To what extent does Religion influence the decision making of women on abortion?

Festus

JimiTime wrote: »

I empathise with rape victims etc, who find themselves in these circumstances. However, we should not devalue life so that they can feel easier about killing their unborn. If they do decide to do such a thing, they should know that they are killing a baby.

This is often times the saddest part. Not only was the victim raped once, she gets raped again in the clinic - such a sanitary word - and the most innocent of victims who wasn't even there when it happened gets killed.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

And you have been correct on this before.

But I'll let you hang yourself. If a human embryo is not necessarily a human being what is it?

A human embryo. In a similar manner, a human ear is not a human being. It is a human ear.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

A human embryo. In a similar manner, a human ear is not a human being. It is a human ear.

You didn't read the link did you.

JimiTime

Festus wrote: »

This is often times the saddest part. Not only was the victim raped once, she gets raped again in the clinic

I respectfully disagree with the use of such terminology. I don't know how one could use the word 'rape' in this context?

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

You didn't read the link did you.

There was no link.

Festus

When is a human not a human? When it is the subject of an ideology.

A Distinct Human Organism
by ROBERT P. GEORGE

November 22, 2005

The key question in the debate over stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos is: When does the life of a human being begin? To answer this question is to decide whether human embryos are, in fact, human beings and, as such, possessors of inherent human dignity.

Where do we go to find the answer? Not, in my opinion, to the Bible, Talmud or other religious writings, even if we regard these texts as sources of moral wisdom and even divine revelation. Nor should we be satisfied to consult our "moral intuitions."


Rather, the answer is to be found in the works of modern human embryology and developmental biology. In these texts, we find little or nothing in the way of scientific uncertainty: "…human development begins at fertilization…" write embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology.


A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. Unless severely damaged or deprived of nutrition or a suitable environment, the embryonic human will develop himself or herself by an internally directed process to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage.


The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity — a human being — who comes into existence as a zygote and develops by a gradual and gapless process into adulthood many years later.

Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it.

The human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, nor is it merely a "potential human being," whatever that might mean. Rather the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete — though, of course, immature — human organism.

Unlike the embryo, the sperm and egg whose union brings a human being into existence are not complete organisms. They are both functionally and genetically identifiable as parts of the male or female parents. Each has only half the genetic material needed to guide the development of a new human being toward maturity. They are destined either to combine to generate a new and distinct organism or simply die.

Even when fertilization occurs, the gametes do not survive: Their genetic material enters into the composition of a new organism. (A somatic cell that might be used to produce a human being by cloning is analogous not to a human embryo, but to gametes.) The difference between human gametes and a human being is a difference in kind, not a difference in stage of development. The difference between an embryonic human being (or a human fetus or infant) and an adult is merely a difference in stage of development.

Some today deny the moral premise of my position, namely, that human beings possess inherent dignity and a right to life simply by virtue of their humanity. They claim that some, but not all, human beings have dignity and rights. To have such rights, they say, human beings must possess some quality or set of qualities (sentience, self-consciousness, the immediately exercisable capacity for human mental functions, etc.) that other human beings do not possess or do not yet possess, or no longer possess.

I reject the idea that human beings at certain stages of development (embryos, fetuses, infants) or in certain conditions (the severely handicapped or mentally retarded, those suffering dementia) are not "persons" who possess dignity and a right to life. And no person may legitimately be destroyed in biomedical research or for other reasons.

About the Author
Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He is also a professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Festus

JimiTime wrote: »

I respectfully disagree with the use of such terminology. I don't know how one could use the word 'rape' in this context?

The cervix is forcibly opened to allow entry of the instruments required to remove the child inside.

The use of drugs to force the expulsion of the child from the uterus is not much different as the cervix must be forced to open prematurely.

I respect your respectful disagreement but the concept works just the same.

Festus

p

Morbert

Looking back, it seems you have inserted a link after I posted. Editing a post after I have responded to it is confusing and unhelpful.

Anyway, I have read the link now. The main point it raises is:

"Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it."

The article never develops an argument as to why the above is sufficient criteria for something to be considered a human being. A distinct DNA and a self-contained assembly system are irrelevant to me.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I've posted the text so we can all see what you deny

Posts like this are vapid and unhelpful. "Deny", when used without qualification, is little more than rhetoric.

