Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
So...doing what a country should. It's own interests above that of others.
KGB and CIA trying to get more allies against the other ideals.
Welcome to the world of this shit
Man, what would I give to live in a world where the CIA would do anything to further America's interest. If Mossad were actually as you say, instead of a politicized mess of incompetence as the CIA is, that doesn't make them evil, just the enemy, should that interest conflict with America's.
Which would be rare, for that hypothetical rational and competent Mossad acting in Israel's interest. They sure wouldn't be like American Jews and think undermining the stability of Israel's most important ally, including by increasing the number and power of Jew hating voters and politicians is a great idea.
Ixian
Professional Gatekeeper
What if I'm just anti-feminist? No reactionaryism necessary.
It is at its heart a sexist and misandrist ideology.
Ixian
Professional Gatekeeper
Idiotic.
A foetus, fetus, and embryo are all the same thing. Human. Humans in the earliest stages of the human lifecycle. Only an idiot would truly believe they aren't ending a human life with an abortion procedure.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Conception is a bad way to judge it, horribly devalues "human life" to define it such that the majority are miscarriages. To say nothing of what it does to in-vitro fertilization that's commonly used to have a child born who literally could not be concieved naturally.
Realistically, the reason this is a hard debate to have, with no answer to agree on, is because there isn't a scientific answer for when it becomes human. You could say from conception, sure, but like you said....
It's a philosophical/religious question, with a philosophical/religious answer. Science can tell us all about the different stages, but it can't tell us when to consider it a human life. People will probably never come to an agreement on that.
Bingo, why the hell should I have to explain that groups even more evil than the ATF (Famously displayed as being led by satan in Lexx), are probably more evil than Hamas? All the intel groups do fucked up shit that people wouldn't even believe if they saw it with their own eyes.
Also the hilarity of 'post evidence!' on a platform on the internet. The internet controlled by said intel agencies.
Might as well ask me to prove that biden is a pedophile. Oh wait, there's zero hard evidence at all! But we all know the truth regardless.
Lol, a versus forum powerscaling conspiracy theorist. Now I know I'm in an SB offshoot. And powerscaling off a fictional depiction at that. Really brings me back to that time on SB where a dude tried to argue why the government needs to kill all Republicans based on how many biggatons fictional weapons in the video game Alpha Centauri have.
You gotta love it!
I just went cross-eyed.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
From a scientific perspective, it absolutely is human from the moment of conception. It is a living creature, it has human DNA, it's a part of the human lifecycle. You can tell a pro-abortionist is either actively ignorant or lying to you if they can't even acknowledge this much.
'What is a person, and what should a person's rights be?' is absolutely a philosophical/theological question.
Generally speaking, abortionists who refuse to recognize that are doing so because they know they have no argument at all. I think abortionists who argue 'it isn't a person until it's born' are horribly wrong, but at least they have a position.
Those who try to avoid the question 'what is personhood?' in the first place aren't just wrong, they're exhibiting moral cowardice by doing so.
It's human, it might not be a separate human. Like, sure, those are human cells, but whose to say that it has become a different human than the mother yet? As always, I'll bring up Chimerism, where fraternal twin zygote fuse in the mother, creating someone who has mostly one genome, but occasionally like a mole that's another genome. If you extract the Chimeric mole from your skin, did you just kill your sibling? No, that's absurd.
More, it doesn't even get into identical twins, who surely aren't both created at conception, as the split happens much later. That's not even including the absurdities of separating and unseparating zygotes in a lab: did you just create then uncreate human life?
And even more, it runs into the organ donation problem: if you donate a heart after your head gets squished by a truck, are you still alive as long as the heart beats?
Life at conception is not some great scientific finding, and people thinking so haven't thought a ton about it scientifically, as they haven't looked at the ton of exceptions, some of which I listed, but not all of them.
It's 100% a philosophical question, but one where there are wrong scientific answers to. The best answer I find is that human life begins at the first thought of a human brain, and ends at the last thought of that human brain. This is somewhere between 8-12 weeks or so.
You could also argue that it begins at the beginning of the process by which humans are created, and create a weird argument around this, to try to get to conception, but a) this is not my argument, and b) it has other holes in it. But arguing "Muh DNA" and going full science runs into the ton of science problems with that above.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you try to bring up a lot of edge cases to make an argument.
1. An embryo is not the same thing as the mother. Fully dependent on the mother, yes, but not the same thing. This is a matter of basic genetics.
2. Regarding the process by which identical twins form, you can have an interesting debate on if it's one person splitting into two persons, some sort of cloning, or whatever, but it is extremely clear that from the moment of conception, there is a distinct human life form that is not the mother. If I have to try to explain to you how identical twins are not the same person, there's no point in trying to have an argument past the level of pedantry at hand.
