Originally posted by inimalist
all of those things are biological functions of cells.short of dualism, humans are cells working together.
That's not the point, is it?
I do love this. You're the kind of people who call me on semantics when discussing murder, but as soon as it's in your favour, you start liquidising the very concept of semantics and start backstroking in it.
-AC
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not claiming otherwise, but the ability to think raises on group of cells above another in my opinion. A rock is a collection of atom but cannot think, a brain is also a collection of atoms but it can recognize it's existence (or at least pretend to).
but that recognition is based on very strict physical/biological processes.
There may be many more complicated relationships between billions of more variables in a brain than in a rock, but ultimately it is the same principal. The subjective experience of that knowing would be like describing the subjective experiences of a rock.
And I guess I'd have to ask "raises it how?", or also, how is "thought" really important in the consideration of abortion? clearly no logical person supports the abortion of a child with a fully developed nervous system.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's not the point, is it?I do love this. You're the kind of people who call me on semantics when discussing murder, but as soon as it's in your favour, you start liquidising the very concept of semantics and start backstroking in it.
-AC
I'm what kind of people?
EDIT: I think what I said is rather related to whatever your point was. You are trying to describe the function of cells as a way to distinguish between early stages of human embryonic development and someone being a "human". I was merely pointing out that the cellular function, or the importance of cells vs "thought" or other existensial functions, is sort of moot, as it is all the same principle.
It appeared to me that you were saying humans are more than the sum of their parts, ie, humans aren't just their cells. I personally believe this is incorrect. If you don't see how that relates to abortion, I don't know how to put it any clearer.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
One is JUST cells, has never been any MORE than cells, is precisely what it is.We are more, we are walking, thinking, feeling, living (In terms of possessing LIVES, not being ALIVE solely), growing, grown, still growing.
You are putting cells ALONE on that level?
-AC
You are putting value onto things that don't matter. Again, if a person becomes disabled, and cannot walk, think or feel, are you going to call then just cells?
Originally posted by inimalist
but that recognition is based on very strict physical/biological processes.There may be many more complicated relationships between billions of more variables in a brain than in a rock, but ultimately it is the same principal. The subjective experience of that knowing would be like describing the subjective experiences of a rock.
And I guess I'd have to ask "raises it how?", or also, how is "thought" really important in the consideration of abortion? clearly no logical person supports the abortion of a child with a fully developed nervous system.
But following that line of logic breaking a rock is akin to murder which I doubt you would agree with. Which would be why "thought" is relevant to deciding if something is human.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, but that's entirely an appeal to emotion. I wouldn't call it a bunch of cells because it would upset and people and because "bunch of cells" isn't very concise. That doesn't change the facts of the situation. The world doesn't go away when you close your eyes, so to speak.
And that is my point! Don't sager coat it by making a special definition that you would not apply to a born person.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
We're not all "just cells" now.At conception there is only cells.
What actually happened to you? Did you become religious or has marriage actually removed everything from you except your wit? No offense meant, just curious as to what happened. I mean, you were always not the biggest fan of abortion, but I'm just wonder who's been pumping shit into you...I don't like this.
Insult me or something. The new you is making me uncomfortable.
-AC
In the abstract, we all all just cells. Now, higher brain function, that could be a differentiating factor on what lives and dies.
I'm the same person with the same stance on abortion. I wouldn't choose to have one myself (or I'd try to reason with a woman carrying my child from one), but I'm also not stopping anyone else from having one, nor would vote to make them illegal, if that can up. But an abortion is what it is, the snuffing of a would-be human life.
And yes, I know you couldn't give two smelly shits about the "would-be" aspect; that's because you're a silly British bastard who is for abortion because you're scared of being a parent, yet want to have the luxury of knowing you could kill any fetus, if you happened to impregnate one or more of the various whores you frolic about with.
Originally posted by Robtard
In the abstract, we all all just cells. Now, higher brain function, that could be a differentiating factor on what lives and dies.I'm the same person with the same stance on abortion. I wouldn't choose to have one myself (or I'd try to reason with a woman carrying my child from one), but I'm also not stopping anyone else from having one, nor would vote to make them illegal, if that can up. But an abortion is what it is, the snuffing of a would-be human life.
