Troll a sincere prolifer.

[Japher]

too tough of a question

I can't take it seriously

so, for now I will not post.

oops

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Dependency is a poor criterion for personhood, since we are all, in some degree, dependent upon one another for survival.

If you want to look at it like that, but it's different.

All I'm pointing out to you is that most pro-lifers have arbitarily chosen a zygote and classified it as a person, although the very same logic can classify sperm as a person as well.

Sperm is biologically dependant on the egg, a zygote is biologically dependent on its host, but an infant is not biologically dependent specifically on its mother. As long as its fed, etc. it'll be fine.

[Az]

Pro-choicers have aribtrarily classified a person in a coma on life support being a person as well.

[Ramo]

Well, you have to ask yourself, what is it about a person that warrants legal protection. I would argue that the qualifying property is sentience; that is, the complexity of their neural and nervous systems make legal protection warranted.

The idea that zygotes may become persons in the future, conditional upon many things, is not relevant to legal protection just as the idea that sperm or eggs may become persons in the future is not relevant to legal protection. Neither zygotes, nor sperm and ova have the neural and nervous sytems to warrant legal protection.

[Elok]

If my parents kept track of my date of conception and celebrated it instead of my birthday, I would be VERY disturbed. ("We had some real good sex that night, son! Be proud!")
With that said, by dejon's argument I should be allowed to kick him in the crotch, steal his stuff, and rape his mother, all because, dang it all, I have free will. Honestly, that argument makes very little sense.
My argument always has been and always will be, "if it ain't a person now, it will be eventually, and you're killing the same thing either way." Pro-life. Yay.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
Pro-choicers have aribtrarily classified a person in a coma on life support being a person as well.

A person in a coma is a person.

[Ben Kenobi]

For example, how do fetae (sp?) differ from people in coma on life support?

Azazel,

"unborn children."

I would argue that there are no significant differences between a person in a coma and an unborn child, with respect to personhood.

And I love your proliferation pun.

dejon:

But wait, any point chosen is arbitrary, and usually only serves to aid the arguments of whomever chose it.

Not necessarily. Conception is rather special in that the union of a sperm and egg create a human being with all the genetic material that they need to live and grow.

Question: Does not every person have free will? And hence a consequent ability to have opinions and make choices that may sometimes differ from your own?

All persons have the intrinsic capacity for free will. They may not currently be exercising their free will, but this does not disqualify them from personhood.

If you accept that statement, then you should accept it always, regardless of context, and no matter what your own free will allowed your opinions and choices to be.

One person's rights end where another's begin. If the unborn child is a person, then we have a duty to respect the life, even if it means sacrifices by the society to do so.

[Az]

EDIT: X-post.


Asher: a person with minimal neural activity is still a person? how so? he/she doesn't think, you know. And if we pull the plug on them, they'll die. What's the difference?

[yavoon]

why not start at when the fetus gains sentience?

[Ramo]

Pro-choicers have aribtrarily classified a person in a coma on life support being a person as well.

A comatose person has a functioning brain and nervous system. If you go to sleep, your brain doesn't shut off.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
So, could anyone please reply to my coma example?

I don't see how it's at all relevant.
1) People can come out of comas
2) People in comas are not specifically biologically dependent on a host/another organism
3) People in comas have been shown to be able to hear and be aware of their surroundings at least some of the time
4) People in comas are already people, they're just sick
5) People in comas already have developed a brain and sentience, etc

[Japher]

If my parents kept track of my date of conception and celebrated it instead of my birthday, I would be VERY disturbed. ("We had some real good sex that night, son! Be proud!")

It would be worse if they dreaded that day!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
EDIT: X-post.

Asher: a person with minimal neural activity is still a person? how so? he/she doesn't think, you know. And if we pull the plug on them, they'll die. What's the difference?

I'm confused: You just said a person with minimal neural activity is still a person?

You just said he's a person and he's not a person.

And I'm also really unsure why you think they can't think -- haven't you heard of the cases where people in comas can hear and understand what goes on around them?

People are in comas because their body/brain is trying to heal itself. They are people, they're just sick people.

[Az]

"Coma" was the wrong word. I mean the condition when people that have no neural activity, but that are not vegetable.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
"Coma" was the wrong word. I mean the condition when people that have no neural activity, but that are not vegetable.

"Brain-dead" for lack of a better word?

Well that's an iffy situation, I really don't know enough about it to have an answer for you.