Fight Fire with Fire

[loinburger]

Judge: The defendant is accused of having insufficient human DNA to remain alive. Prosecutor Ben Kenobi, please make your case.
Ben Kenobi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have a liberal arts degree, and with this expertise I have determined that it is morally permissible to kill somebody whose genes vary by more than .0001% from the baseline as this means that they are not human.
Judge: And DNA is the only means by which you determine whether somebody morally qualifies as being a person?
Ben Kenobi: For purposes of trolling abortion threads, yes.

[Elok]

So long story short: it's immoral to kill a newborn if it would be immoral to kill that newborn after it has grown into an adult, because they're the same person.

Sorry, still don't get it. The embryo is also the same entity/organism as the adult, albeit not a "person." But the newborn is a person only by a highly tenuous standard--it can barely interact with its environment, so it's hard to tell, but it doesn't appear to be terribly bright. It's not going "cogito ergo sum" in there. Its brain activity would seem to be no more relevant than its heart activity, or its lungs, or opening its eyes, or what-have-you.

[loinburger]

Do you believe that it is morally permissible to terminate life support for (and essentially euthanize) somebody who is brain dead?

If the answer is "yes," then what is the difference between this act and that of aborting an essentially brain-dead embryo? If the answer is "no" then there's nothing I can say that will help you understand my position - I believe that personhood is a function of the mind, not the body.

[Elok]

Yes, it's fine to cut life support, but the embryo isn't brain-dead, its brain simply hasn't developed. Given time, it will very likely develop into a thinking person. It's the same being, either way. The brain-dead person, by contrast, is essentially an animated corpse, kept alive against nature. At present, there is no realistic hope of reviving him to normal life. The two cases are entirely dissimilar.

[loinburger]

In my view, either way it's a body without a functioning brain - no brain, no "soul" or self or consciousness or whatever

We agree that the self terminates when the brain terminates. I believe that the self originates when the brain starts functioning, and that the self doesn't exist (and hence can't be killed/murdered) prior to this.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know sperm isn't a retrovirus

And yet you still argue the embryo is one.

[Ben Kenobi]

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 believe that self-defense is justification for someone to kill another person. I also believe that in case of war, that soldiers are justified in fighting for their country even if it means killing other people.

I do not believe that abortion qualifies under either example. The unborn child is innocent and poses no threat to anyone.

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).

I believe that killing a terrorist is justifiable self-defense, yes - because terrorists aren't known for preserving the lives of other people. If you see a terrorist who is in the process of shooting at innocents then yes, I believe deadly force is justified.

We've had cases like that at Ft. Hood, etc. Where deadly force would have spared the lives of many people from a terrorist attempting to kill innocents.

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?

In the case of abortion? Because it demonstrates the continuity of a person's existence from conception onwards beyond reasonable doubt.

[regexcellent]

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?

There is this thing called "adoption" and the waiting list is frankly enormous. Also obviously yes if it were my child. You can't just kill someone because his existence is inconvenient to you, even if it's really inconvenient and life-changing.

edit: this is why the one and only legitimate argument for abortion is that it's not killing. If you think it is killing then your moral foundations have to be severely ****ed up to think this is okay.

[Ben Kenobi]

Judge: The defendant is accused of having insufficient human DNA to remain alive. Prosecutor Ben Kenobi, please make your case.
Ben Kenobi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have a liberal arts degree, and with this expertise I have determined that it is morally permissible to kill somebody whose genes vary by more than .0001% from the baseline as this means that they are not human.
Judge: And DNA is the only means by which you determine whether somebody morally qualifies as being a person?
Ben Kenobi: For purposes of trolling abortion threads, yes.

I was wondering if you would make that argument.

So - let's play a game.

Say we establish that a specific variation outside the norm would disqualify someone from human rights. By what right would we distinguish between the child inside the womb and the child outside of the womb?

Could we also not say that the mother who has similar genes would also be disqualified from making moral decisions?

My argument is simple. Your argument assumes that the mother can make moral decisions regarding the lives of others. I merely extend that right to her child. If the mother has this right, so does all her children.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the answer is "yes," then what is the difference between this act and that of aborting an essentially brain-dead embryo? If the answer is "no" then there's nothing I can say that will help you understand my position - I believe that personhood is a function of the mind, not the body.

Good question.

Brain function is not part of the capacity of a living human person at the earliest stage of life. We would look for other things, which would indicate that life was in fact present. Things like cell divison.

The same is not true for someone at the end of their life. We would expect them to exhibit a particular level of brain activity in order to still be considered alive.

[Ben Kenobi]

We agree that the self terminates when the brain terminates. I believe that the self originates when the brain starts functioning, and that the self doesn't exist (and hence can't be killed/murdered) prior to this.

Question - do you believe that the body is a critical component to a person's identity? Like, suppose we could get the proverbial brain in a jar working. Would that person have access to everything that made him a person as they did before?

[giblets]

There is this thing called "adoption" and the waiting list is frankly enormous. Also obviously yes if it were my child. You can't just kill someone because his existence is inconvenient to you, even if it's really inconvenient and life-changing.

edit: this is why the one and only legitimate argument for abortion is that it's not killing. If you think it is killing then your moral foundations have to be severely ****ed up to think this is okay.

I'm confused, are you claiming they have the right to put it up for adoption instead of keeping it or they don't have the right to put it up for adoption? And why do you have to have ****ed up moral foundations to not believe uteruses are public property?

[Lorizael]

Are we seriously still having abortion debates? ****ing Christ. I'm just gonna copy paste my correct answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancies from the last thread we had on this.

Look, I haven't yet met someone who was like, man, abortions are awesome! Let's all have abortions! That's because, no matter what, abortions pretty much always represent a failure of society in some way. A failure to prevent rape, or a failure to adequately teach about/provide birth control, a failure to instill self-control, etc.

So yeah, I'd rather if there weren't abortions. But getting rid of abortions alone doesn't solve anything. You have to get to the root of the problem. And the root of the problem is this: as a society, we no longer want sex and reproduction to be definitively linked. So it's pretty clear what the solution is: we should genetically engineer humans to be born sterile, and fetuses should be cultivated in artificial wombs. Boom. Problem solved.

[loinburger]

That would also have the benefit that we could screen potential parents before they get to grow a kid. Nothing too controversial, just stuff like "you must pass a breathalyzer when you sign the paperwork" - if you can't stay sober long enough to sign your child acquisition paperwork then you shouldn't raise a kid.

[Lorizael]