Oh God No! The beginning of the end for sensible politics in the UK?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I was referring to human eggs, "lost" during every period. You haven't answered the question.

Semen and eggs have no ability of growing into a person before they are united.

Err no. There is a big difference between disagreement saying effectively "I don't think that you're right" and refutation saying "I don't think you're right, and this is why", when those reasons undermine the other persons argument.

Bah, give me arguments, and I'll undermine them

That if you accept a workable definition between mere lifeform and person as being cognitive capacity (intelligence), a functioning nervous and cerebral system and demonstrable consciousness, then the only human life forms that could not be considered "person" are those that are brain dead, clinically dead or the small clump of cells of a foetus. The latter is not conscious, is not intelligent, indeed is only animate in the cellular sense. It could not be considered a person.

Foetus becomes conscious at some stage. And do You think You can kill clinically/brain dead people?
Also, all your reasoning is based on thought that law should protect persons. Protecting of human life as a whole is an alternative.

In that case there is no border between one day prenatal and one day antinatal, if there is a border it would lie in the gestation itself. There are other people better read in foetal development than me, but this follows similar lines to others used in medical ethics (where the "lifeform - person - being" distinction is commonly used) where ideally it's arbitrary to the individual so it would be impossibly to legistlate along biological lines. In that case, take a reasonable figure; say, four months, when you're guaranteed that any younger foetuses are mere lifeforms, but cannot guarantee (if not determine) that ones that are older are also persons (more differences between the law and that which purports to be morality).

Who says that foeti before 4th month are mere lifeforms for sure? It's arbitrary. Leaving the matter to individual means no rules at all. It's a capitulation in front of the problem, not solving it.

To my mind, religion wasn't worthless, just like Nazism wasn't worthless.

So, kind of, Jesus is just as much worth as Hitler?

Meaning of life? As with all biblical "truth", I could write some book containing a meaning of life, for example that we should all sacrifice lemmings to the giant pixie living in the Sun, but that has no more validity than the Bible.

It has, because
1) The commandements of the Bible make sense
2) The ones writing it down weren't joking

Insincere... Do you think that the Church has or had a purpose OTHER than profit and social control?

Yes I do. Do You think people did not and do not believe in God?

Well, yes it is. If you agree with me that a newish foetus is a lifeform and not a person and thus subject to the same ethical constraints as disinfecting a toilet then the only way your argument can go is to talk about the potential of the foetus to become a person, which is itself refuted with your basic existentialism > essentialism.

All depends on definition of personality. If we call "human being" a person, it is different. When it comes to the latter stadia of foetus, it is not true as well.

In the example you gave, as a serial killer, the murderer was demonstrably conscious, so any change or fulfillment of potential would be his and his alone; other people no matter how authoritative would only be influences.

I disagree. "Influence" of state in that matter is essential. One could argue it's not smaller than influence of mother on the child in her womb.

A foetus is not conscious.

It is, at least from some point.
Even plants are conscious to some extent. It was proven they grow better when listening to classical music, that they grow bad if another plant is dieing next to them, and that corn for example spreads the news of pest invasion...

As it is not a person, the issue of potential is similar to taking a dump. Ones waste might provide nutrients in the soil for a plant to grow, but does one flush the toilet thinking it contains a turd, or a tulip? Same situation exists here.

First, if You do not agree with that only "persons" in your definition deserve protection, all your reasoning falls. Secondly, there's a distinction between potential of human growth and potential of tulip growth.
Also, by flushing the toilet, You do not necessarily take the possibility away from the tulip seed.

Only if you want it to turn into a flower . Just as you only think of an embryo as a baby if you want to carry the pregnancy to term... but you don't have the right to make that call, the only person who does is the mother. If the mother doesn't want to carry it to term she should be allowed to rid herself of the foetus and any attempt to force her not to is forcing ones "morality" upon her .

No. By seeing a seed of a flower, as long as we know what it is, we always think of it as a seed of a flower, not what it is at that point. You do not treat seed as a being having nothing in common with the plant.
The mother has no right to end a human life.
An interesting question: if I came upon a pregnant women, hit her and made the fetus die, would I be any different from the aborting women (but that I've hitten her, not only the foetus)? Only if You claim that the life inside her is her posession.