JimiTime

Festus wrote: »

The cervix is forcibly opened to allow entry of the instruments required to remove the child inside.

The use of drugs to force the expulsion of the child from the uterus is not much different as the cervix must be forced to open prematurely.

I respect your respectful disagreement but the concept works just the same.

I would think about your use of the term here. Its not accurate. You really can't call it rape. If we use it here, then a gynaecologist is a serial rapist. I don't think its helpful tbh. I think what occurs is bad enough without having to make it sound even more sensational. You know what I mean?

Festus

JimiTime wrote: »

I would think about your use of the term here. Its not accurate. You really can't call it rape. If we use it here, then a gynaecologist is a serial rapist. I don't think its helpful tbh. I think what occurs is bad enough without having to make it sound even more sensational. You know what I mean?

I do but I respectfully disagree.

Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time to make a woman "un-pregnant." Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with ramifications on a woman's life, then we must carefully look at the special circumstances of the pregnant rape victim. Will an abortion truly console her, or will it only cause further injury to her already bruised psyche?
In answering this question, it is helpful to begin by noting that many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape.2 This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand.
Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman's sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: "It's too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now." And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.


2. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978) 84-95, 167.; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 51, 126.

source

Festus

pish

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Why thank you. I glad you find it persuasive and effective.

It is neither persuasive nor effective. Rhetoric has multiple definitions.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rhetoric

The definition of rhetoric relevant to this conversation.

S: (n) palaver, hot air, empty words, empty talk, rhetoric (loud and confused and empty talk) "mere rhetoric"

Also, I cannot understand why you have responded to that post, but not the one discussing the link you retroactively inserted into your post.

Festus

[pish

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

many things have multiple definitions.



It is my wont to respond to the respective post. Helps with clarity.

Or is that just more rhetoric in your book

Rhetoric is the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively

Festus, I have noticed that , from time to time rather than respond to a post you launch off into a vitriolic tangent,

Why dont you answer Morberts post as requested ? I am finding this aspect of the thread fascinating , so less of the waffle and keep on point please

Festus

p

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

Festus, I have noticed that , from time to time rather than respond to a post you launch off into a vitriolic tangent,

Vitriol is not allowed in the forum. You will find however that I respond like with like.

marienbad wrote: »

Why dont you answer Morberts post as requested ? I am finding this aspect of the thread fascinating , so less of the waffle and keep on point please

You were saying?

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

The link broke. get over it.

There is nothing to get over. It is simply an unhelpful and confusing practice. You have also done it before.

That's not the main point. The main point is:

" the answer is to be found in the works of modern human embryology and developmental biology. In these texts, we find little or nothing in the way of scientific uncertainty: "…human development begins at fertilization…" write embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology.

A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. Unless severely damaged or deprived of nutrition or a suitable environment, the embryonic human will develop himself or herself by an internally directed process to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage.

The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity — a human being — who comes into existence as a zygote and develops by a gradual and gapless process into adulthood many years later."

Science has established that the human embryo is "a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information". Science has established that "the direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it". Science has not established that a human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens. It has not established that a human being is an "enduring entity" that emerges at conception. This is because, as I have said before, there are essentially two positions on what constitutes a human being. One group says it is sufficient to define a human being as anything with unique human DNA and the capacity to develop. The other group says a human being is defined by the possession of a human mind. The link makes no argument as to why we should accept the former group's definition over the latter. It is impossible to form such an argument, as "which definition is better" is an ethical question, not a scientific one. As I have said before, if science established tomorrow that my friend's DNA was composed of skittles, I would not care. I would still consider them a human being. The fact that they don't have DNA composed of skittles is utterly incidental and inconsequential to me.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

many things have multiple definitions.



It is my wont to respond to the respective post. Helps with clarity.

Or is that just more rhetoric in your book

Rhetoric is the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively

That post makes no sense. I already tendered the definition of rhetoric I was using. Why would you tender a different one? What is the relevance?

Festus

[p

Festus

[edit] not worth responding to pure rhetoric

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

So report me. You know where the button is.
Alternatively make allowances for the fact that sometimes minds get changed or buttons get clicked inadvertently and stop being such a child about it.

