Mary and Mike

__________________________________________________ __
Originally posted by long winded fool
Nonsense. Once you draw a line, something is either across it or its not. How can a gorilla fetus be 98% human if it is 100% gorilla? It is not 98% human, it is merely an animal with strikingly similar features to a human. Humanity comes solely from species. That is the line that has been drawn in this country, which pro-abortionists are trying (and succeeding) to erase without redrawing somewhere else. This is a dangerous and irrational step which promotes hypocritical, and therefore powerless, laws.
__________________________________________________ __

I believe the OP was talking about genetics. A gorilla or a chimp has 98% or more of the exact same DNA as a human does.

__________________________________________________ __
Cancer is distinct from its host. Since it is not human, it doesn't have inalienable rights. Since it presents a danger to its human host, it must be killed, because its host has a right to life that cannot be violated by any human or non-human entity. Indeed, if bearing a human would result in the mother's death, then the unborn human forfeits its "innocence" and is now threatening the life of another human and its life can now lawfully be sacrificed in defense of the mother's. Whether it means to threaten her life or not is irrelevant.
__________________________________________________ __

No, cancer is the overgrowth of a person's own cells. That means if you take out the cancer and DNA test it, it will match you perfectly. Now a virus and bacteria are distinct from it's hosts.

Mary

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
Nonsense. Once you draw a line, something is either across it or its not.

No--the world isn't that black and white.

How can a gorilla fetus be 98% human if it is 100% gorilla?

Ask any geneticist. It's 98% human. That doesn't mean it's not 100% gorilla. We are 98% gorilla also.

It is not 98% human, it is merely an animal with strikingly similar features to a human.

It's a creature with a 98% correspondance with human genetic code.

Humanity comes solely from species.

So it's legal to murder ET?

Also, species is defined by those who breed together. In the old days, were blacks really not human? Or perhaps it was the whites that weren't human?

That is the line that has been drawn in this country, which pro-abortionists are trying (and succeeding) to erase without redrawing somewhere else.

I have yet to encounter a pro-abortionist.

There are plenty of us trying to erase that line because we don't feel it's valid. We are under no obligation to replace it--just like when the court strikes down a law as unconstitutional they don't have to make a constitutional version of it.

This is a dangerous and irrational step which promotes hypocritical, and therefore powerless, laws.

??? If anything, laws banning abortion cause this. *ANY* law that is routinely violated (and abortion laws were--the primary effect was to increase risk, not decrease abortions) fosters disrespect for laws.

Cancer is distinct from its host. Since it is not human, it doesn't have inalienable rights.

Human genetic material. It's human. You're the one that insists on using the word human, you have to live with the consequences.

Since it presents a danger to its human host, it must be killed, because its host has a right to life that cannot be violated by any human or non-human entity.

Yes and no. You can make a valid case for cancer treatment as self-defense. However, that does not apply to tissue cultures in the lab. Researchers are still trying to kill Henrietta Lacks despite the fact she died more than four decades ago.

Identical twins are distinct from the mother as well as from themselves. Both are different human beings. Really, I can't imagine someone presenting a sound argument proving that two identical twins are one human.

They are *NOT* genetically distinct. To argue that they are distinct entities means it's something other than genetics that makes a human.

long winded fool

But laws are. Laws are either violated or they aren't. You can't make murder legal in some cases and not in others without clearly drawing a defining line.

Human DNA does not make a human! Homo sapiens sapiens makes a human. An innocent, living example of one of these things is guaranteed the right to life by the laws of this country.

Under what law is it illegal to murder ET? Since ET is not human, he does not have inalienable human rights. If we found an ET, we would (hopefully) assign his species equal rights with humans. He would have inalienable rights without being human.

They both were human. That is the point. Blacks were humans denied their inalienable rights. Like embryos.

It seems pro-choicers can't agree on their preferences any more than pro-lifers. Half of the people I talk to who hold to your beliefs want to do away with "pro-choice" and "pro-life" because they think that "pro-choice" connotes anti-life or pro-death to adamant pro-lifers. I have no problem calling you whatever you'd like to be called, but I assumed that pro-abortion was more politically correct.

But the court is not striking down a law as unconstitutional. You are creating a law that is unconstitutional, and will remain unconstitutional without a clear defining line. If the court were striking down an unconstitutional law in the case of abortion, the law would be the prohibition of murder. Since you aren't advocating the legalization of all murder, you must clearly define which humans are subject to the new law and which aren't. You must give an exact time as to when the humans without the right to life attain the right to life. Otherwise there is no law and whenever a woman decides I have rights is when I get them.