But why? I can understand one having issues with aborting an 8-month old foetus, indeed I would disagree with that, but that's completely different to a 4 week old bunch of stem cells. There is nothing in that latter that warrents the same defence as the former, so it is inconsistent to espouse one.

Protecting human life is not worse idea than protecting life of human personalities.

To me, put the line where it lies in fact, not fantasy. If science can one day provide a solid definition of lifeform and person based on valid definitions then great, however all we have now are relatively sound definitions (See above) and guesswork so I think one should play it safe. Allow abortions early in the term but disallow them after perhaps 10/12/16 weeks (others would be in a better position to quote specifics).

The church can not compromise. If there's any doubt that killing a 3-week foetus is wrong, it must ban it.

If you accept that sperm and eggs are not subject to the same protection as a baby then the sum of their parts, namely an egg that has just been fertilised are subject to no greater protection

No. It's not a simple summing it up. It's an union between the seed and the egg, and something new is being created out of it. New DNA...

No, the law is not applied morality; granted it once was but we have moved above a theocracy. Killing is bad... bad is an absolute term... killing is forbidden... forbidden requires a context in which one is to forbid, and presume that possibly outside of that context it would not be forbidden... it is contextual and thus relative.

No, it's just being more precise and perhaps relative morality, as it has to be in practice.
"Bad" doesn't have to be an absolute term if You don't want it to be so.

In that case you would agree that safe, clean, clinical environments are preferable to dirty rooms and rusty coat hangers?

It depends. Perhaps if the women aborts a child in a dirty, unpleasant room, she will be less willing to commit the act again later on. Then, dirty rooms and rusty coat hangers have some positive sides. Not that I wish for anyone such thing.

That's inconsistent. You're assuming a universal morality upon which law is based,

I do not. There are many moralities, more or less wrong or good.
Even if only one of them is right, it's only one of competing ones.

In that situation a moral imperative to feed your children would be far greater than a moral imperative not to steal, yet the legal imperative not to is a far higher practical concern to you, since there are consequences offered; accordingly it is a conflict between morality and law.

Only if your morality tells You something else than the law. And as the law is morality, it's a conflict between moralities again

No. To repeat is to say "this is the case". I am trying not to do that. I am trying to engage with your arguments and show you "why this is the case". If you repeat yourself without engaging my "whys" then the burden of proof remains on you.

But I do not disagree. If You accept your definition of "personality", and accept that only personalities deserve protection, You're right. However, it's a matter
of accepting the two conditions.

I would imagine her family and friends would suffer no?

Yes, and that's why we should kill them too.
That's in fact how the negative utilitarism was refuted: because the best thing according to its logic is destruction of any life in the world.

Indeed, as do the smallest fish, amoeba and insects.

Yes. And? I did not claim that every breathing being deserves protection.
Of course, if I could save amoebas from daily slaughter, I would

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Heresson

Foetus becomes conscious at some stage.

That point is disputed by doctors. I read an article a couple of weeks ago stating that unborn babies are in a mental state akin to unconsciousness or very deep sleep until their first breaths aerate their tissues.

[Whaleboy]

I tried to trim the fat here so to speak, in order that I don't waste time and space repeating myself answering points that have duplicates. So with that in mind, please forgive the verbal diarrhoea...

Semen and eggs have no ability of growing into a person before they are united.

Well now you're just pissing with semantics. Ability, potential, all means the same thing in this case. True, other things can happen with sperm and eggs which cannot to embryos but it still comes under my treatment of your earlier "seed" analogy earlier. However, credit where credit is due, it was a good analogy (especially since it supports my argument ).

Foetus becomes conscious at some stage. And do You think You can kill clinically/brain dead people?
Also, all your reasoning is based on thought that law should protect persons. Protecting of human life as a whole is an alternative.