I am not being a child about it. When you said "get over it" you were the one who was being a childish. Furthermore, your reply "I take it you didn't read the link." Only added to the confusion. In future, all you need to do is inform me that you have appended something to your message.

What do you mean by "whole"? It is alive and it is homo sapiens and it has been established by science.

What do you mean by "enduring entity". Do you mean not self sufficient? Do you mean something that cannot fend for itself and survive?

Or do you mean "a person"? So what is a person? Is a baby a person? Is a child a person?
A person can be anything from a human being to a functional member of society. It is entirely arbitrary. It is often defined as an entity who can think, among other definitions.
Does a child think? If they don't they are not a person and therefore can be killed at will.
Is a human being on the dole a person if they do not contribute to society?

But if a person is a human being and an embryo is a human being then an embryo is a person and needs the protection any other human being is entitled to.

I am in the group that defines the human being as a human organism that possesses, in some rudimentary form, a human mind. A child, baby, and mid-late term fetus would fall under my definition of a human being.

Science is more precise. A human being is defined by their genetic code. We can tell human from ape, chimp from chrysanthemum simply by examining the DNA code in the cell.

Yes, genetic code is a good at helping us understand our position and relation to the rest of life. It helps us differentiate species, but it does not help us differentiate human beings from cells with human DNA. I do not consider a collection of cells to be a human being unless that collection of cells possesses a mind of some form.

Science also tells us that once you have the right genetic code in a human female egg it will begin to grow and divide and organise itself all on its own. All it needs is the right environment and a supply of food, oxygen and water. What else changes until death. Do you not need food, oxygen and water? Do you no longer need the right environment?
All that has happened to your bodily organism since you were conceived is that it consumed resources and grew developed and continues to consume resources. Parts of you may well be still growing and developing but without knowing your age that's hard to tell. Parts of your body are still being recycled and replaced as requried and where possible.

There is no disagreement over the development of the human body. It is the human mind that the concept of "being" hinges on.

that group would be wrong because their argument is purely arbitrary and based on nothing. An insane person can be described as having "lost their mind". Does this make them something other than a human being?

An insane person hasn't literally lost their mind. A person who has suffered brain death has, so I would not consider them a human being, even though their body is unique, with human DNA.

So what. I presented it because I liked his rhetoric. I found it efficient and persuasive.

So it does not shed light on the abortion issue. Both groups agree with the description of embryonic development in that link. Where they disagree is its consequences for what is and is not a human being.

Science still says that a human being is a human being from conception. Science cannot define any other point when a human being comes into existence.

Science says, at conception, a unique genetic code is formed which will develop from a zygote into an adult over several years. How this development is "parsed" for the purpose of ethics doesn't concern science.

As you correctly say any the other argument is one of ethics. The other group that defines a human being as being in possession of a human mind are not arguing from science but are inventing arbitrary arguments with no basis ouside of philosophy to redifine what a person is.
The question still comes down to when is it ethical to kill another human being?

If you were a Nazi the answer is simple. When the human being is is a Jew you could kill them because they were not persons in law.
If you were a slave trader the answer is simple. When the human is Black, for the same reason, not a person in law.

If you are pro-abortion the answer is simple. At any time the human being does not meet the criteria of being a person.

How are those criteria set. Arbitrarily.

Now, I don't really care if you like the Nazi analogy or not but the fact of the matter is you are trying to define some human beings as not being human.
Abortion is the violent termination of a human beings life using chemicals or medical implements.
Abortion is perpetrated by human beings upon human beings who in law are defined as not being human enough to warrent a right to life.

In America a human being is not a person until they are born. They are still human beings but not persons. Hence America has legalized abortion until birth.
This is a purely arbitrary definition. What difference does birth make?

You cannot argue from science that a human embryo or a human being at any stage from conception to birth is not a human being because science can say only one thing. It is a human being. Genetically distinct and phenotypically unique.

You can only argue from an ideology that arbitrarily defines the person as being some humans who are more human that others and that is no different to what happened in Nazi Germany.

That people still exist today who have the capacity to define one human being as human and another with the same genetic code as not being human sickens me.

Yes, the definition of a human being in terms of a human mind is ethically arbitrary in a sense. But it is no less arbitrary than defining it based on DNA. One group defines it based on a natural event (the formation of a new genetic sequence) and the other group defines it based on a different natural event (the formation of a new human mind). Both groups agree on the scientific facts about the development of a human body (a unique human genetic code becomes a human embryo, a human fetus, a baby, a child, an adult, etc.).

