The Abortion Thread

Fleiur

Well-known member
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.
No. You need a man to have kids. A woman cannot get pregnant on her own.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
No. Two human beings (mom and dad) = offspring > Kid (human being)

You can have kids via sex, in
vitro, surrogacy, adoption.
And also, you can clone them. It's quite doable, we just don't. A clone has only 1 parent (for lack of a better term), and has the exact same DNA as them.

Your definition of human (the offspring of two humans), thus does not include clones of humans. Hence your definition of human is bad, because it doesn't include them.

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.
Genetic similarity does not an offspring make. But sure, we could also artificially modify a bunch of genes as well, then make the clone, so it's the kid of no one if we wanted.

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.
It's necessary because getting this right affects the real world, especially legal rights. If we only gave human rights to bipeds, suddenly that definition really begins to matter. And if you want to be fine with imprecision, that's okay. It leads to a really bad place though where people just do awful things that are 'close enough' to okay. I'm not sure where you'd define life as beginning, but I can tell you that no matter which it is, it'll lead to a place you don't like.

Finally, your objection seems to be complaining about poking holes, but please note the forum you're in: the philosophy forum. It's literally about philosophizing and putting ideas up to rigorous attack. Complaining that ideas are being attacked for not covering edge cases is just dumb. Like this isn't a casual conversation where I'm being needlessly pedantic. This is the basically the forum to be pedantic (I'd say precise) in.

No. You need a man to have kids. A woman cannot get pregnant on her own.
They absolutely can. I've explained the process here multiple times, and it's been done to sheep. It absolutely could be done to humans. They have egg cells. You swap out the nucleus, allow it to multiply a little, then implant it. It's a lot like IVF just with a random cell replacing the sperm.

They already have skin stem cell lines and it's raising ethical issues:

They're currently working on turning skin cells into both egg and sperm cells apparently. Now one person can be both the mom and dad of a kid.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
And also, you can clone them. It's quite doable, we just don't. A clone has only 1 parent (for lack of a better term), and has the exact same DNA as them.

Your definition of human (the offspring of two humans), thus does not include clones of humans. Hence your definition of human is bad, because it doesn't include them.

Genetic similarity does not an offspring make. But sure, we could also artificially modify a bunch of genes as well, then make the clone, so it's the kid of no one if we wanted.
Yes it does, Mr. Pedant. The meaning of the word offspring is literally "Descended from."

And if you modified an organism enough that it had non-human genes in it most people would want a long hard look at whether or not it was considered human anymore.

It's necessary because getting this right affects the real world, especially legal rights. If we only gave human rights to bipeds, suddenly that definition really begins to matter. And if you want to be fine with imprecision, that's okay. It leads to a really bad place though where people just do awful things that are 'close enough' to okay. I'm not sure where you'd define life as beginning, but I can tell you that no matter which it is, it'll lead to a place you don't like.

Finally, your objection seems to be complaining about poking holes, but please note the forum you're in: the philosophy forum. It's literally about philosophizing and putting ideas up to rigorous attack. Complaining that ideas are being attacked for not covering edge cases is just dumb. Like this isn't a casual conversation where I'm being needlessly pedantic. This is the basically the forum to be pedantic (I'd say precise) in.
You misunderstand, my issue is that you are bringing nothing but minor edge case pedantry, which falls apart upon any close inspection because you are also making up your own word definitions, such as your claims about the meaning of the word "offspring above."
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
And also, you can clone them. It's quite doable, we just don't. A clone has only 1 parent (for lack of a better term), and has the exact same DNA as them.

Your definition of human (the offspring of two humans), thus does not include clones of humans. Hence your definition of human is bad, because it doesn't include them.

They absolutely can. I've explained the process here multiple times, and it's been done to sheep. It absolutely could be done to humans. They have egg cells. You swap out the nucleus, allow it to multiply a little, then implant it. It's a lot like IVF just with a random cell replacing the sperm.

They already have skin stem cell lines and it's raising ethical issues:

They're currently working on turning skin cells into both egg and sperm cells apparently. Now one person can be both the mom and dad of a kid.
This is just special pleading. You are using a rare possibility to justify abortion the same way transgender activists use people who are born intersex to claim there are more than two sexes.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Yes it does, Mr. Pedant. The meaning of the word offspring is literally "Descended from."

And if you modified an organism enough that it had non-human genes in it most people would want a long hard look at whether or not it was considered human anymore.
Oh, then are kids offspring of their grandparents? Oh, wait, they aren't. No, it means immediate descendants (which they aren't, as there is a clear step in between), or the product of reproductive processes of an animal, plant or human. But since Fleiur decided to specify of 2 parents, they are still wrong.