As Laz pointed out there is some dispute about foetuses becoming conscious at some stage. I'm not qualified to talk about it with any authority and as far as I know, nor are you, so we should limit ourselves to possibilities in that area. What is the difference between those that are brain dead and those that are clinically dead? Whether the rest of their cells are alive. However, there is nothing to distinguish that form a pile of bacteria since there is nothing essential in human DNA that I am aware of that gives it special status. I'd imagine that would be a point of contention for you.

It is true, I am assuming that the law should protect persons and not merely biologically active human cells. That seems reasonable does it not?

Who says that foeti before 4th month are mere lifeforms for sure? It's arbitrary. Leaving the matter to individual means no rules at all. It's a capitulation in front of the problem, not solving it.

No you misunderstood a point earlier. 4th month, 2nd month, 7th month, it doesn't matter, and I'm in no position to offer a good one. But whatever it is, it should be a point whereby one can guarantee that none beforehand risk being conscious, whereas one cannot offer that guarantee to those over that limit. The actual point at which one becomes a person from a mere lifeform is probably individual and unworkable for the law anyway (hence morality - law distinction). It's a way of playing it safe, since those slightly over that limit aren't going to be conscious in common sense terms but it's a line in the sand. The best thing to do in these situations, useful in discussions of the age of consent etc.

If we call "human being" a person

A human being as in lifeform - person - being, or the DNA of Homo Sapians Sapians?

I disagree. "Influence" of state in that matter is essential. One could argue it's not smaller than influence of mother on the child in her womb.

A prison warden is hardly comparable to a pregnant woman . Influence is NOT essential to this argument because of its subjectivity. Also somewhat inductive in its determinability, we are looking at lifeform-person remember, not the difference the different manifestations of person (i.e., you, me, anyone). You still haven't got around the issue that any actualisation of potential depends on conscious responsibility, again you bring yourself back to the original problem.

It is, at least from some point.
Even plants are conscious to some extent. It was proven they grow better when listening to classical music, that they grow bad if another plant is dieing next to them, and that corn for example spreads the news of pest invasion...

No you mistake consciousness for intelligence. A cabbage has intelligence, but it is not conscious (though it does have greater cellular complexity than early foetuses).

First, if You do not agree with that only "persons" in your definition deserve protection, all your reasoning falls. Secondly, there's a distinction between potential of human growth and potential of tulip growth.
Also, by flushing the toilet, You do not necessarily take the possibility away from the tulip seed.

Well if you think that lifeforms also need protecting then you forbid yourself from eating, from moving for fear of crushing something, from breathing... and for what; essentially the preservation of biological machines? As I have said all along there is a difference between a mixture of proteins and amino acids, and humanity/personality. I know you seem to think that there is some inherent worth in the foetus for no reason other than that it is a human lifeform, but really what does that mean? At that stage, it has ~20% variation in its genes from a vegetable... show me the magical essense and I'll listen, but I doubt you can provide one.

Protecting human life is not worse idea than protecting life of human personalities.

Then you would suggest I try to catch my dead skin cells in a petri dish? Or that I confess every time I ejaculate (...no wait ), or that a funeral should be held for a miscarriage a day after conception? You have provided absolutely no imperative that supports your "statement" that we should protect the human lifeform like the human personality, when the latter is essentially absent.

No. It's not a simple summing it up. It's an union between the seed and the egg, and something new is being created out of it. New DNA...

So? What's so special about this new DNA? Does each base pair contain a magical amulet upon which the soul of the newborn is drawn from a higher mystical plane, blessed by angels and the sufferage of the Saints? Give me an argument with sound reasoning and valid premises and we'll talk.

No, it's just being more precise and perhaps relative morality, as it has to be in practice.
"Bad" doesn't have to be an absolute term if You don't want it to be so.

Then both morality and law are relative to context and they exist in different contexts? Thanks! You've basically undermined your position here and shown that law need not be morality.

It depends. Perhaps if the women aborts a child in a dirty, unpleasant room, she will be less willing to commit the act again later on. Then, dirty rooms and rusty coat hangers have some positive sides. Not that I wish for anyone such thing.

