary anyway. "Well, life begins when the first neuron appears." Ok, that's great - even though the definition is, in itself, arbitrary. But the first neuron might appear on day 6 for infant A and day 8 for infant B. So any laws that say abortion is AOK after 1 month are themselves compoundedly arbitrary! The whole damn discussion is arbitrary. The only nonarbitrary solution is to really forbid abortion altogether, but that's not really a solution either. So, the reason people keep catfighting over abortion is because any solution is either (A) completely unreasonable or (B) completely arbitrary. Since a reasonable solution is sought, and because nobody will every come to an agreement over where to draw that line, people are going to fight about it forever. It would just make me feel a whole lot better about the whole thing if everyone would just admit that their position is completely arbitrary and no better really than anyone else's.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:46 PM |
|
|
The problem of course is that people that have abortions are usually the ones who start up the action. They make arbitrary decisions of whether it's ok to kill it or not, because frankly speaking, they don't even know that.
Quote:
The only nonarbitrary solution is to really forbid abortion altogether, but that's not really a solution either.
To be honest, I don't know the outcome of something like that, and it's a difficult problem because we also have to include rape. However, since no one will likely get hang on both, we'll never be able to see some statistical results (how many women get pregnant without wanting a baby).
It is only my opinion that will discourage getting pregnant in the first place. People will think twice before being irresponsible, because they know they will not be able to get abortion legally (and it's dangerous otherwise, no one wants to die like that). I am not saying abortion is easy, but it is a whole lot easier than raising the child.
If, for example, people would be brought up with this decision: "I have a 1% chance to get pregnant and lose my job", they will think more maturely on the matter. If they know abortion is a solution, they will not be so responsible -- losing your job is a way bigger impact in your life than doing the abortion.
Quote:
It would just make me feel a whole lot better about the whole thing if everyone would just admit that their position is completely arbitrary and no better really than anyone else's.
The difference is that we (those against abortion) do not involve such arbitrary things (as life for example) in our decisions because we stay out of it. The pro-aborts are, however, the ones that make such decisions and in fact, they should provide the necessary backup as they are the ones initiating the action (as if they know what they're doing).
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The difference is that we (those against abortion) do not involve such arbitrary things (as life for example) in our decisions because we stay out of it. The pro-aborts are, however, the ones that make such decisions and in fact, they should provide the necessary backup as they are the ones initiating the action (as if they know what they're doing).
In fact you (those anti-abortion) should backup your arguments, because abortion is legal, and thus you should explain why it is not okay to do it. (I know you did, but I was talking in general about those that are anti-abortion)
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:56 PM |
|
|
It's pretty naive to think that, just because something is legal, that means it's right.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:58 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 19:58, 27 Jun 2008.
|
I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying that if the anti-abortion ones want to change anything, THEY should bring arguments first because now it is legal.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 07:58 PM |
|
|
It's not legal in all countries, don't you realize that's only because of the people? Do we need to backup why crime should also be illegal when the pro-aborts decide to kill people? Why do they decide that? For any action, there must be a responsibility, it's why the pro-aborts need to backup their arguments.
Can we please just not talk about the law anymore? All too often discussions lead to "It's wrong because the law says so" as if it is God's word in the Bible, and I hope we all know that is not productive in any way without providing arguments.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 20:16, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Let's talk about the bridge example you gave earlier:
There's a bridge that you think it will collapse and kill a lot of people under it. I want to cross it. You can't say: "DON'T CROSS THE BRIDGE!" because that would make you an authoritarian. But you can say: "Hey, I think the bridge will collapse so better not cross it!".
I ignore your warning and cross it, but let's suppose nobody (including me and you) can't see it nor the people under it. So you don't know if it collapsed or not (and thus I killed or not a lot of people). You can't know, so you can't tell me: "See how many people you killed?", so it's like nothing happened.
Analogy with abortion:
You think that the fetus is alive, and thus if I make an abortion I will kill it. However, you can't know if it is alive as it's purely arbitrary as Corribus said. So, the phrase "DON'T CROSS THE BRIDGE!" turns into "DON'T MAKE AN ABORTION!" and thus, if you ORDER me to not make an abortion, it makes you an authoritarian. And after the abortion you can't tell me "YOU KILLED A HUMAN!" as nobody (including me and you) don't know (it's arbitrary) that the fetus is "alive".
You can't order someone to not "play" with things not known, even if he for example kills many people by "playing" because that would make you an authoritarian. And if you (in fact everybody, including the guy) can't see the result (like the two examples above - you can't see if the fetus was "alive" even after abortion) you can't call that guy a murderer.
That's really all I could possibly say regarding this subject.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 08:25 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:27, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Let's talk about the bridge example you gave earlier:
There's a bridge that you think it will collapse and kill a lot of people under it. I want to cross it. You can't say: "DON'T CROSS THE BRIDGE!" because that would make you an authoritarian.
If it has a chance of affecting someone else, then I can somewhat tell you that -- but of course people can kill even if someone tells them not to. And in fact, when it has a chance to involve someone else (and you know that), one can pretty much tell you can't cross that bridge. Please make the distinction between the fact that you know there is going to be a chance, or don't know. It is important.
The difference is that you know it too well you might be wrong and the bridge can collapse. This is the difference between a normal "authoritarian" situation and this one. When the police 'suspects' something, you are not allowed to make a mess, even though it's only a chance (it is only suspected, not know).
Quote:
I ignore your warning and cross it, but let's suppose nobody (including me and you) can't see it nor the people under it. So you don't know if it collapsed or not (and thus I killed or not a lot of people). You can't know, so you can't tell me: "See how many people you killed?", so it's like nothing happened.