To illustrate my point: Let's say you discovered that your friend's human phenotypes did not develop from DNA, but instead were synthesised in a lab using some advanced biochemical technique. Would you stop considering them a human being? Of course not. They would still possess a human mind regardless of how that human mind emerged. It would be arbitrary to hinge their humanity on a specific sequence of acids and proteins.

Festus

p

Festus

a. in an abortion is a life terminated?

b. is that life human?


The answer to a is quite simple. If it is not alive then why is an abortion required?

The answer to b is equally simple. If the genetic code does not match what we expect of a human it is not human.

c if the answers to a and b are yes then you can not but admit that abortion terminates a human life. Not a potential human life but a human life with potential.

How then do you justify that without presenting the fallacious argument that some humans are not "human" because they do not meet some arbitrary subjective criteria for what a person is? What ever subjective criterial you set will be met by that life given time, and not a lot of time either.

MrPudding

Festus wrote: »

The cervix is forcibly opened to allow entry of the instruments required to remove the child inside.

The use of drugs to force the expulsion of the child from the uterus is not much different as the cervix must be forced to open prematurely.

I respect your respectful disagreement but the concept works just the same.

Rape is a word with a very specific meaning, which I think is what Jimi was alluding to. Irrespective of what you might think, it is not rape. So no, the concept does not work.

MrP

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure that anyone would argue otherwise. The question from the perspective of the Christian is whether societies decision on X, Y or Z is one an the same as God's will.

So it comes down, again, to a difference in the interpretation. Again, this is genuine curiosity. Clearly you are in the god does not agree camp. Am I right in thinking the biblical justification for capital punishment is from the old testament?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Then ideologically I think you probably have more in common with them than you do me.

Yes, I can see that, slightly scary. :eek:

MrP

Festus

MrPudding wrote: »

Rape is a word with a very specific meaning, which I think is what Jimi was alluding to. Irrespective of what you might think, it is not rape. So no, the concept does not work.

MrP

Read the quotation and link I posted here. Clearly it is not just what I think.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

a. in an abortion is a life terminated?

Yes

Festus wrote: »

b. is that life human?

Yes

Festus wrote: »

c if the answers to a and b are yes then you can not but admit that abortion terminates a human life. Not a potential human life but a human life with potential.

No one, that I'm aware of, has stated other wise.

You are missing the point of Morbet's comment, that being that human DNA isn't the valuable characteristic of a "person", the thing that we associate rights with, the property we consider as high value.

It is relatively easy to imagine a person with rights being something that does not possess human DNA, for example a new undiscovered intelligent species. A lot of countries are close to considering some Great Apes as possessing enough of the valuable characteristics to consider them having legal protection, and they aren't human. It is possible that at some point we will meet intelligent alien life which will not be human but, if they can travel among the stars, would no doubt possess characteristics we consider valuable and worthy of rights and protections.

Under your logic all these beings would have no value as they would not possess human DNA. Which I imagine if you thought about it you wouldn't actually agree with.

So saying it is a human life because it has human DNA is correct but also missing the point as that isn't what makes human life special.

In your rush to counter the some what straw man argument that a human fetus isn't human you seem to have forgotten the most important question, why is human life considered valuable in the first place.

It isn't because it is scientifically classified as having human DNA genome.

MrPudding

Festus wrote: »

Read the quotation and link I posted here. Clearly it is not just what I think.

It really does not matter what that person is saying, rape has a very specific meaning and requires that certain criteria be fulfilled, the most important of which is a lack of consent. If the person consents to the abortion, and forgetting for a moment the other requirements for an act to be considered rape, then it clearly is not rape. You can check it out here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0010/print.html

and here for the amendments, which don't change anything that might make an abortion rape, unless it was carried out without consent, but even then it would be tricky...:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/print.html#sec9

So, whilst you and the author you linked to might like the hyperbolic and sensationalist sound of calling an abortion a rape, it quite clearly is not.

MrP

Festus

MrPudding wrote: »

So, whilst you and the author you linked to might like the hyperbolic and sensationalist sound of calling an abortion a rape, it quite clearly is not.