Sorry but I call bull****, and frankly that's so ridiculous I'm tempted to read all of your posts here to make sure you haven't been playing a rather lame joke all along. That you purport the benefits of unnecessary suffering (unnecessary to BOTH of our arguments) is really quite frightening, and you're negating the right to be taken seriously .

I do not. There are many moralities, more or less wrong or good.
Even if only one of them is right, it's only one of competing ones.

Circular logic again... to suppose "more or less wrong or good" implies a "most wrong" or "most good". If you do not do so then it is a matter for the beholder, which takes us right back to relativism in which case it makes no sense to talk about "more or less wrong or good" in a situation where you claim truth, as opposed to unsupported opinion.

Yes, and that's why we should kill them too.
That's in fact how the negative utilitarism was refuted: because the best thing according to its logic is destruction of any life in the world.

Who brought in negative utilitarianism? Simple humanistic utilitarianism, or on the other end of the scale a categorical imperative to minimise suffering will deal with it nicely. Negative utilitarianism is your guest here, not mine .

Of course, if I could save amoebas from daily slaughter, I would

For what reason? (accepting that the daily slaughter is essential to a healthy ecosystem).

[Heresson]

Ability, potential, all means the same thing in this case. True, other things can happen with sperm and eggs which cannot to embryos but it still comes under my treatment of your earlier "seed" analogy earlier. However, credit where credit is due, it was a good analogy (especially since it supports my argument ).

Yet, I claim that I've put down your ad absurdum argument about semen and human eggs.

However, there is nothing to distinguish that form a pile of bacteria since there is nothing essential in human DNA that I am aware of that gives it special status. I'd imagine that would be a point of contention for you.

There is something specific in human DNA. It's DNA of our species. You don't have to protect it, of course, but the same You don't have to protect human personalities.

It is true, I am assuming that the law should protect persons and not merely biologically active human cells. That seems reasonable does it not?

No-one's talking about protecting human cells. It's about protecting a specific being.

But whatever it is, it should be a point whereby one can guarantee that none beforehand risk being conscious, whereas one cannot offer that guarantee to those over that limit.

And it's OK, as long as You accept that You should protect persons, not beings.

Influence is NOT essential to this argument because of its subjectivity. Also somewhat inductive in its determinability, we are looking at lifeform-person remember, not the difference the different manifestations of person (i.e., you, me, anyone). You still haven't got around the issue that any actualisation of potential depends on conscious responsibility, again you bring yourself back to the original problem.

Sorry, but I don't know what You mean.
However, I've had a thought that treating the embryo as a potential may be wrong. It should be protected as it is as well.

No you mistake consciousness for intelligence. A cabbage has intelligence, but it is not conscious (though it does have greater cellular complexity than early foetuses).

How do You define consciousness?

Well if you think that lifeforms also need protecting then you forbid yourself from eating, from moving for fear of crushing something, from breathing...
(...)
I know you seem to think that there is some inherent worth in the foetus for no reason other than that it is a human lifeform, but really what does that mean? At that stage, it has ~20% variation in its genes from a vegetable...

Yes, the difference is that foetus is a human lifeform
/
It has full genes code from the beginning.

Then you would suggest I try to catch my dead skin cells in a petri dish? Or that I confess every time I ejaculate (...no wait ), or that a funeral should be held for a miscarriage a day after conception?

We're coming back to the already discussed point.
Your dead skin and your seed are not separate human beings.

You have provided absolutely no imperative that supports your "statement" that we should protect the human lifeform like the human personality, when the latter is essentially absent.

Why not?
Why should we protect human personalities?

So? What's so special about this new DNA?

the emergance of new DNA signalises the emergance of new human being.

Then both morality and law are relative to context and they exist in different contexts? Thanks! You've basically undermined your position here and shown that law need not be morality.

Morality and law do not exist in different context. Whenever law is involved, morality is as well.

That you purport the benefits of unnecessary suffering (unnecessary to BOTH of our arguments) is really quite frightening, and you're negating the right to be taken seriously .

Imagine for a moment that abortion is a murder.