This is true. This certainly doesn't mean that routinely violated laws should be repealed. Traffic laws are routinely violated, much more so than anti-abortion laws were. An unbreakable law fosters far more disrespect for itself than an easily breakable one. If the woman can choose whenever she wants to have an abortion, then she can't break the law of murder. (Until she crosses the defining line of humanity, which doesn't seem to exist anyway.)

I've already shown that this is a fallacy of division. Human parts don't make a human being. Cancer is not human. Gorillas are not 98% human. Their genetic code is 98% similar to the human genetic code. This does not make them human in the slightest bit by any logical stretch of the imagination.

The case of self-defense doesn't apply to living tissue in a lab, however there is no law prohibiting the destruction of human tissue.

Right. A homo sapiens sapiens is human. Two homo sapiens sapiens are two humans. Dead or alive, innocent or guilty, awake or asleep, genetically distinct or not, it is a human being. "Of humanity" and human being are not logically amphibolous. They are easily distinguishable premises. The property of the whole has nothing to do with the property of the parts.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
But laws are. Laws are either violated or they aren't. You can't make murder legal in some cases and not in others without clearly drawing a defining line.

Laws aren't black and white, either. There can be legitimate debate as to whether a law is violated. This generally comes in the realm of sex, especially obscenity law. Is x obscene or not?

It can happen in other contexts, though. I remember reading a case of a prison guard convicted of unlicensed possession of a gun--which means he can never work as a prison guard again. He honestly believed he didn't need a permit. So did half the judges that heard his case. I don't remember the exact wording of those who didn't need the permit but it was ambigious--he fit one interpretation but not another.

Human DNA does not make a human! Homo sapiens sapiens makes a human. An innocent, living example of one of these things is guaranteed the right to life by the laws of this country.

Then what makes a human? The only other thing I see is the human mind--something *NOT* present in the first 6 months.

Under what law is it illegal to murder ET? Since ET is not human, he does not have inalienable human rights. If we found an ET, we would (hopefully) assign his species equal rights with humans. He would have inalienable rights without being human.

So it's legal to murder him?

They both were human. That is the point. Blacks were humans denied their inalienable rights. Like embryos.

By your species standard they were *NOT*. Blacks and whites did not normally interbreed long ago--therefore they were separate species.

It seems pro-choicers can't agree on their preferences any more than pro-lifers. Half of the people I talk to who hold to your beliefs want to do away with "pro-choice" and "pro-life" because they think that "pro-choice" connotes anti-life or pro-death to adamant pro-lifers. I have no problem calling you whatever you'd like to be called, but I assumed that pro-abortion was more politically correct.

It's certainly not correct. We don't favor abortion, we favor it being an option.
I would much prefer the unwanted pregnancy never happen than be aborted--that's certainly not pro-abortion.

But the court is not striking down a law as unconstitutional. You are creating a law that is unconstitutional, and will remain unconstitutional without a clear defining line. If the court were striking down an unconstitutional law in the case of abortion, the law would be the prohibition of murder. Since you aren't advocating the legalization of all murder, you must clearly define which humans are subject to the new law and which aren't.

Conclusion assumed in argument again! The use of the word "human" really screws this topic up!

You must give an exact time as to when the humans without the right to life attain the right to life. Otherwise there is no law and whenever a woman decides I have rights is when I get them.

First conciousness. Lacking a reliable way to determine this a threshold must be chosen to ensure it's before it.

This is true. This certainly doesn't mean that routinely violated laws should be repealed. Traffic laws are routinely violated, much more so than anti-abortion laws were.

If not repealed they should be changed so that people aren't routinely violating them and getting away with it.

When speed limits are raised to reasonable numbers the problem of speeding becomes *MUCH* less. A highway I drive periodically. Interstate, for the most part it's straight and flat, visibility is often measured in miles. Many parts of it would make suitable runways for anything not too heavy.
It used to have a speed limit of 65mph. As a test once I set my cruise control for 65. For the 100 miles I could maintain this I passed only cars entering/exiting, trucks going uphill and one motor home driven by an old geezer. Everybody else on the road passed me. There was often a big speed trap where the highway intersected the indian reservatiton.
Now, however, the limit is 75. No changes to the road, just fixing the unreasonable rule. Set the cruise for 75 and for the most part you go with the traffic. I've seen one cop car and no big speed traps since the change.

