Fight Fire with Fire

[loinburger]

If that were true then you'd be a clone of your mother.

You are dumb as a sack of bricks and there's no way in hell I'm going to waste my time debating the definition of personhood with you

[Aeson]

Why brain activity? What makes it a superior standard as compared to say, genetics?

Genetically the hair clippings at a barber shop are human. It's a pretty bad metric to base allocation of rights off of.

[Ben Kenobi]

Genetically the hair clippings at a barber shop are human. It's a pretty bad metric to base allocation of rights off of.

I could identify someone just from those hair clippings. I'm not seeing why that metric is the problem. Your clippings are distinct from mine. Same with the mother and the child inside her womb. Different DNA, different persons.

Could I identify a person just from their brain activity?

[Ben Kenobi]

You are dumb as a sack of bricks and there's no way in hell I'm going to waste my time debating the definition of personhood with you

Unlike your mother's fat cells, your DNA is different. This has been true since you were conceived. Ergo, I conclude that this particular analogy isn't applicable to this situation.

[Aeson]

I could identify someone just from those hair clippings. I'm not seeing why that metric is the problem. Your clippings are distinct from mine. Same with the mother and the child inside her womb. Different DNA, different persons.

a) has nothing to do with whether the hair is deserving of rights simply for having human DNA.
b) identical twins.

Could I identify a person just from their brain activity?

Theoretically you can. (I'm not sure, but likely we already can.)

All of that of course misses the point that if you're distributing rights simply based off of DNA, the pile of hair clippings has the same rights as the people it came from. You can't differentiate and say "this pile of clippings is from this human, so doesn't have rights" because you've already said "any cell or grouping of cells with human DNA is a person deserving of rights".

[regexcellent]

If you murder me or HC is that only killing half a person?

[loinburger]

Ben, if you believe that an embryo is a person because it's got an undetectable ghost inside of it or something along those lines, then just say so and stop embarrassing yourself with science.

[Ben Kenobi]

a) has nothing to do with whether the hair is deserving of rights simply for having human DNA.

Again, I can identify the person to whom the hair belongs via DNA. I can do the same with the DNA of the embryo, I can not only identify the DNA as distinct, but I can also identify the identity of the parents.

This to me indicates that DNA is a marker for something pertaining the common substance of personhood.

b) identical twins.

Yes, and? You do understand how they form?

Theoretically you can. (I'm not sure, but likely we already can.)

Could it distinguish 1 person from say, a million other scans? DNA can already do that.

All of that of course misses the point that if you're distributing rights simply based off of DNA, the pile of hair clippings has the same rights as the people it came from.

Again, I can identify the person to whom the hair belongs through their DNA which their hair shares. You're arguing that because the embryo is small like hair that the two are similar, but they are not. I can distinguish the embryo from either parent, and there are significant biological differences between the embryo and the hair.

You can't differentiate and say "this pile of clippings is from this human, so doesn't have rights" because you've already said "any cell or grouping of cells with human DNA is a person deserving of rights".

Sure I can. Same way I distinguish between, "this is Aeson" and "this is Aeson's hair."

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, if you believe that an embryo is a person because it's got an undetectable ghost inside of it, then just say so and stop with the science.

I don't see a reason to suspend science and biology because one favors abortion. Human beings begin their life at conception. We've known this since in-vitro fertilization has confirmed this to be true.

[loinburger]

The problem is that you believe that a zygote is a person ("person", not "human" - a brain dead body is a "human" but not a "person") because of the undetectable ghost in it. That's fine, and I'm not going to argue about the existence or non-existence of undetectable ghosts because that's a matter of faith - it's impossible to prove or disprove their existence. However, this makes you look ridiculous when you assume a false position and attempt to argue that a zygote is a person (again, "person" as opposed to "human") for scientific reasons that you don't really believe in. This extends to how you treat others' beliefs - you have no desire to try to understand them, instead you assume an inept lecturing tone.

I really don't give a **** why you believe in undetectable ghosts, and so you don't see me asking you disingenuous questions about your beliefs on the subject merely in a misguided or malicious attempt to poke holes in or belittle your beliefs that I don't understand and have no wish to understand. Please afford the same level of respect to others.

[Aeson]

Again, I can identify the person to whom the hair belongs via DNA. I can do the same with the DNA of the embryo, I can not only identify the DNA as distinct, but I can also identify the identity of the parents.

This to me indicates that DNA is a marker for something pertaining the common substance of personhood.

So if in the future your consciousness is somehow transfered to a non carbon based lifeform then you aren't deserving of any rights because you don't have DNA? Does this mean we can create sentient AI and t hen just torture them for ****s and giggles, and there is nothing wrong with that?

Or how about clones? Can you clone yourself and then freely rape the cloned babies because they're your DNA? Or is something else involved about differentiating between people?

Yes, and? You do understand how they form?

They split from the same fertilized egg, and have the same DNA. So you can't use DNA to differentiate between them. Thus by your wonky logic you could incinerate one of them and that's morally equivalent to burning a pile of hair from the other.

Could it distinguish 1 person from say, a million other scans? DNA can already do that. In theory yes. In practice, never.

I'm sure it could. As you admit, "in theory yes". The only question is if we want to do it enough to dedicate the resources and time necessary to do it. In the future it will probably become much easier. (Likely it will be used for authentication at some point in the not too distant future. Already passwords are just an indirect abstraction of such a form of authentication.)