Circular logic again... to suppose "more or less wrong or good" implies a "most wrong" or "most good". If you do not do so then it is a matter for the beholder, which takes us right back to relativism in which case it makes no sense to talk about "more or less wrong or good" in a situation where you claim truth, as opposed to unsupported opinion.

I believe in existance of most good and most wrong morality. Case dismissed.

Who brought in negative utilitarianism? Simple humanistic utilitarianism, or on the other end of the scale a categorical imperative to minimise suffering will deal with it nicely. Negative utilitarianism is your guest here, not mine .

Positive utilitarism = the more happyness/pleasure, the better
Negative utilitarism = the less sorrow/pain, the better.

For what reason? (accepting that the daily slaughter is essential to a healthy ecosystem).

Because I don't think they want to

[Whaleboy]

Yet, I claim that I've put down your ad absurdum argument about semen and human eggs.

But you haven't because it all falls back to consciousness.... the prisoner analogy doesn't work because we both agree that the prisoner is conscious, for you to proceed along the lines of "potential person", you have to first establish that it is a a change attributable to its responsibility which requires personhood, so whereas you should be establishing personhood you are instead going around in circles.

There is something specific in human DNA. It's DNA of our species. You don't have to protect it, of course, but the same You don't have to protect human personalities.

You're playing semantics again. Strictly speaking, the forcible termination of a human person is murder, whereas the forcible termination of a mere lifeform is not. So again I ask you, what is so special... so essential about human DNA that causes personhood from the instant a complete genome is formed?

No-one's talking about protecting human cells. It's about protecting a specific being.

Going around in circles again, establish that it is a person/being and we'll have ourselves a proper debate

And it's OK, as long as You accept that You should protect persons, not beings.

Forgive me I do not understand how person - being is relevant here, since the latter is just a Cartesian egocentrism.

However, I've had a thought that treating the embryo as a potential may be wrong. It should be protected as it is as well.

Why?

How do You define consciousness?

Demonstrable consciousness of person* as opposed to cogito ergo sum consciousness** (so the stage down from Gillick consent)... shall we say deliberate communication and the prerequistes... a developed and active cerebrum and nervous system for a start.

*person
**being

Why not?
Why should we protect human personalities?

You're the morality man, you tell me! I'm merely defining it as murder, it takes a separate moral code to say that it is wrong, I am merely dealing with ethics. Call morality applied ethics .

the emergance of new DNA signalises the emergance of new human being.

How? You'll need to define "human being" to start there.

Morality and law do not exist in different context. Whenever law is involved, morality is as well.

Again you're just restating yourself with no argument. Show me how I am wrong and I will listen. I just want you to engage with what I'm saying.

Imagine for a moment that abortion is a murder.

Which is the crux of your argument, but I don't want to imagine it, I want you to show me how, as someone said earlier you're just repeating your main assertion and using circular logic around that, which isn't getting either of us anywhere. I'm trying to engage with your argument, but I'm finding it frustrating because you're being very opaque and seemingly unwilling to defend your main assumption, which should not be an assumption because it's the very topic of the debate!

I believe in existance of most good and most wrong morality. Case dismissed.

Then you are not a moral relativist, you would use morality out of context and law is relative to morality regardless, yet there are different legal systems relative to each other so the law cannot be an application of an absolute morality, for that would presume an absolute legal system. Law can, at best for you, be a distorted reflection of some absolutism especially in theocracies, but the above problem works there, so we are left to conclude that the law is just a social construct. The irony is that as a moral relativist, I actually believe that what we delude ourselves into thinking is morality is also a social construct! Naturally the two are completely different philosophical animals in that respect.

Positive utilitarism = the more happyness/pleasure, the better
Negative utilitarism = the less sorrow/pain, the better.

Ah! The ghost of the adolescent Bentham! Modern (post JS Mill) utilitarianism = the more welfare the better.

Because I don't think they want to

You don't think the amoeba want to die? Pray tell, how does their "want" come into it? Come to think of it, how does their "want" actually work? I think you've illustrated perfectly the trouble you seem be having here.