I've already shown that this is a fallacy of division. Human parts don't make a human being. Cancer is not human. Gorillas are not 98% human. Their genetic code is 98% similar to the human genetic code. This does not make them human in the slightest bit by any logical stretch of the imagination.

But you haven't given any replacement defintion.

The case of self-defense doesn't apply to living tissue in a lab, however there is no law prohibiting the destruction of human tissue.

It's human. What's the difference?

crocodile deathroll

I read a little artical some years back that we are actually more closely related the bonobo chimps than chimps are to gorillas

long winded fool

So then are you advocating ambiguous laws? I don't think you are. You're saying that some laws are ambiguous and ought to be clarified. This is my argument as well.

I have clearly answered this. Being the species of homo sapiens sapiens, and not a part of the species homo sapiens sapiens, is what makes a human. Unless you address this, you are skirting the issue.

It's impossible to murder him. Murder is the killing of an innocent human being. You can't be charged with murder unless you kill a homo sapiens sapiens.

They were human. The word "normally" flaws your argument. Blacks and whites have always "interbred" whenever they lived in close proximity. It was simply frowned upon long ago. Now it is more common. Gorillas from the upper congo may only rarely "interbreed" with gorillas from the south, but this doesn't make either any less of a gorilla.

On the contrary. It is the definition of the word human being that screws your argument up.

So then you agree that only certain humans have rights, and that those with the power to make the rights ought to assign them by their own convenience? These are the implications of this belief.

Raising the speed limit does not contradict other laws. No accepted scientific terms need to be redefined in order to constitutionally change traffic laws. Anti-segregation laws were routinely violated, however instead of changing or repealing them, they simply magnified the consequences. If women were tried for pre-meditated murder when caught purposely aborting a viable pregnancy, the abortion rate would drop off considerably. It is ridiculous to repeal or soften laws because you feel sorry for those willing to break them.

Would you like a lesson on the logical fallacy of categorical division? "Because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property."

You are a logical person. I think you are aware of the definition of human being, and I think you are resorting to a straw man argument. Anything that can be called "human" is not my definition of human. A living example of a homo sapiens sapiens is a human in this argument. I believe I have stated this in every post that I've made, yet still you accuse me of failing to present a definition what "human" means in my argument. A human embryo is inarguably a living homo sapiens sapiens. I assume this in my premises and, though it may be included in my conclusion, it is not my conclusion. Since this is an axiom, it requires no proof unless you think that a human embryo is either not alive, or not a homo sapiens sapiens.

Loren Pechtel

Yeah, there are other animals closer than the gorilla. I just didn't happen to remember any percentages.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
So then are you advocating ambiguous laws? I don't think you are. You're saying that some laws are ambiguous and ought to be clarified. This is my argument as well.

I'm not advocating them. I'm saying they exist--therefore you can't absolutely define something as being on one side or the other of the line.

I have clearly answered this. Being the species of homo sapiens sapiens, and not a part of the species homo sapiens sapiens, is what makes a human. Unless you address this, you are skirting the issue.

So if I lose a leg I'm no longer a person? After all, at that point I'm only a part of a homo sapiens sapiens.

It's impossible to murder him. Murder is the killing of an innocent human being. You can't be charged with murder unless you kill a homo sapiens sapiens.

Any moral code that says it's ok to murder ET is wrong.

They were human. The word "normally" flaws your argument. Blacks and whites have always "interbred" whenever they lived in close proximity. It was simply frowned upon long ago.

It was very strongly frowned upon. If it happened much at all they wouldn't be blacks! Note how few truly black people you see today--by now most do have some white genes.

Now it is more common. Gorillas from the upper congo may only rarely "interbreed" with gorillas from the south, but this doesn't make either any less of a gorilla.

Two groups which do not normally interbreed are considered separate species.

On the contrary. It is the definition of the word human being that screws your argument up.

You're neglecting that I pointed out you were assuming your conclusion in your argument and thus your argument is invalid. Use of the word "human" makes this mistake very easy to commit.

So then you agree that only certain humans have rights, and that those with the power to make the rights ought to assign them by their own convenience? These are the implications of this belief.

As always, conclusion assumed in argument!

If women were tried for pre-meditated murder when caught purposely aborting a viable pregnancy, the abortion rate would drop off considerably. It is ridiculous to repeal or soften laws because you feel sorry for those willing to break them.

You won't find anywhere near enough people to vote for such a measure. Abortion is simply too popular.

I am not saying laws should be inherently repealed/softened because they are often violated, but I'm sayingn *SOMETHING* should be changed so they aren't routinely violated.