MrP

I'm sure those who have had abortions will find your words comforting.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

So saying it is a human life because it has human DNA is correct but also missing the point as that isn't what makes human life special.

Enlighten me. At what point does a human life become special enough to warrant the same protection and right to life you or I have?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Enlighten me. At what point does a human life become special enough to warrant the same protection and right to life you or I have?

I already explained my position with regard to that question, as has Morbert. My views is that it is when it starts to develop the ability to produce higher brain functions.

A person is defined, in my view, by their consciousness, personality, memories etc, properties that are all contained by their brain and properties one could imagine being posses by non-human life. Lose these properties you lose the person, it doesn't matter what DNA they have.

If you don't regard that as important, if you think possessing human DNA is the important bit then fair enough but it would be mistake to assume everyone else is on the same page as you.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

A person is defined, in my view, by their consciousness, personality, memories etc, properties that are all contained by their brain and properties one could imagine being posses by non-human life. Lose these properties you lose the person, it doesn't matter what DNA they have.

So it is ok to kill you while you are under general anaesthesia by your definition.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

So it is ok to kill you while you are under general anaesthesia by your definition.

I wasn't aware that your brain is destroyed when you are put under general anesthesia.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

If you don't regard that as important, if you think possessing human DNA is the important bit then fair enough but it would be mistake to assume everyone else is on the same page as you.

Slow readers will catch up eventually.

You have no children. I had one die in my arms. When you've been through that tell me which page you're on.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

I wasn't aware that your brain is destroyed when you are put under general anesthesia.

Most of the higher brain functions are shut down such that you have no consciousness, your personality is no longer apparent and your memories are inaccessible and unwriteable.

Therefore by your definition you are no longer a person while under anaesthesia and can be legally killed.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

If you don't regard that as important, if you think possessing human DNA is the important bit then fair enough but it would be mistake to assume everyone else is on the same page as you.

I don't regard defining a person as important. It is too easy to introduce a set of arbitrary definitions that deprive not only the unborn of a right to life but also the handicapped, the aged and those suffering mental disease, and in extreme cases those belonging to a different race.

What is important is whether or not it is a human being and the consensus of scientific and medical opinion is that a human being exists from conception.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

You have no children. I had one die in my arms. When you've been through that tell me which page you're on.

I'm not sure what relevance that has to any argument that human DNA is the important characteristic that we bestow rights upon.

Festus wrote: »

Most of the higher brain functions are shut down such that you have no consciousness, your personality is no longer apparent and your memories are inaccessible and unwriteable.

And? What does that have to do with how I defined the valuable properties of a person?

Festus wrote: »

Therefore by your definition you are no longer a person while under anaesthesia and can be legally killed.

Can you point out what part of my definition would give you that rather bizarre idea?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

It is too easy to introduce a set of arbitrary definitions that deprive not only the unborn of a right to life but also the handicapped, the aged and those suffering mental disease, and in extreme cases those belonging to a different race.

But you have already done this. You say unique DNA defines a human being and that means they have rights, but non-humans don't have those rights.

That seems completely arbitrary. Since when did possessing human DNA mean anything? Both myself and Morbet have already given examples of how that is unworkable.

Festus wrote: »

What is important is whether or not it is a human being

No that isn't what is important, since as I've already said that restricts rights to beings with human DNA (based on your definition), which rules out legal protection from everything from intelligent aliens to Great Apes (and possibly even down syndrome children, given their DNA is different to standard humans).

Festus wrote: »

and the consensus of scientific and medical opinion is that a human being exists from conception.

The scientific answer is that life started 4.3 billion years ago and hasn't stopped. Life never begins, that is abogenesis and it doesn't happen any more. All it does is stop.

Your parents where alive, so where their sperm and egg and so was the zygote.

Any notion of when an "individual" human is created is a philosophical and ethical question, defined by, as you say, arbitrary notions of what we consider an individual to be. You won't find much help from science in that regard.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you point out what part of my definition would give you that rather bizarre idea?

Bog standard Reductio ad absurdum.

MrP

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you point out what part of my definition would give you that rather bizarre idea?

if you insist

Wicknight wrote: »

A person is defined, in my view, by their consciousness, personality, memories etc,

Wicknight wrote: »

Lose these properties you lose the person,

Under general anaestheis you lose your consciousness, personality and memories etc, albeit temproarily if you don't overdose.