Actually I do know that it collapsed, because I do know you made the abortion. I don't know whether it killed anyone (involved someone else). I don't know. Do you know? Then why did you decide to do abortion.
Quote:
You think that the fetus is alive, and thus if I make an abortion I will kill it. However, you can't know if it is alive as it's purely arbitrary as Corribus said.
Not necessarily, Corribus said that any 'line' put (like it's alive when it gets a neuron) is arbitrary. But if we take this to the moment when it starts and needs to be stopped, I guess that's not as arbitrary -- simply put, if you need to stop the baby from growing, it's alive. This is not arbitrary, though it is subjective in a way. But it is better than "I don't know" because it covers the critical situation in which it might be true.
So the part where you are wrong is because my definition of alive includes any possible side-effects and no one is going to be blamed. My definition covers your definition of being alive, but is longer (period of time). So I can't be more wrong than you. You can be however.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 08:29 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 20:32, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
If it has a chance of affecting someone else, then I can somewhat tell you that -- but of course people can kill even if someone tells them not to. And in fact, when it has a chance to involve someone else (and you know that), one can pretty much tell you can't cross that bridge. Please make the distinction between the fact that you know there is going to be a chance, or don't know. It is important.
The difference is that you know it too well you might be wrong and the bridge can collapse. This is the difference between a normal "authoritarian" situation and this one. When the police 'suspects' something, you are not allowed to make a mess, even though it's only a chance (it is only suspected, not know).
But it's not a chance! It's not like that!
You think it will collapse, I think 100% it will not collapse. The chance is only in your subjective view!
Quote:
Actually I do know that it collapsed, because I do know you made the abortion. I don't know whether it killed anyone (involved someone else). I don't know. Do you know? Then why did you decide to do abortion.
That's right, you don't know. I don't know either. But if we don't know something, you can't order me not do it, and you can't blame me afterward because you (nobody in fact) still don't know!
Again, if we (humans) wouldn't do things we don't know, we would still be cavemen right now.
The difference is that some unknown things can be decided if they are good or not after doing them, and some don't. The abortion falls in the second category, so even after you make an abortion, you still don't know if it killed a person or not, and thus you can't order someone not to make an abortion! (unless of course, you "prove" that the fetus is "alive")
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But it's not a chance! It's not like that!
You think it will collapse, I think 100% it will not collapse. The chance is only in your subjective view!
The chance in my subjective view is 100%. Since you admitted you don't know, then it has an objective chance. It is logical.
Quote:
That's right, you don't know. I don't know either. But if we don't know something, you can't order me not do it, and you can't blame me afterward because you (nobody in fact) still don't know!
Does it even matter? I mean, we can discuss the coma example once again, but like I said, answer me the following question:
Why do you need to stop the fetus by abortion?
Answer: Because it's alive. Yes that's it. It grows. Does a video card grow? No. Do you need to stop a video card because it grows? No.
Basically that is the definition of life -- when you need to take an action to stop it.
Quote:
Again, if we (humans) wouldn't do things we don't know, we would still be cavemen right now.
You are repeating the same stuff I already answered. You don't study the fetus with abortion, and even so, I recall experiments on 'people' need to be done with their consent!
Quote:
The difference is that some unknown things can be decided if they are good or not after doing it, and some don't. The abortion falls in the second category, so even after you still don't know if it killed a person or not, and thus you can't order someone not to make an abortion!
The difference is that you go ahead, make the abortion, and don't analyze anything, as if you know what you are doing.
Quote:
(unless of course, you "prove" that the fetus is "alive")
You are contradicting yourself here, because biologically it is alive (for an easier example see above with the 'growth'). All the things that go against it are only opinions -- and you know why they hold any value, much more value than religion? Because they are convenient, not because they prove anything.
Please by that logic, should I prove that we, as humans, are alive and don't need to be killed? How can I prove we are alive? Certainly like Corribus said, not on the list mvass gave, that means a 2 year old child is not alive! Should I prove that killing people is killing human life?
I mean, how can I prove it? Not biologically, not with a reasonable soul explanation. How? Politically, that will only be a different opinion. I can only draw the analogy with normal humans (you don't deny it's murder to kill them right?) -- and since a 2 year old child still develops some of the things in the list (like e.g: reproducible organs), then the fetus is exactly the same -- a different stage that develops. By this reason, killing fetus implies killing 2 year olds being 'ok'
At least I try to give you plenty of reasonable explanations.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 08:49 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 20:50, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
The chance in my subjective view is 100%. Since you admitted you don't know, then it has an objective chance. It is logical.
Even if you say this is an objective chance (but I disagree), you still have no right tell me "DON'T DO IT!" without being authoritarian.
Quote:
Why do you need to stop the fetus by abortion?
Answer: Because it's alive. Yes that's it. It grows. Does a video card grow? No. Do you need to stop a video card because it grows? No.
Basically that is the definition of life -- when you need to take an action to stop it.
You know what? Black holes also "grow" (collect particles from outer space), they need to be stopped (but I know it's impossible), does that mean they are alive? The fetus also collects particles (that form hormones, etc) from the mother, so that doesn't mean it's alive 100% certain.
Quote:
The difference is that you go ahead, make the abortion, and don't analyze anything, as if you know what you are doing.
Analyze it yourself
The thing is, it can't be analyzed, that's why I don't do it.
Quote:
biologically it is alive (for an easier example see above with the 'growth').
I don't get it why you say biologically it's alive. If it grows does not mean it is alive!
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
