The Abortion Thread

[Abhorsen]

Abhorsen, you're a human being. You're not a dog. You're not a monkey. You're not a flower. You're not a tree. Your parents are humans beings. You went through the life cycle of a human being. Not a life cycle of an animal or a tree.

I've never claimed this. This doesn't respond to any of my points. Human tissue does not a human being make. I claimed, quite clearly, that a fetus before brain activity is no different than an appendix in the woman. That's still human tissue, just not human tissue that matters morally.

So therefore, abortion kills human beings. Not an animal or a tree. Because it kills an offspring of two human beings.

Ah, then according to you, if I clone myself, then destroy my clone, that's not murder, as the clone was never an offspring of two people, and thus apparently not a person.

See, your definition doesn't work. It's too broad and too narrow at the same time. That's the problem: you don't have a working definition, just words that sound nice together.

 

[Fleiur]

I've never claimed this. This doesn't respond to any of my points. Human tissue does not a human being make. I claimed, quite clearly, that a fetus before brain activity is no different than an appendix in the woman. That's still human tissue, just not human tissue that matters morally.

I did not say that was your claim. I said you're a human being because your parents are human beings not an animal etc. So abortion clinics kills human beings because mothers (a human being) go there to get their kid/s (a human being) killed.

Ah, then according to you, if I clone myself, then destroy my clone, that's not murder, as the clone was never an offspring of two people, and thus apparently not a person.

See, your definition doesn't work. It's too broad and too narrow at the same time. That's the problem: you don't have a working definition, just words that sound nice together.

You're not an animal, you cannot clone yourself. And we cannot cross breed your mom to an animal because she's a human being.

 

[Abhorsen]

I did not say that was your claim. I said you're a human being because your parents are human beings not an animal etc. So abortion clinics kills human beings because mothers (a human being) go there to get their kid/s (a human being) killed.

Okay, but you didn't answer any of my objections.

You're not an animal, you cannot clone yourself. And we cannot cross breed your mom to an animal because she's a human being.

Zeroeth, a human is an animal.

First, I never said anything about crossbreeding anyone. You are confusing what I'm saying. When I say:

Ah, then according to you, if I clone myself, then destroy my clone, that's not murder, as the clone was never an offspring of two people, and thus apparently not a person.

What I'm saying that by your bad definition of human, a clone of a human isn't a human. Because a clone isn't an offspring of two humans. You are apparently unable to come up with a consistent definition of human that works in all cases.

By contrast, by my definition, a clone of a human is a human person (and a separate one than the original also).



Second, if we wanted to, we could clone humans pretty easily. There's no real scientific difference between that and Dolly the Sheep. Nuclear transfer of a random cell's nucleus into an developing egg cell, then shock it so it duplicates a couple of times, implant it into the woman's womb, and wait 9 months, and no one will deny you've got a kid who's a clone. You can actually do this with anyone's developing egg cell and implant it into anyone's womb, only the nucleus of the cell matters (so it works for cloning men too).

There is nothing special about humans scientifically preventing this at all. It's just morally very dubious, so we don't. That's really about it.

So no, we absolutely could clone a person. It wouldn't be that difficult even.


So again, I pose to you the question, could you destroy the clone? Because by your definition, it isn't human.

 

[Fleiur]

Okay, but you didn't answer any of my objections.

I did. When you're inside of your mom's womb, you're an innocent, defenseless human being. You're not an innocent, defenseless dog inside the womb. You're not an inoccent, defenseless monkey inside the womb.

Zeroeth, a human is an animal.

Ah, so dog, cat, rabbit are now like you and me? A human being.

You, me, and the people here in the Sietch = Human beings

Dog, cat, rabbit = Animals

First, I never said anything about crossbreeding anyone. You are confusing what I'm saying. When I say:

What I'm saying that by your bad definition of human, a clone of a human isn't a human. Because a clone isn't an offspring of two humans. You are apparently unable to come up with a consistent definition of human that works in all cases.

By contrast, by my definition, a clone of a human is a human person (and a separate one than the original also).

Second, if we wanted to, we could clone humans pretty easily. There's no real scientific difference between that and Dolly the Sheep. Nuclear transfer of a random cell's nucleus into an developing egg cell, then shock it so it duplicates a couple of times, implant it into the woman's womb, and wait 9 months, and no one will deny you've got a kid who's a clone. You can actually do this with anyone's developing egg cell and implant it into anyone's womb, only the nucleus of the cell matters (so it works for cloning men too).