So while under you are no longer a person. Just a slab of meat being artifically maintained while the surgeon does what he has to do.
The surgeon is probably nice enough to treat you as a person even though you no longer display any of "your" characteristics of a person, namely "consciousness, personality, memories etc," but if that ever becomes the legal definition of a person who warrants a right to life you're in it up to your neck. So if it all goes proverbial it doesn;t matter. You weren't a person when you died.

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

Bog standard Reductio ad absurdum.

MrP

I wonder if Festus had valuable documents on a harddrive would he be happy if I destroyed the harddrive so long as it wasn't plugged in to a PC? I mean after all if you can't access the files at that moment they have no value, right?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Under general anaestheis you lose your consciousness, personality and memories etc

No you don't.

If you did you would be a completely different person when you woke up. You aren't, you are the same person you were when you went into surgery.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

Since when did possessing human DNA mean anything?

You're kidding me right?

Wicknight wrote: »

No that isn't what is important, since as I've already said that restricts rights to beings with human DNA (based on your definition), which rules out legal protection from everything from intelligent aliens to Great Apes

One doesn't exist, the other isn't human.

Wicknight wrote: »

(and possibly even down syndrome children, given their DNA is different to standard humans).

ah so you what to kill them too do you?

Wicknight wrote: »

The scientific answer is that life started 4.3 billion years ago and hasn't stopped. Life never begins, that is abogenesis and it doesn't happen any more. All it does is stop.

So you began your life 4.3 billion years ago?

Wicknight wrote: »

Any notion of when an "individual" human is created is a philosophical and ethical question, defined by, as we say, arbitrary notions of what we consider an individual to be. You won't find much help from science in that regard.

Already have mate and you lose. Read a biology book once in a while and maybe something on sexual reproduction in humans. Try upstairs in Hodges Figges rather than downstairs in Sth. William street.

Festus

Wicknight, while I suspect you are a human being you do not meet my criteria for a person. Therefore...

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

You're kidding me right?

No. Your heart muscle possess human DNA, last time I checked people didn't consider organ donations having the right to life.

Festus wrote: »

One doesn't exist, the other isn't human.

You're kidding right?

Festus wrote: »

ah so you what to kill them too do you?

No, because I don't define life as valuable if it has 46 chromosomes. I define it as valuable if it has sentients, which as far as I'm aware people with down syndrome do.

You see how unworkable your definition of what is valuable life and what isn't valuable life.

Festus wrote: »

So you began your life 4.3 billion years ago?

"You" is a human classification, not a scientific one. As far as science is concerned I'm the current state of a self-replicating chemical reaction that started 4.3 billion years ago.

Which is why you aren't going to get any useful answers from appealing to science.

Festus wrote: »

Already have mate and you lose.

I "lose"? I wasn't aware this was a game?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

The scientific answer is that life started 4.3 billion years ago and hasn't stopped. Life never begins, that is abogenesis and it doesn't happen any more. All it does is stop.

You know the difference between the particular and the general?

Yes, life began roughly 2 billion years ago on a general scale.

Each individual life also has a beginning. There is a point where something is a living entity rather than not.

It seems awfully disingenuous to ignore the particular beginning of individual lives.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You know the difference between the particular and the general?

Yes, life began roughly 2 billion years ago on a general scale.

Each individual life also has a beginning.

Individual life is largely a human concept, based on the way we like to break things up into individual entities for ease of process.

You won't find much help from science in what is or isn't individual life. For example, are each of our cells individual life? Depending on how you define life in the first place you will get a different answer.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a point where something is a living entity rather than not.

At no point between your parents and you wasn't anything not a living entity.

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems awfully disingenuous to ignore the particular beginning of individual lives.

I'm not ignoring individuality, I'm saying science isn't going to pop an answer to us as to what is or isn't an individual life and when that separation started.

These are ethical and philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

philologos

It's bioethics, so it has very much to do with biology and what we know about the embryo and when a new life begins. We know that there is a distinction between the particular and the universal, so it seems to be sophistry to seriously claim that we don't have an individual beginning to life because life as a general concept began 2 billion years ago on this earth.