But let's say that Fleiur dropped the two requirement. They still got problems (see below). This is just one of the holes that I've poked, and I decided to focus on this before moving onto my next objection so we could resolve this one. This specific objection is really about the particulars of this definition rather than anything else.

You misunderstand, my issue is that you are bringing nothing but minor edge case pedantry, which falls apart upon any close inspection because you are also making up your own word definitions, such as your claims about the meaning of the word "offspring above."
I didn't make up the definition of offspring. If anything, if X cloned herself, then bore the egg in her womb, we'd call that the offspring of X, not the offspring of X's parents. In fact, that's just what we do when this happens in the wild with parthenogenesis.

My objections do actually hold up, however minor you might find them. And I really don't think it is going to be a minor objection in the coming decades. Gay couples are going to want to create kids that are genetically related to both of them, and eventually there will be a way to do this (the article I linked to above already talks about progress on making sperm and egg cells from skin cell started stem cell lines). Once you hit that stage, it's easy for a rich person to make an offspring of themselves using only their DNA, or even a clone.

This will happen.

This is just special pleading. You are using a rare possibility to justify abortion the same way transgender activists use people who are born intersex to claim there are more than two sexes.
I'm not the one with a hole in my argument. You are. If you can't even solve this problem, I'll take it as an undeserved win on my part. Seriously, you can beat this objection with a better definition, even by omitting the requirement that there be two parents.

Look, we can even pretend you did, and get to the next big problem with your definition: tetragametic chimera fetuses. These aren't cross breed with animals, to be clear. These are when there are two fraternal twin fetuses in the womb, and they basically combine together. It's rare, but it's not really known how rare as most people can go their entire lives without being bothered by it.

Now you clearly believe that when the each of the zygotes for the fraternal twins were created, a new human was created.

My question to you is: When did one of the zygotes die, as only one baby came out of the mother? Or does the kid with tetragametic chimerism count as two people?
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
No. You need a man to have kids. A woman cannot get pregnant on her own.
...No? There has been a lot of work in not needing any male participation in creating a child. In several ways. Again, the naturalism bias astounds me.

You are using a rare possibility to justify abortion
You are excluding an extremely blunt edge-case from how you are defining what is human. "A rare possibility" should not lead to somebody not being a person.

"But what about" is very important to cover your bases on when you are trying to define where life starts, and what constitutes a human. Because anything you miss is a situation where you need to either ignore your own argument or you are effectively outlawing somebody for, quite literally, starting their life wrong.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Oh, then are kids offspring of their grandparents?
Yeah? Of course they are.


Wiktionary said:
Offspring noun

2. All a person's descendants, including further generations.

Oh, wait, they aren't. No, it means immediate descendants (which they aren't, as there is a clear step in between), or the product of reproductive processes of an animal, plant or human. But since Fleiur decided to specify of 2 parents, they are still wrong.
Yes, they are. You don't get the pull the "I'm just being precise" card while ignoring precise meanings. Granted some people will define Offspring as only one generation but that's not the most common or accepted definition, much less the only one as you're pretending. One need merely open their bible.

He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” -Genesis 15:5

Pretty sure Abraham didn't get that busy in one generation.

Look, we can even pretend you did, and get to the next big problem with your definition: tetragametic chimera fetuses.
Who could have predicted you'd pull out another extremely rare edge case?
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Who could have predicted you'd pull out another extremely rare edge case?
Again, we are talking about the definition of "human" here, any real case you leave out is saying a person is not human. Because they were "born wrong". There shouldn't even be an argument in the first place, the fact your definition causes them is a massive problem for it.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Um, from this I get a no:
1a: the product of the reproductive processes of a person, animal, or plant
b: the immediate descendant of a person or animal : an individual born of a parentgave birth to a single offspring
2a: PRODUCT, RESULT
b: OFFSHOOT sense 1a

But fair enough, I guess the word is imprecise (as is typical for English), I couldn't recall it used like that.

And honestly, the way Fleiur is using the word, I think they'd agree with me here at least, as they are saying the offspring of two people.

But I don't want to spend all of this time arguing over the definition of a word, so sure, offspring refers to grandparents also. My objection still holds once we add in people artificially screwing with genes. You could introduce some of a genome from one person into the genome of another, for example.

Who could have predicted you'd pull out another extremely rare edge case?
Maybe if you had an actual solution to the holes I'm poking, I'd stop poking so many holes. Instead, you've come to the philosophy forum whining about people engaged in philosophy.