And yes, I know you couldn't give two smelly shits about the "would-be" aspect; that's because you're a silly British bastard who is for abortion because you're scared of being a parent, yet want to have the luxury of knowing you could kill any fetus, if you happened to impregnate one or more of the various whores you frolic about with.
I'm not sure how much weight you can or SHOULD put on "Would be", though, for reasons stated.
Also: ahhhhh, yeahhh. Much better.
-AC
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But following that line of logic breaking a rock is akin to murder which I doubt you would agree with. Which would be why "thought" is relevant to deciding if something is human.
I don't know...
"thought" is certainly something all animals display, and considering it is an ambiguous term, could be applied to any number of things. Over stretches of time, the "behaviour" of plants, in response to the stimuli in their environment, shows "intelligence". Plants will move toward food sources, compete for mates, etc.
The ability of something to subjectively experience pain or pleasure in anthropic terms might be a measure of morality, but "thought", is certainly not a quality of humans, at least not in any way that allows it to demarcate us from the rest of nature.
with regards to rock murder, murder isn't the act of attacking something, but rather violating the right to life of another person. The onus would be proving that the rock had an inalienable right to life, or that it was ever alive in the first place.
Thought, to me, is very much like the plant behaviour I described above, just with billions more variables interacting so that the "intelligence" doesn't seem like a passive "growth" toward the sun or what not, but as an active adaptation. Really, its only timescale.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Your point is that thought and logic should allow emotion to define them?
No. My point is that a human is a set of DNA in a living cell. I have never said that abortion is murder, but I do say it is ending (killing) a human. I feel that you can't face this harsh reality, so you make up definitions that make you feel better.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know..."thought" is certainly something all animals display, and considering it is an ambiguous term, could be applied to any number of things. Over stretches of time, the "behaviour" of plants, in response to the stimuli in their environment, shows "intelligence". Plants will move toward food sources, compete for mates, etc.
The ability of something to subjectively experience pain or pleasure in anthropic terms might be a measure of morality, but "thought", is certainly not a quality of humans, at least not in any way that allows it to demarcate us from the rest of nature.
with regards to rock murder, murder isn't the act of attacking something, but rather violating the right to life of another person. The onus would be roving that the rock had an inalienable right to life, or that it was ever alive in the first place.
Thought, to me, is very much like the plant behaviour I described above, just with billions more variables interacting so that the "intelligence" doesn't seem like a passive "growth" toward the sun or what not, but as an active adaptation. Really, its only timescale.
Then the perhaps issue is proving life in a non-abstract manner.
The argument can be taken to any absurd length you wish, maybe nothing is murder because nothing is real, but for practical purposes and arguments that involve reality I choose to see thought as something real. People think, many animals think, fetuses to do not think; they cannot yet guess about the future or recall the past (also two things that might or might not exist) they can't yet learn or reason.
AFAIK, without those qualities of thought, be they real or not, something is not sentient/thinking. So to me a fetus isn't yet a person although it is certainly a potential person. A body that has had the brain removed is also no longer a person. A rock is not a person. An individual cell is not a person.
Nonetheless I do understand the POV of people who see abortion as murder. It is simply that a) I disagree with them and b) that opens the floodgates for banning it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. My point is that a human is a set of DNA in a living cell.
Then you would have to accept that every individual cell is a human being which is really just beyond absurdity.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
[B]I have never said that abortion is murder, but I do say it is ending (killing) a human. I feel that you can't face this harsh reality, so you make up definitions that make you feel better.
I don't see why you would think that. It's not as though I'm a vegetarian.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you would have to accept that every individual cell is a human being which is really just beyond absurdity.
Part of a human. If there is only one cell (a fertilized egg), then it is all of the human
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't see why you would think that. It's not as though I'm a vegetarian.
I wasn't talking about you personally. If you felt that I was, then I apologize. I am looking at the bigger picture.
Originally posted by Robtard
You're ignoring the obvious. A human hair, nail or anus will never become a human being(cloning aside). A human zygote will.
*Could.
Not will. Could.
By saying it WILL, you are demonising the process of abortion, as if it's robbing anyone of anything. It's not. It's aborting the process, hence the name.
Potential doesn't matter here.
-AC