What party am I?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


ISTR its 40 days for both, according to the Talmud. Which rabbi are you quoting?

Thomas Aquinas.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui .

It's trespassing in the woman's womb if the woman doesn't want the child.

Youre required to give a trespasser full warning before killing him, IIUC. You cant shoot a sleeping trespasser.

I think you can throw the homeless man out into the freeze (as do most people) and that principle applies here.

I dont think you can do that with a child, can you?

I certainly wouldnt throw a homeless man out into the freezing cold. If i didnt feel comfortable haveing him in my home id call a relevant govt or non-profit agency first.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DaShi


Thomas Aquinas.

ah, now he was a very good rabbi, even if he was a heretic

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
if it has human DNA

man, I didn't think you were stupid

brainwaves = living, independent creature
human DNA = of the type human

Jon Miller

Thanks for the insult. I don't see how you can accuse Imran of being an ******* when you engage in such assholish behavior yourself, when I certainly didn't. Looks like you two are peas in a pod.

See my response to lord of the mark as to why this "brainwave" argument isn't particularly valid. Notice I made it without calling people names.

[Ben Kenobi]

The pro-life stance is that living human tissue is human, from stem cells, to fetuses, to the brain dead.

Uh, no, that is a distortion.

First of all, prolifers support the use of adult stem cells, even as they oppose the use of embryonic stem cells. They make a significant distinction between the cells that are a part of one's body, and the cells that compose a distinct person.

Secondly, the brain dead, the standard is that irreverseable brain damage must occur. The key word here being irreverseable. Comas can reverse, and so someone who is in a coma would still be considered alive. Someone who is irreverseably brain dead would be considered dead.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Thanks for the insult. I don't see how you can accuse Imran of being an ******* when you engage in such assholish behavior yourself, when I certainly didn't. Looks like you two are peas in a pod.

See my response to lord of the mark as to why this "brainwave" argument isn't particularly valid. Notice I made it without calling people names.

I didn't call you stupid, I said I didn't think you were stupid (a request to think a bit more before you post)

Jon Miller

[DaShi]

Aristotle also made similar statements. I think however it was 40 for both, because his conclusions were based on observation of the developing fetus, ie when they looked most human.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That's not what they've been arguing.

The only point of bringing up brain waves is to imply that, on some level, the fetus in question is experiencing something, which makes terminating it morally more questionable than an obviously non-thinking fetus. But if the level of brain activity is no different than, say, a rabbit or dog fetus at the same time, then it's a pointless differentiation (since nobody is complaining about abortions of animals). So this brainwave argument is just another version of the "potential humanity" argument, not really a separate one.

usually we contend that creatures have life depending on their ability to have a mind

we don't usual classify the level of thinking (we don't consider retards a different species, or those in a coma)

so brainwaves make it a creature, and the human DNA make it a human creature, IE a human

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

As a Catholic you can't use the genetic argument to defend because it is just as applicable to all living things. Animals and other non-humans don't have souls. Therefore it doesn't matter whether they are killed or not unless it affects a human, which has a soul. So the abortion issue in the Church must be restricted to the definition of the soul.

Why is it applicable to all living things? To say that you have human life in particular, can be acknowledged through the genetic code, in distinguishing human life from animal life.

Just because one believes that there is no differences between animals and people, they are still confronted by the differences in the genetic code between species. So I don't see why Catholics in particular should be forbidden from appealing to evidence in science to bolster their arguments.

I also think it rather funny, that you limit Catholics, and not those rigid heretical protestants.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DaShi
Aristotle also made similar statements. I think however it was 40 for both, because his conclusions were based on observation of the developing fetus, ie when they looked most human.

i was thinking there was probably a common source. Though im not sure that the talmudic rabbis would have been directly influenced by Aristotle (unlike a medieval thinker like Maimonides)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Thanks for the insult. I don't see how you can accuse Imran of being an ******* when you engage in such assholish behavior yourself, when I certainly didn't. Looks like you two are peas in a pod.

See my response to lord of the mark as to why this "brainwave" argument isn't particularly valid. Notice I made it without calling people names.

if you look at my post, then your post, then my response (where I said I didn't think you were stupid)

my response shouldn't have been needed..

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I didn't call you stupid, I said I didn't think you were stupid (a request to think a bit more before you post)

Jon Miller

Lamest backpedal ever. That's still an insult. There's no reason to throw around language like that to people who are trying to engage in a reasonable discussion. It just makes you look like a total jerk.

I already explained myself. I would say you should think more carefully as to why the "brainwave" argument doesn't make much sense. As I said, unless one is positing that brainwaves=conscious experience (which isn't remotely true), it is a meaningless distinction to believe the firing of neurons makes any difference in the status of a fetus. A human fetus has human DNA whether it has brainwaves or not, so using that as a threshold is arbitrary.

[DaShi]

Protestants allow their pets and other animals to have souls, yet cruelly slaughter them anyway.

Genetics is universal. Even monkey share a very close homology with the human genetic code. It is even postulated that some viruses, such as hepatitis, have their genomes imbeded in the human genetic code. Are we going to call these creatures partial humans? Can the Church really connect genetics and souls and what are the consquences of such an action?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Lamest backpedal ever. That's still an insult. There's no reason to throw around language like that to people who are trying to engage in a reasonable discussion. It just makes you look like a total jerk.

I already explained myself. I would say you should think more carefully as to why the "brainwave" argument doesn't make much sense. As I said, unless one is positing that brainwaves=conscious experience (which isn't remotely true), it is a meaningless distinction to believe the firing of neurons makes any difference in the status of a fetus. A human fetus has human DNA whether it has brainwaves or not, so using that as a threshold is arbitrary.

I agree that that is a pretty lame backpedal, but my comment was meant to say your statement (As I understood it) was not adding anything (stupid if you will) and asking you to do better

we use it(brainwaves) at the end of life..

why not use it at the beginning?

I don't see the problem here

brains being required is why we don't consider someones kidney to be alive (in a transplant situation) or the like

brainwaves mean that a functioning brain is in existance

Jon Miller

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That's not what they've been arguing.

The only point of bringing up brain waves is to imply that, on some level, the fetus in question is experiencing something, which makes terminating it morally more questionable than an obviously non-thinking fetus. But if the level of brain activity is no different than, say, a rabbit or dog fetus at the same time, then it's a pointless differentiation (since nobody is complaining about abortions of animals). So this brainwave argument is just another version of the "potential humanity" argument, not really a separate one.

I thought we were assuming Speciest privileges for humans, and arguing when seperate life begins. If we're arguing against speciesm, you hardly have to talk about fetal rabbits, you could talk about an adult cow or pig.

BTW, I assume Jains do complain about abortions of animals. Not sure about Buddists, Jewish Vegans, etc.