Alternatively, maybe try to poke holes in my definition, and actually engage in philosophy on the philosophy forum, instead of whining about people doing philosophy?

Speaking of the imprecise nature of offspring, the other issue with using that as a definition is that a pro-abortion person would agree with the definition and just say that the offspring happens once the baby leaves the mother as a completed product. The word hides what's important: when does something become an offspring? That's literally the major question I have here, and Fleiur has answered with a basically recursive definition. Now I get why, they can't contemplate another answer, so they don't see the vagueness, but I'd like a precise answer as to when it begins. I mean, I'm pretty sure I know what the answer will be, but I don't want to stick words in someone's mouth.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
No, the first two are very dubious and aren't generally accepted exceptions. I'd say no, personally. It's still a life.

The usual exceptions are threat to the mother's life, rape, or incest (because that's just an easy to demonstrate rape 99 times out of 100).
What do you consider Dawn syndrome, then?
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
What do you consider Dawn syndrome, then?
If they've got a brain that goes spark, it's a person. Yes, it's an awful tragedy that people are born with down syndrome, but that doesn't mean they deserve to die.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Maybe if you had an actual solution to the holes I'm poking, I'd stop poking so many holes. Instead, you've come to the philosophy forum whining about people engaged in philosophy.

Alternatively, maybe try to poke holes in my definition, and actually engage in philosophy on the philosophy forum, instead of whining about people doing philosophy?

Speaking of the imprecise nature of offspring, the other issue with using that as a definition is that a pro-abortion person would agree with the definition and just say that the offspring happens once the baby leaves the mother as a completed product. The word hides what's important: when does something become an offspring? That's literally the major question I have here, and Fleiur has answered with a basically recursive definition. Now I get why, they can't contemplate another answer, so they don't see the vagueness, but I'd like a precise answer as to when it begins. I mean, I'm pretty sure I know what the answer will be, but I don't want to stick words in someone's mouth.
As you wish. The problem with your desire to go off of brain activity is that it's dependent on the quality of instruments and how faint the electrical activity is before you hit an arbitrary threshold. Even the neuroepithelial cells that form the neural plate in the first few days have gap junctions that exchange electrochemical signals so you can make the argument that brain activity starts well before there's actually any brain.

This makes a powerful argument for "life begins at conception." There's very little wriggle room to quibble about when conception happens or what conception is. Consequently, it will not have numerous edge cases based on when a person decides there's enough electrical activity in the proto-brain, whether or not the brain exists yet, or how close to a brain the microscopic layer of neuroepithelial cells that make up the initial neural plate are.

As far as defining human we already have a fairly thorough scientific definition, that generally boils down to the Homo Sapiens Sapiens genome though there's some discussion of whether Neanderthals and Denisovans should be included. As there are no extant examples those have no impact on the matter at hand. This definition includes various specific traits such as upright bipedal posture, member of the great ape grouping without a tail or prehensile toes, etc. Nobody worries about edge cases like a guy who lost a leg to a landmine making "biped" no longer correct for that definition.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
Oh, then are kids offspring of their grandparents? Oh, wait, they aren't. No, it means immediate descendants (which they aren't, as there is a clear step in between), or the product of reproductive processes of an animal, plant or human. But since Fleiur decided to specify of 2 parents, they are still wrong.


But let's say that Fleiur dropped the two requirement. They still got problems (see below). This is just one of the holes that I've poked, and I decided to focus on this before moving onto my next objection so we could resolve this one. This specific objection is really about the particulars of this definition rather than anything else.


I didn't make up the definition of offspring. If anything, if X cloned herself, then bore the egg in her womb, we'd call that the offspring of X, not the offspring of X's parents. In fact, that's just what we do when this happens in the wild with parthenogenesis.

My objections do actually hold up, however minor you might find them. And I really don't think it is going to be a minor objection in the coming decades. Gay couples are going to want to create kids that are genetically related to both of them, and eventually there will be a way to do this (the article I linked to above already talks about progress on making sperm and egg cells from skin cell started stem cell lines). Once you hit that stage, it's easy for a rich person to make an offspring of themselves using only their DNA, or even a clone.

This will happen.


I'm not the one with a hole in my argument. You are. If you can't even solve this problem, I'll take it as an undeserved win on my part. Seriously, you can beat this objection with a better definition, even by omitting the requirement that there be two parents.

Look, we can even pretend you did, and get to the next big problem with your definition: tetragametic chimera fetuses. These aren't cross breed with animals, to be clear. These are when there are two fraternal twin fetuses in the womb, and they basically combine together. It's rare, but it's not really known how rare as most people can go their entire lives without being bothered by it.

