FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Reload this Page life begins at what point?
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM
Search

View Poll Results: when does a human being have access to the protection of the laws of our land?
after conception 9 12.86%
3 months after conception 7 10.00%
6 months after conception 15 21.43%
9 months after conception 3 4.29%
after birth 33 47.14%
18 years after birth 3 4.29%
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

 
Page 13 of 20 « First 31112 13 1415 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-18-2003, 01:26 PM   #121
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Roland98
Please point me to anything with "proof" in science.
Taking this as an admission that science doesn't know whether the consciousness of an embryo is dependent on a functioning brain, it appears to follow that there is doubt as to whether such an embryo may properly be deemed to lack the right to life that infants have.
yguy is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 01:33 PM   #122
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Default
posted just to show how this kind of fuzzy reasoning doesn't work, in part because science doesn't ever "know" anything:
Taking this as an admission that science doesn't know whether the consciousness of a rock is dependent on a functioning brain, it appears to follow that there is doubt as to whether such a rock may properly be deemed to lack the right to life that infants have.
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 01:36 PM   #123
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
Like all rights, the "right to life" is a legal and ethical construct.
You and I have been over this before, so I'll just point out that this is insane sophistry.

Quote:
It is not absolute. It has limits and specific definitions, just as the rights to representation and speech do, and those limits and definitions are what society says they are. The right to life does not apply to fetuses anymore than it applies to individual organs or gametes, because society chooses not to give any of those things that right.
And of course if society choose not to give infants that right, they wouldn't have it either.

Quote:
Arguing that fetuses have an inherent right to life because other humans beings have one is begging the question; why should fetuses have the same right to life that born persons do?
Why should blacks have the same right to life that whites do?

Quote:
It is not persuasive to reply that they do simply because other human beings do.
Nothing is persuasive to those mired in their own dogma.

Quote:
If you are referring to Roe v Wade, it effectively declared nothing of the sort. The SCOTUS in that decision defined the limits at which the state's reight in preserving life may outweigh a woman's right to privacy. It did not define an inherent right to life for humans or an exclusion to such a right for fetuses
Again, this is nothing but sophistical double-talk. No way in the world can anyone with a shred of sanity balance anyone's right to life equally with anyone else's right to privacy.
yguy is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 01:39 PM   #124
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
posted just to show how this kind of fuzzy reasoning doesn't work, in part because science doesn't ever "know" anything:
Taking this as an admission that science doesn't know whether the consciousness of a rock is dependent on a functioning brain, it appears to follow that there is doubt as to whether such a rock may properly be deemed to lack the right to life that infants have.
Science may not know whether rocks have the right to life, but most people don't share that myopia.
yguy is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 01:40 PM   #125
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Talking gosh, this is easy; and so low in calories, too.
Science may not know whether embryoes have the right to life, but most people don't share that myopia.

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
You and I have been over this before, so I'll just point out that this is insane sophistry.
(Translation: yguy lost that time badly, too.)

Quote:
Why should blacks have the same right to life that whites do?
Because society says so.

Quote:
Nothing is persuasive to those mired in their own dogma.
I know it's a longshot, but I refuse to give up all hope for you.

Quote:
Again, this is nothing but sophistical double-talk. No way in the world can anyone with a shred of sanity balance anyone's right to life equally with anyone else's right to privacy.
Strawman; read the post and try to understand it before replying. Don't be ashamed to ask for help; it's better than posting your endless fallacies.

The decision balanced specific state's rights against a woman's right to privacy, and did not address "right to life;" no way in the world can anyone with a shred of honesty and intelligence confuse Roe v Wade with anything else
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 01:43 PM   #126
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left
Posts: 372
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
You and I have been over this before, so I'll just point out that this is insane sophistry.
Less so than insisting that an embryo with no brain or even a newly fertilized single cell may have consciousness.
Daleth is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 01:56 PM   #127
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default Re: gosh, this is easy; and so low in calories, too.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
Because society says so.
Aryan Nations and KKK members take heart. The final solution to the "black question" is merely a matter of re-educating society.

Quote:
Strawman; read the post and try to understand it before replying. Don't be ashamed to ask for help; it's better than posting your endless fallacies.

The decision balanced specific state's rights against a woman's right to privacy, and did not address "right to life;"
Sorry, that's just too assinine a statement to bother with.
yguy is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 01:58 PM   #128
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Daleth
Less so than insisting that an embryo with no brain or even a newly fertilized single cell may have consciousness.
Not in the least, since it is not known one way or the other.
yguy is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 02:02 PM   #129
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Smile Don't worry folks; it's his usual concession speech:
Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
Sorry, that's just too assinine a statement to bother with.
(Translation: yguy has lost badly, again)
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 03:25 PM   #130
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left
Posts: 372
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by ex-xian
Really? Well you can see how ignorant I am of the subject. I never liked biology...more of a physics person. When does full function begin?
Age 21 for females and 25 for males, and that's being very generous on both counts. Actually I think it's a continuing process more than there being a point of beginning. Maybe Dr. Rick can lend something more concrete.
Daleth is offline  
 
Page 13 of 20 « First 31112 13 1415 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:12 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.