3. Chimerism is one of the edgest of edge cases. Chimerism is vanishingly rare, and in humans, last I checked, there aren't enough case studies to really form a complete picture of what does and does not go on consistently with such things. However, as a Chimeric human may have two distinct genetic codes from the mother, this makes them more distinct from the mother, not less.
4. What even is this organ donation argument? If someone has experienced brain death, or other gross bodily harm leading to death, but some organs are salvageable, this is obviously grossly distinct from an embryo. Is the decapitated corpse going to grow a new head? Is the person with the crushed rib cage going to grow a new heart and lungs? The answer to both of these questions is 'no,' as well as any number of other cases that result in post-mortality organ donation you're trying to bring up.
The natural consequence of mortal injury is death, and medical intervention is used to try to prevent that, or prevent that for others by salvaging useful biological material. The natural consequence of a viable pregnancy is a baby being born, and abortionists want to use medical intervention to prevent that.
You're talking about literally inverted situations, and acting like they have any bearing on each other.
This is all just semantic arguments and none of it changes the fact that a zygote is a separate, human, being from the mother. Maybe that human has two different DNAs or maybe it ends up being 2-3 humans, regardless its scientifically a new organism of the human species.
Again, you claim this. But you have a latent undefined term here: what's your definition of a human person?
And arguing just genetics (i.e. different DNA) fails: there's a lot of times people have distinct genetic material as part of their bodies (e.g. organ donation). More, it also fails in the example of a clone: Take Daisy the sheep, if the sheep had gestated inside of the sheep that had given the nucleus: same DNA, but you'd call them different beings.
DNA is not the scientific determinant of "new human".
I agree identical twins aren't the same person (that's literally the point of most of my post: DNA is not what defines a human as different from another, it's the brain and thoughts). But at least one of the identical twins doesn't begin at conception, which is crucial: it means "Not all life begins at conception", which is another hole in the supposedly scientific fact of "Life begins at conception".
Sure, it's distinct from the mother. But if you extract a chimeric mole, did you kill a human in like the 50th trimester or something? No, that's absurd. So then when did the zygote, which you say was a human, actually die?
Look, if you want an actual scientific answer, you've got to have one that can deal with the edge cases very neatly. But you don't. The idea that "life at conception" is somehow a great scientific truth is completely wrong. It could be a religious truth or a philosophical one, but you can easily find scientific arguments against it, like I did.
Is it? You can use the skin cells, and convert them to stem cells, convert those to a zygote (science has avoided this, but it's likely possible, they did something similar-ish with Dolly the sheep) and eventually plant them in a uterus and grow a new human. If we accept DNA as equaling a human person, that's the same person. Obviously, that's dumb: a brain is a human, not a clump of genetically distinct cells.
Again, it's another attack on the DNA fixation of people who believe "Life begins at conception".
If you are dealing with a definition (in this case the definition of a human person, which is fundamental to when human life begins), semantic arguments (literally arguments about definitions) are actually entirely relevant, highly necessary, and on point.
The issue with the multiple DNAs combining with the concept of "Life begins at conception" is that there are 2 separate conceptions (one for each egg/sperm combo), so if only one life came out of that, then there was a conception that didn't begin a life.
More, there are combined people, with two functioning heads (Siamese Twins). I'd count that as two people, not one, unless one didn't have a brain, which would make it back to one person again.
A brain (more accurately human thought), not a birth, not a conception, defines what is a human person.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
I would bring up that were regrowth of new heart and lungs or [x] item possible for individuals who suffered gross bodily harm that destroyed those organs then the argument against looting their body for organs would be identical to an anti-abortion argument--IE if such were possible, then we morally shouldn't harvest other organs from someone who'd suffered that loss because, since they can regrow it, they're not dead and are very much still an individual human--this even being the case if a brain regrew somehow and radically changed who the person "was" because presumably they'd lack memories/skills/etc...Regardless of any of that, it'd still be immoral to kill the individual for convenience/benefit.
Like...The reason organ donation is moral (voluntarily) is because, to date, there have been a single-digit number of cases of people coming back from the dead and those are mighty controversial. If nanites or super-duper-fast-evolution or supernatural blessing suddenly made back-from-deading a more regular occurrence, then we should and rightfully would properly adjust how we treat what we currently think of as corpses and bring that treatment in-line with how we treat living human beings.
Regardless none of this matters as no one would argue any of these edge cases aren't people
Most everyone would argue that the chimeric mole isn't a person, but part of a person, and that cutting it off doesn't constitute murder. But someone who believes that life begins at conception would have to accept that the chimeric mole was a separate human at some point (as it got conceived separately), and there was some point when it died.
The issue is that the definition being proposed by Christians (Life begins at conception) doesn't match what 99% of people would consider life. I'm highlighting those mismatches. This is why that's not a scientific definition.
No one would argue a fetus isn't a person because it is a chimera. You are conducting a straw man argument here and not a very good one, a person who has two types of DNA still fits the definition of life and the whole point is that it is, scientifically speaking, a single organism. That's literally the modern definition of one.