Now you clearly believe that when the each of the zygotes for the fraternal twins were created, a new human was created.

My question to you is: When did one of the zygotes die, as only one baby came out of the mother? Or does the kid with tetragametic chimerism count as two people?
Is your mom a dog? Is your dad a tree?

Your parents are human beings.
You're a human being.

You do not come from a dog, a tree, or a car.

When women go to abortion clinics, they don't go there to kill their plant, to kill their tree or to kill their dog, pig, cat etc. They go there to kill an inoccent, defenseless human being.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
...No? There has been a lot of work in not needing any male participation in creating a child. In several ways. Again, the naturalism bias astounds me.


You are excluding an extremely blunt edge-case from how you are defining what is human. "A rare possibility" should not lead to somebody not being a person.

"But what about" is very important to cover your bases on when you are trying to define where life starts, and what constitutes a human. Because anything you miss is a situation where you need to either ignore your own argument or you are effectively outlawing somebody for, quite literally, starting their life wrong.
Are your parents not human beings then?

Is your mom a cat? Is your dad a pine tree?
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Are your parents not human beings then?
If one's parents have to be human, how did the first humans happen? And what about people who don't have two parents, or who have two mothers, or two fathers and a surrogate, due to technology replacing the natural process of conception?

Your definition is very narrow in ways that result in a lot of potential gaps. Literally contradictory uses of "offspring" are being used to defend it.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
My question to you is: When did one of the zygotes die, as only one baby came out of the mother? Or does the kid with tetragametic chimerism count as two people?

Not a pro-lifer for years, but I would presume that this would be similar to two Pokemon fusing together into a single, better Pokemon? ;) Seriously. :)
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
Apparently, Curtis Bay Energy is burning the babies for electricity in Baltimore area.



Time stamp: 13:07




Bullshit.

 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Is your mom a dog? Is your dad a tree?

Your parents are human beings.
You're a human being.

You do not come from a dog, a tree, or a car.

When women go to abortion clinics, they don't go there to kill their plant, to kill their tree or to kill their dog, pig, cat etc. They go there to kill an inoccent, defenseless human being.
It's probable that in the next few decades a person will be able to say "biologically speaking, I don't have a mom or dad or any parent." They will have been created by genetically altering an egg cell. They might say that they are a clone of person X, it might be completely new genetic code.

Now what? Are they a human or not? Your definition says no.

As you wish. The problem with your desire to go off of brain activity is that it's dependent on the quality of instruments and how faint the electrical activity is before you hit an arbitrary threshold. Even the neuroepithelial cells that form the neural plate in the first few days have gap junctions that exchange electrochemical signals so you can make the argument that brain activity starts well before there's actually any brain.
Now as I've said before, we are using brain activity as a proxy for thought. But it does make figuring out where that point happens harder, I'll give you that. Perhaps it happens earlier, but that's ultimately a scientific fuzziness, not a fuzziness with my theoretical point. I know there is a point, I know what that point is (human thought) I just don't know when it is. And that's fine, we can wait for science to roll in on that. It'd have to be after some amount of brain formed, as (for example) electrical signals from the body aren't indicative of life if the head got destroyed.

This makes a powerful argument for "life begins at conception." There's very little wriggle room to quibble about when conception happens or what conception is.
Only the idea that conception is a definite point at which all life begins is wrong. And pretty frequently wrong, as any identical twin will tell you. And that's just one of the problems with it. There's also the other problems I've been listing.

As far as defining human we already have a fairly thorough scientific definition, that generally boils down to the Homo Sapiens Sapiens genome though there's some discussion of whether Neanderthals and Denisovans should be included.
That's the scientific definition of human tissue, not of what a human is. Or you've just classified a cut off hand as a whole human. Again, I'm not really concerned about separating humans from animals, but with separately classifying one human from another.

This definition includes various specific traits such as upright bipedal posture, member of the great ape grouping without a tail or prehensile toes, etc. Nobody worries about edge cases like a guy who lost a leg to a landmine making "biped" no longer correct for that definition.
So first, the definition you listed (having the genome) doesn't include the specific traits, that's actually one of the advantages of it. Now the person will likely have those traits, but they don't have too, they just need the genome. So it actually doesn't have the weakness you claim, which is why they don't worry about such edge cases: they don't exist.

There are questions about what death is, but most of the leading definitions all have to do with a certain level of brain function (or really lack of it). I don't see why that doesn't work as a perfectly good starting point for what new life means also.


Also, again, with the complaining about pedantry on the philosophy forum. Seriously, this is the forum for it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top