There is nothing special about humans scientifically preventing this at all. It's just morally very dubious, so we don't. That's really about it.

So no, we absolutely could clone a person. It wouldn't be that difficult even.


So again, I pose to you the question, could you destroy the clone? Because by your definition, it isn't human.

No. It's still a kid (human being) even if you do it via surrogacy. Because it did not come out as a pig, dog etc.

 

[Abhorsen]

Ah, so dog, cat, rabbit are now like you and me? A human being.

You, me, and the people here in the Sietch = Human beings

Dog, cat, rabbit = Animals

Scientifically speaking, yes. We are all animals. A human is a type of animal, just like a square is a type of rectangle. Humans are the only animal that matters morally, but scientifically, yes, we are just a species of animal.

No. It's still a kid (human being) even if you do it via surrogacy. Because it did not come out as a pig, dog etc.

I agree a clone of a human is a human. But a clone of a human is not offspring of two humans. So now you agree that your previous definition of human:

So therefore, abortion kills human beings. Not an animal or a tree. Because it kills an offspring of two human beings.

doesn't work, as there could be humans that aren't the offspring of two humans.

So now give me a definition of human that stands up to scrutiny.

I did. When you're inside of your mom's womb, you're an innocent, defenseless human being. You're not an innocent, defenseless dog inside the womb. You're not an inoccent, defenseless monkey inside the womb.

Here you are just making assertions, and not even useful ones. You are saying that inside a womb, you are a human being. Fine, but that's an example, not a definition of what a human is.

A proper definition needs (at a minimum!) to be narrow enough that I can't call a monkey or a chopped off hand a human, but broad enough that a clone is a human.

It also needs to be consistent and not lead to absurdities.

So give me a definition!

 

[bintananth]

So now give me a definition of human that stands up to scrutiny.

"A primate with no tail, legs longer than arms, and without an opposable big toe."

"An obligate bipedal mammal without scales or a tail." also works.

The qualifiers are necessary with the second one because Ground Pangolins are also obligate bipeds. As are birds when they're not flying, but they're not mammals.

 

[Abhorsen]

"A primate with no tail, legs longer than arms, and without an opposable big toe."

"An obligate bipedal mammal without scales or a tail." also works.

The qualifiers are necessary with the second one because Ground Pangolins are also obligate bipeds. As are birds when they're not flying, but they're not mammals.

Ha! Fair enough. I'm not actually that concerned with confusing humans with animals, and am fine with self referential definitions right now, so we can focus on the relevant question.

So for a more complete definition: a human is an organism in which 1) its brain cells consistently share more than 99% human (or whatever cutoff point is needed) DNA and 2) thinks (i.e. there exists electrical activity in the brain).

Really I'm just looking for whatever criteria @Fleiur uses to determine life's beginning, and seeing if it works.

 

[bintananth]

Ha! Fair enough. I'm not actually that concerned with confusing humans with animals, and am fine with self referential definitions right now, so we can focus on the relevant question.

So for a more complete definition: a human is an organism in which 1) its brain cells consistently share more than 99% human (or whatever cutoff point is needed) DNA and 2) thinks (i.e. there exists electrical activity in the brain).

Really I'm just looking for whatever criteria @Fleiur uses to determine life's beginning, and seeing if it works.

Electral activity in the brain isn't really a good qualifier because practically all animals except for sea sponges have some sort of nervous system.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Electral activity in the brain isn't really a good qualifier because practically all animals except for sea sponges have some sort of nervous system.

Actually that's the point, absence of brain activity is a clear indication an organism cannot be a conscious person. Hence the additional qualifier of DNA meeting some metric for at least Genus Homo.

 

[bintananth]

Actually that's the point, absence of brain activity is a clear indication an organism cannot be a conscious person. Hence the additional qualifier of DNA meeting some metric for at least Genus Homo.

Fair enough, however ...

The smallest mammal - an Etruscan Shrew - has a very complex brain. Those voracious predators literally weigh less than a penny when fully grown.

Fruit flies, which aren't vertebrates, show signs of consciousness and an ability to learn from experience.

 

[Abhorsen]

Electral activity in the brain isn't really a good qualifier because practically all animals except for sea sponges have some sort of nervous system.

The electrical activity is to determine if it's a human being vs human tissue, not for determining human vs non human. Like if we were concerned about dog abortions for some reason, I'd have the same criteria: brain cells have a close enough DNA to dogs, and brain activity. The only reason I'm choosing brain cells is that we know those need to exist for part (2) to even have a chance of being true.

