Fight Fire with Fire

[Ben Kenobi]

on the premise that the child's right to a parent outweighs your rights?

If you believe that the parents rights outweigh the child's, what justification do you have to argue that the child's rights should not exceed the parents? Say, if the children want to take their dependent parent off life support and the parent is unable to communicate their wishes?

[Aeson]

Using a remembered password for authentication is using a physical expression of a mental state. Which is also an apt description of a hypothetical brain scan used for authentication. They are especially similar if the brain scan were to be translating portion(s) of the brain where a remembered password was stored.

You can't use DNA to delineate between a person and cells which the person is no longer attached to, or between identical twins. Thus your statement that the existence of DNA should be used to determine person-hood is ridiculously stupid. All your other waffling, bluster, and strawmen just depict how unwilling you are to be honest and admit it's not a good determination of personhood.

[Ben Kenobi]

Using a remembered password for authentication is using a physical expression of a mental state.

Except, it's got nothing to do with the mental state of the user. Users can log in regardless of their mental state. That's what makes it useful for authentication that the user can log in using a specific key that does not change.

Which is also an apt description of a hypothetical brain scan used for authentication.

Except for the fact that brain scans are very time consuming, they are useless as a key because you'd have to replicate the exact same state again, and it's impossible to identify the user through it. We have better and cheaper standards that already exist. Why use something that's slower, more expensive and worse?

And I really, really doubt, that we'll ever see such a thing used for authentication purposes. It just doesn't make sense. If you've got the power required to do the scan, why would you do that over DNA? Just because you don't like DNA doesn't mean that others will share that antipathy.

They are especially similar if the brain scan were to be translating portion(s) of the brain where a remembered password was stored.

Keys work because they stay the same when other things change. Brain scans do not. Using brain scans as authentication will never happen. Ever.

You can't use DNA to delineate between a person and cells which the person is no longer attached to

Yes, I can do that quite easily, fwiw. As I've said about 10 different times, I have no issues with distinguishing between your hair and you. Simply because I can dispose of the hair without getting rid of you.

or between identical twins.

How is this relevant to abortion?

Thus your statement that the existence of DNA should be used to determine person-hood is ridiculously stupid.

Your 'superior' standard excludes a significant period of human development.

DNA is far superior as it correctly includes a significant period of human development which your standard can't do. Ergo, DNA is the better standard.

unwilling you are to be honest and admit it's not a good determination of personhood.

What waffling? DNA's the best measure we have at present. I suggest we use that measure.

Exactly what lie are you accusing me of telling?

[giblets]

**Yes, I can do that quite easily, fwiw. As I've said about 10 different times, I have no issues with distinguishing between your hair and you. Simply because I can dispose of the hair without getting rid of you.

Bingo. If a fetus isn't viable, you can dispose of it without getting rid of the mother but you can't dispose of the mother without getting rid of the fetus.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aeson, I ask a question. If you only know me through apolyton and I've been prolife 100 percent of the time on Apolyton, how would you know anything as to how I came about to become prolife in the first place? Logically, accusing me of lying makes no sense whatsoever because you've not known me from this period.

[Ben Kenobi]

Bingo. If a fetus isn't viable, you can dispose of it without getting rid of the mother but you can't dispose of the mother without getting rid of the fetus.

I can't dispose of the child without destroying the child, unlike Aeson's hair, which I can dispose of without disposing of Aeson. Ergo, there is a difference between hair and a child.

You're assuming the same thing Aeson is, that the child is just a part of the mother, just like her hair.

This is not true. Again, logically this cannot be true because otherwise, sexual reproduction doesn't work. Sexual reproduction only works if the child is a combination of her mother and father.

Also, why the caveat for viability? Surely if the child in the womb post viability is a person, then the child in the womb pre viability is also a person. Viability is a measurement of extrinsics and current technology, not a measure of intrinsics. It has changed over time as technology improves.

[giblets]

I can't dispose of the fetus without destroying the fetus, unlike Aeson's hair, which I can dispose of without disposing of Aeson. Ergo, there is a difference between hair and an fetus.

You can dispose of a fetus without disposing of the mother, like Aeson's hair, which you can dispose of without disposing of Aeson.

edit: it's totally possible for one person to have multiple genotypes or multiple people have one genotype.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can dispose of a fetus without disposing of the mother

And? So?

I'm asserting that they are two different people. That's like saying you can murder someone without killing another person.

, like Aeson's hair, which you can dispose of without disposing of Aeson.

But you can't dispose of the child without disposing of the child. That's the point here. The hair is a part of Aeson. The child is not a part of the mother but is a different person, unlike Aeson's hair which is a part of him.

edit: it's totally possible for one person to have multiple genotypes or multiple people have one genotype.

Would we still be able to distinguish between such a person and that person's mother?

[giblets]

Np, the fetus is a part of the mother because like her hair it will die if removed from her.

[giblets]

Sure, conjoined twins might die if you try to separate them, but they at least have separate functional brains even if they are identical twins with identical DNA.

[Ben Kenobi]

Np, the fetus is a part of the mother because like her hair it will die if removed from her.

If this were true, how do you explain sexual reproduction?

[giblets]

The fetus has foreign DNA, that doesn't make it a distinct person. A retrovirus can introduce new DNA, doesn't mean you have another person inside you when you're sick.

[Ben Kenobi]

The fetus has foreign DNA, that doesn't make it a distinct person. A retrovirus can introduce new DNA, doesn't mean you have another person inside you when you're sick.

The unborn child has human DNA, ergo it is not a retrovirus.

[giblets]

I know sperm isn't a retrovirus

[loinburger]

This is ridiculous. BK, do you believe that it is absolutely unequivocally [insert additional adverbs here] wrong to kill an organism with human DNA? I ask because you've previously said that the killing of organisms with human DNA was justified (usually organisms you consider to be thugs, terrorists, or whatever). So if you don't believe that an organism's possessing human DNA is sufficient justification for not killing it, then why are you harping on DNA so much?