I debate a college Democrat.

[Japher]

For science, and for me, life begins when sentience occurs

Science has narrowed it down to sometime between after college and before the worms have completely digested your rotting corpse (not necessarily pre-death)... So,

a) when does sentience begin according to you

and

b) why ever bother arguing with some in college? Especially someone who begins every sentence with "my professor says" or "this book says"... might as well say "I can't formulate my opinion, but..."

[Ben Kenobi]

Kenobi's bar was "potential for sentience", which includes sperm and an egg that haven't yet come together.

It does not.

Sperm and egg, do not continue to develop, unless they combine to form a zygote. In isolation, they do nothing.

[Whaleboy]

No, because I also believe that the two become one flesh. Monogamy is antithetical to switch hitting.

You can believe all you want but until you can do the impossible and reconcile faith with reason (and not diminish faith in the process), you're not going to able to successfully communicate your view to those who aren't bowled over by excess verbosity. And I'd know about that .

I do actually broadly agree with your reasoning on the issue of abortion, that of potential consciousness, and that the parasite argument does not hold thanks to my responsibility definitions... however I have an existential argument that holds that the woman can choose to abort before the baby is capable of communicating (my particular definition of "being", which varies per pregnancy. You could say then that I am pro-contraceptive abortion, up until circa four months.

However, we're all men here, how can we possibly hope to solve this problem with nothing but reason from a male perspective. It's rather like using purely reason to support or refute the existence of God... neither can be done by reason alone, and the use of faith makes it inherently subjective. We're bogged down by simplistic thinking at every turn it seems.

[Japher]

However, we're all men here, how can we possibly hope to solve this problem with nothing but reason from a male perspective.

Come now. surely you have witnessed "female reason"

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It does not.

Sperm and egg, do not continue to develop, unless they combine to form a zygote. In isolation, they do nothing.

Just like a fetus that isn't in the womb.

In both cases you need favorable conditions and then life will develop. With the sperm and egg, they need to come together, with the fetus, it needs to be in the womb.

That wasn't your original bar anyhow. You originally said you only needed the potential for sentience. And an egg and sperm together have that potential. Or you could say an egg by itself has that potential in favorable conditions (with a sperm and in the womb). The potential is *clearly* there.

You are going to have a tough time removing the necessity of favorable conditions or limiting them in a reasonable way that that won't result and the need to protect the egg.

-Drachasor

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Then change it to a "highly developed and functioning" brain.

So how do we determine "highly developed and functioning"?

"Highly developed" is a completely arbitrary term. For example, does it require a particular structure, a specific number of dendritic connections, or what?

"Functioning" Ok, we can define that since we can define the opposite i.e. when brain function stops.

Yes, there will be non-feti, but those people are brain dead and disconnecting them from life support isn't a crime.

That depends on the circumstances and the location.

Or do you think everyone should be connected to life support to survive as long as possible, even if there is no chance of recovery?

-Drachasor

Per usual, you jump to conclusions. I've merely pointed out that whatever arbitrary definition you use to define humanity in order to condone killing fetuses can be used to condone (at least) limited euthanasia.

BTW, feti is not plural for fetus. Feoti is used by the Brits but they use foetus rather than fetus. Feti- is used as a prefix in place of feto- however.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It does not.

Sperm and egg, do not continue to develop, unless they combine to form a zygote. In isolation, they do nothing.

In isolation, a fetus does nothing.

Go ahead and take it out of the womb ASAP. Test it out for yourself.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Asher

They're both not people. Fair game to me. They're both potential people at varying stages, but both potential people nonetheless...

The difference here relies on your religious interpretation of life, and nothing more.

For you, life begins when conception occurs. For science, and for me, life begins when sentience occurs...

Well, I disagree with your definition of life. A bacteria is alive but it is not sentient. A worm is alive but it is not sentient. Sentience is not a pre-condition for life. A fetus that has a beating heart, brain activity and blood flowing through it's body has to be alive. There's biological activity, therefore a good indication of life.

Secondly, you may not consider the fetus to be a real person but it is real and it is alive. The "potential person" is nothing, it does not exist. After all, if I masturbate, did I kill my future child because the sperm that was wasted might have been used in the future to create my child? Of course not because my future child does not exist. But a fetus is real and it is alive.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Per usual, you jump to conclusions. I've merely pointed out that whatever arbitrary definition you use to define humanity in order to condone killing fetuses can be used to condone (at least) limited euthanasia.

BTW, feti is not plural for fetus. Feoti is used by the Brits but they use foetus rather than fetus. Feti- is used as a prefix in place of feto- however.

I like "feti" so I used it. I know it isn't the proper plural.

And I wasn't jumping to conclusions, I merely thought I could indicate that in fact you do need some sort of limited euthanasia otherwise you will be connecting everyone to machines to keep them alive in a vegetative state as long as possible.

Euthanasia is indeed needed in some instances.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So how do we determine "highly developed and functioning"?

"Highly developed" is a completely arbitrary term. For example, does it require a particular structure, a specific number of dendritic connections, or what?

"Functioning" Ok, we can define that since we can define the opposite i.e. when brain function stops.

Yes, there is a bit of a grey area, but that grey area isn't near conception, it doesn't happen until much latter.

-Drachasor

[Asher]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Well, I disagree with your definition of life. A bacteria is alive but it is not sentient. A worm is alive but it is not sentient. Sentience is not a pre-condition for life.

I support the abortion of bacteria and worms as well, for consistency.

Human life doesn't begin until the mind works. Otherwise it's all plumbing...

After all, if I masturbate, did I kill my future child because the sperm that was wasted might have been used in the future to create my child?

Look at it this way: If you have sex and that sperm meets and egg, which is then aborted...the child is not born.

If you masturbate and that same sperm never meets an egg...the child is not born.

It doesn't matter in the end. The sticking point is you thinking a mass of cells in a parasitic ( ) relationship means life. Human life, to me, requires sentience.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Asher
Look at it this way: If you have sex and that sperm meets and egg, which is then aborted...the child is not born.

If you masturbate and that same sperm never meets an egg...the child is not born.

It doesn't matter in the end. The sticking point is you thinking a mass of cells in a parasitic ( ) relationship means life. Human life, to me, requires sentience.

Or if you are a woman, and have a period, then you have killed a potential child.

Women should clearly get pregnant as much as possible.....and eventually eggs should be harvested, fertilized, and babies grown in artificial wombs.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Of course, this sort of sticking point is where you end up if you decide not to try a faith-based arguement.

The Catholic Church has the stance that the soul enters the 'body' at conception. Easier arguements then once you accept that (not that I do).

-Drachasor

[Asher]

That is what it comes down to, but Ben will never admit his reasoning is a religious one.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Asher
That is what it comes down to, but Ben will never admit his reasoning is a religious one.

Ben has trouble admitting that faith is not reason. He seems to feel there is a fundamental problem with not having a wholly rational arguement for a belief, and that gets him into a lot of trouble when arguing over religious issues because he is so religious.

-Drachasor