Not that it matters, because if you had 2 people you couldn't distinguish between in any way ... they'd both still be deserving of rights. And a pile of hair, even though it has human DNA, isn't deserving of rights.

You're arguing that because the embryo is small like hair that the two are similar, but they are not. I can distinguish the embryo from either parent, and there are significant biological differences between the embryo and the hair.

No. I am arguing that your suggestion that rights should be allocated based on DNA is stupid. For the simple, blatantly obvious reason that not all cells or groups of cells which contain human DNA are equally deserving of rights.

[giblets]

No, if you believe a fetus is a moral person then it follows deductively that killing it is not okay for the sake of not having to endure the pregnancy. This is in particular true when you consider that the more "alive" the fetus is, the less of the pregnancy there is left to complete anyway.

If you believe a fetus is not a moral person, then absolutely you should not expect the woman to have to endure the pregnancy.

Would it be appropriate for the government to tell you that you have to raise a foster child on the premise that the child's right to a parent outweighs your rights?

[giblets]

If you murder me or HC is that only killing half a person?

Correct, and a human with multiple genotypes is multiple people

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is that you believe that a zygote is a person ("person", not "human" - a brain dead body is a "human" but not a "person") because of the undetectable ghost in it.

You're quite wrong about that. I believe that human life begins at conception because:

1, we know that conception forms a unique human person and that:
2, there's no break in the development.

Otherwise IVF wouldn't work, and we couldn't show that there is genetic continuity from conception to birth. This has already been proven, Loinburger.

Nothing with faith.

I suggest you start addressing the arguments I am making rather than the arguments you prefer to argue against.

However, this makes you look ridiculous when you assume a false position

How long have I been prolife, Loinburger?

Please afford the same level of respect to others.

I've been on Poly, since, oh - 2003 or thereabouts?

I've been prolife the entire time, haven't I?

[Ben Kenobi]

So if in the future your consciousness is somehow transfered to a non carbon based lifeform

Why are you assuming I would want to do something like that?

then you aren't deserving of any rights because you don't have DNA?

I think there are some severe moral and ethical problems associated with this. The main question being - how do we know that what is transferred is actually that persons consciousness? Say I made a box that had recordings of the person and I was the Wizard behind the curtain typing responses in the voice of that person.

How would you tell the difference?

Does this mean we can create sentient AI and t hen just torture them for ****s and giggles, and there is nothing wrong with that?

Is it possible for us to create sentient AI?

Given that you support dismembering actual human children in their early development, why would you have greater consideration for AI?

Or how about clones? Can you clone yourself and then freely rape the cloned babies because they're your DNA? Or is something else involved about differentiating between people?

I don't see how you can support cloning because as it works right now - cloning has to kill other people to get what you want out of it. It's like saying you can sacrifice a few children to keep the one you want.

In the future it may be possible to do it without this, but right now it isn't.

Are we through with the science fiction questions?

I'm not quite sure what all this has to do with the question that human embryos should be considered persons. If they are persons, then these other things may be persons. If they aren't persons, then it makes no sense to consider these other things persons.

They split from the same fertilized egg

What fertilized egg? Oh, you mean a zygote. So why wouldn't they be persons then? They have a distinct DNA from their mother and their father after conception.

So you can't use DNA to differentiate between them.

Actually I can use their DNA to distinguish them from their mother and father meaning that they are not a part of their mother or father. Are you suggesting that one twin would have the authority to abort the other?

Thus by your wonky logic you could incinerate one of them and that's morally equivalent to burning a pile of hair from the other.

As opposed to your logic suggesting that until they attain a specific level of development, it's ok to incinerate both of them?

If they are persons at birth they are persons at conception.

I'm sure it could.

It's your argument. You have to prove it can be done. I've already proven that DNA can do this. You have not.

As you admit, "in theory yes".

Theory is different in reality. We could not distinguish or determine a familiar connection via any sort of theoretical analysis. Ergo, I would argue that brain scans pertain to an accidental quality rather than a substantial quality that DNA seems to indicate.

The only question is if we want to do it enough to dedicate the resources and time necessary to do it.

Why would we bother when we have cheaper and more effective evidence already in place? Just because you don't like the science doesn't mean that genetics is bad.

(Likely it will be used for authentication at some point in the not too distant future.

Why?

Already passwords are just an indirect abstraction of such a form of authentication.)

Uh, this is crazy sauce. You're saying that passwords are akin to brain scans? LOL. If I had your credentials I could log in as you. And the system would never tell the difference.

And a pile of hair, even though it has human DNA, isn't deserving of rights.

Are you telling me that if I had a pile of your hair that it couldn't be traced to you?

I am arguing that your suggestion that rights should be allocated based on DNA

Why is it stupid? Your hair would not have rights because you have rights and your hair is a part of you. I could prove it easily.

not all cells or groups of cells which contain human DNA

So, you're not understanding the difference between hair cells and embryos? Biologically they are very different. If you had an embryonic child, I could show two things:

1, that the embryo was your child and that:
2, that the embryo was also not you, in that the DNA is distinct.

DNA is a marker, not the definition - it's an indicator that human life is present. We would use DNA to determine the identity of that person, seeing as no human person lacks human DNA.

The difference from the hair cells is that I could show:

1, that the hair came from you and:
2, that you exist without your hair.

I can prove that the hair is not you because if I take the hair away you are still here, while the hair is not. I cannot do that with the embryo, because if I take the embryo away - the embryo dies and so does the person.

This is the difference, and why the embryo is a distinct human person while your hair is not. And, best of all, DNA will show this.