You are a logical person. I think you are aware of the definition of human being, and I think you are resorting to a straw man argument.

We have different definitions of a human being.

Anything that can be called "human" is not my definition of human. A living example of a homo sapiens sapiens is a human in this argument.

Suppose someone is beheaded. The doctors get to him quickly, sew things up and put him on life support. Is he alive? (Note: The only thing impossible about this is that the doctors wouldn't bother.)

I believe I have stated this in every post that I've made, yet still you accuse me of failing to present a definition what "human" means in my argument. A human embryo is inarguably a living homo sapiens
sapiens.

In other words, a human is a human. Circular.

long winded fool

Then how can you administer punishment for breaking an ambiguous law? You can't, therefore you must make a line in order to make the law clear and thus enforceable.

You are a person and a human. The parts of a human do not share the properties of the whole. Your leg is not human in the noun sense, it is a part of a human. As long as the leg is attached to the human, it shares the rights of the human, however if it is removed, it loses the rights. I cannot treat a part of you as though it has no rights because you as a human have rights to all your parts. If your leg is amputated, it is no longer a part of you and can be disposed of. An embryo is not part of a human. Women don't grow an extra head, or two extra sets of hands and feet when they become pregnant. These body parts belong to the human inside the woman. Since the human is innocent and can be saved, it ought not to be killed by the laws of the country.

And any moral code that says it's ok to kill an innocent human being is wrong. I'm not talking about moral code here. I'm talking about law. They say you can't legislate morality, but you can certainly forbid the violation of inalienable human rights. When we meet ET, we'll have to make a separate but equal law forbidding the violation of its species inalienable rights.

Then what species are truly black people? What were they back when they didn't normally interbreed with white people? Not homo sapiens sapiens? If this rule of species differentiation does not apply to humans then my argument obviously holds. Keep in mind that according to the dictionary, a human is any hominid of the family homo. Killing a homo erectus would be murder under the constitution.

And I've shown that you are mistaken.

All homo sapiens sapiens are human beings
The embryos of all homo sapiens sapiens are also homo sapiens sapiens .
Therefore, all embryos of homo sapiens sapiens are human beings.

I have proven that the embryos of humans (or human embryos) are human beings. (Note that this is not assuming the conclusion in the argument.) You failed to refute this conclusion, so I used it as the premise of my argument that all humans have inalienable human rights. (Again, this is not assuming the conclusion in the premise. It seems that way because this is an obvious axiom. "Cat food is food for cats.") There is no fallacy present.

Do you see now that this isn't the case?

And your definition is subjective and changeable. Mine is clear, objective and concise. (And the accepted scientific definition in this society.) There is no margin for error in a law based on my definition. Laws based on unclear and shifting criteria are not enforceable. It boils down to the fact that you don't know when a person is present. It is not logical to risk committing murder for convenience. Therefore you need a line so that you can safely destroy a human before it becomes a person and therefore avoid becoming a murderer. If you fail to do this, then performers of abortion must be found guilty of criminal negligence at the least and could be accused of involuntary manslaughter.

Why wouldn't the doctors bother? Because the beheaded is no longer a viable life form. It can only be kept alive artificially and has no potential of life away from artificial respiration. Since this is the case, it falls under the category of a non-living human and can't be "murdered," only destroyed. This also brings up the issue of "potentiality" or viability. Assuming that persons alone have rights, then if a human in a coma has a chance of recovery, isn't it the potential regaining of his personhood (if personhood is defined by higher brain functions) that makes taking his life murder? Since an embryo has a better chance of developing personhood than the coma victim, why wouldn't this apply equally, at least, to the embryo? What, exactly, is the rationale behind distinguishing "first consciousness" from any other consciousness? Is it the case that, "once a person, always a person?" If so, then euthanasia would be murder. Is it the potential of higher brain functions? If so then euthanasia would not necessarily be murder, but abortion at any phase would be, since all human embryos have very high potential to develop higher brain functions, even if some don't in rare cases.

Alan P

Here's my stance.

I say there is nothing morally wrong with killing something as long as:

1. It does not value, or is not yet aware of it's own life.

2. Nobody else who knows/loves the creature objects to it being killed.

3. It is done with minimal infliction of pain.

So perhaps infanticide is ok by that logic. I don't know when a child first decides that life is something that it likes and wants to continue.

Had I been aborted myself, I would not have ever reached a position to get annoyed about it, therefore I would not have been "wronged" in any way.