So this bolded part here:

practically all animals except for sea sponges have some sort of nervous system.

Is actually exactly what I'm aiming for. I'd consider all things with a working nervous system (i.e. electrical impulses going through it) as each being a separate organism/being. The point of this is to separate every human into their own box, for lack of a better term. Now all that I have to do is remove the boxes that have non humans (which is done via the DNA test), and we are done.

Honestly, I should have swapped the order of points 1 and 2 in my definition though.


So your examples:

Fair enough, however ...

The smallest mammal - an Etruscan Shrew - has a very complex brain. Those voracious predators literally weigh less than a penny when fully grown.

Fruit flies, which aren't vertebrates, show signs of consciousness and an ability to learn from experience.

Neither of them are human by my definition as they both don't have human DNA in their brain.

 

[bintananth]

Neither of them are human by my definition as they both don't have human DNA in their brain.

You and I are both anti-abortion with "some exceptions are acceptable". We just differ on where the line should be drawn.

Heck, I can think of one situation where you'd be ok with allowing one where I would not.

 

[Abhorsen]

You and I are both anti-abortion with "some exceptions are acceptable". We just differ on where the line should be drawn.

Heck, I can think of one situation where you'd be ok with allowing one where I would not.

Sure? But what does your statement have to do with the definition (i.e. why'd you quote this?)

 

[bintananth]

Sure? But what does your statement have to do with the definition (i.e. why'd you quote this?)

I was getting the vibe that you thought I was on the "abortions on demand up until the last moment" side of the spectrum. I wanted to nip that in the bud.

 

[Abhorsen]

I was getting the vibe that you thought I was on the "abortions on demand up until the last moment" side of the spectrum. I wanted to nip that in the bud.

Ah, I see. No, I hadn't gotten that vibe.

And as always, if you can poke a hole at my definition or offer your own, I'd welcome it.

 

[bintananth]

Ah, I see. No, I hadn't gotten that vibe.

And as always, if you can poke a hole at my definition or offer your own, I'd welcome it.

Hmm ... defining "what is a human?" is something Ancient Greek philosophers struggled with. Evidence is mounting that a lot of things once thought to be unique human traits actually aren't.

A single cell with human DNA is not necessarily a human, so defining "human" by DNA alone is inadaquate. The definition would have to be "a collection of traits that, when taken together, is unique to humanity".

 

[Fleiur]

I agree a clone of a human is a human. But a clone of a human is not offspring of two humans. So now you agree that your previous definition of human:

doesn't work, as there could be humans that aren't the offspring of two humans.

No. Two human beings (mom and dad) = offspring > Kid (human being)

You can have kids via sex, in
vitro, surrogacy, adoption.

So wrong premise there. No one's cloning themselves.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I agree a clone of a human is a human. But a clone of a human is not offspring of two humans.

Of course a clone is the offspring of two humans, specifically the parents of the donor. You can trace their genetic lineage quite easily and prove this to be the case.

And do you have any argument to make that isn't trying to accommodate some bizarre edge-case? Nobody feels the need to change the definition of humans away from "Bipedal" because a guy lost a leg to a landmine.

 

[Morphic Tide]

No. Two human beings (mom and dad) = offspring > Kid (human being)

Except that a woman can be cloned by creating the embryo artificially, then she can carry the child to term herself. There is no father, on any level, in that situation. Your definition doesn't work with something we can already do, in several different ways.

It's also self-referential in a really bad way, as it would require infinite regression of human parents to work. Even with the Genesis account, Adam and Eve would not themselves be human because they had a singular creator.

Of course a clone is the offspring of two humans, specifically the parents of the donor.

Nope, there's actually selfcest cloning as a possibility, and the imperfect nature of genome replication results in identifiable differences. This is also a spectacular distention of the word "offspring" to try and plug a very obvious hole in the definition.

What is so hard about accepting a definition that doesn't require you to re-define half a dozen or more words? Why are you so averse to using a definition that doesn't have to play technicality games to apply to entirely available hypotheticals?

The naturalism bias going on here is astonishing.

 

[bintananth]

No. Two human beings (mom and dad) = offspring > Kid (human being)

You can have kids via sex, in
vitro, surrogacy, adoption.

So wrong premise there. No one's cloning themselves.

Identical twins would beg to differ ...