Obamacare: Eugenics

[PLC1]

You were trying to deride my viewpoint on the topic as religious...

It's a good thing we didn't have to prove that blacks had a soul in order to end slavery, or that women had a soul in order for them to have suffrage... For that matter, if it is indeed the presence of a soul that determines whether or not we have rights, how can you scientifically prove that anyone has a soul?

There's nothing wrong with using a philosophical/religious viewpoint so long as you're not trying to force that viewpoint on others by force of law. If you don't believe in a soul, that's your prerogative.

The assertion that life begins at conception depends on a strictly biological definition of life, and excludes the idea of a soul, as it excludes the idea that a human being is sentient. Of course, I can't prove that we are a soul, but surely you're not going to contend that human beings are not sentient, are you?

 

[GenSeneca]

There's nothing wrong with using a philosophical/religious viewpoint so long as you're not trying to force that viewpoint on others by force of law.

But you are forcing your viewpoint on others through the force of law... There are laws that make abortion legal just as there were once laws that made slavery legal.

If you had any verifiable facts to bring to the discussion, you wouldn't have to revert to the subjective and unprovable as a defense of your position.

Now if you really think that I am the one being unreasonable, then I ask you:

What would convince you that the life of an individual human being begins at conception?

If you don't believe in a soul, that's your prerogative.

So if you don't believe that blacks have a soul, then despite anyone's scientifically provable facts stating that black are human beings deserving of their individual rights, you feel justified in blocking attempts at ending slavery and denying them their rights.

The assertion that life begins at conception depends on a strictly biological definition of life, and excludes the idea of a soul, as it excludes the idea that a human being is sentient.

The assertion that the life of an individual human being begins once the individual has a soul and is sentient is totally unprovable. That's rather convenient... you don't feel the need to substantiate your claims or prove them in any way whereas you asked that I prove my statements - and when I did you dismissed them. Stating that the life of an individual human being begins at conception is scientifically substantiated, it is provable, it is fact.

Of course, I can't prove that we are a soul, but surely you're not going to contend that human beings are not sentient, are you?

No, not every human being is sentient but they are individual human beings nonetheless.

Should it be legal to kill any individual that is not sentient, i.e., is not conscious and self aware?

 

[PLC1]

But you are forcing your viewpoint on others through the force of law... There are laws that make abortion legal just as there were once laws that made slavery legal.

I'm not arguing for forcing anyone to have an abortion, or do anything else. I'm arguing for the right of the individual, rather than the government to make that decision.

We don't need a law to make something legal. There is no law saying it's OK for me to have an ice cream for dessert, but yet it is perfectly legal. Now, if someone decided that ice cream was bad for me, and wanted to outlaw its use, then that would be taking the choice away from me and giving it to the government.

If you had any verifiable facts to bring to the discussion, you wouldn't have to revert to the subjective and unprovable as a defense of your position.

I already posted verifiable facts, back in response to Old Trapper.

OK, here it is again:

The question of when human life begins has been pondered throughout history and in a multitude of cultural contexts. The "answer" is fluid, in that it has been changing throughout history, because any answer about when human life begins is deeply integrated with the beliefs, values and social constructs of the community or individual that drew the conclusion. Throughout history there have been several "answers" to the question of when human life begins, but the only consistency among the answers is that they are always changing as social contexts change, religious morals fluctuate, or new knowledge about the process of embryo development is obtained.

Now if you really think that I am the one being unreasonable, then I ask you:

What would convince you that the life of an individual human being begins at conception?

Demonstration that a zygote is a sentient being.

So if you don't believe that blacks have a soul, then despite anyone's scientifically provable facts stating that black are human beings deserving of their individual rights, you feel justified in blocking attempts at ending slavery and denying them their rights.

Blacks already demonstrate that they are sentient, just like any other human being. That argument is bogus. Even during the time of slavery, people understood that it was bogus. The assertion that blacks weren't human was simply a way of justifying what some wanted in the first place. It is much like what happens in war: We make up a name for the enemy that implies that they are less than human. We're not killing humans, no we're killing gooks, or hadj, or something else. It's a coping mechanism.

The assertion that the life of an individual human being begins once the individual has a soul and is sentient is totally unprovable. That's rather convenient... you don't feel the need to substantiate your claims or prove them in any way whereas you asked that I prove my statements - and when I did you dismissed them. Stating that the life of an individual human being begins at conception is scientifically substantiated, it is provable, it is fact.

It is my opinion that a human life begins when the individual becomes a sentient being. It is you opinion that life begins at conception. Neither opinion is provable, so mine is just as good as yours. The difference is that I'm not trying to enshrine mine into law.

No, not every human being is sentient but they are individual human beings nonetheless.

Should it be legal to kill any individual that is not sentient, i.e., is not conscious and self aware?

If that human being is in a vegetative state, with no hope of returning to life, then that individual is already dead.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm arguing for the right of the individual, rather than the government to make that decision.

Should the taxpayer be forced to subsidize, or foot the bill entirely, for abortions?

We don't need a law to make something legal.

Is it your contention that there are no laws regulating the practice of abortion?

Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion.

I already posted verifiable facts

Were these "facts" somewhere in that link? I read the entire thing and didn't see the "facts" explaining:

• How an individual can be created yet not be alive
• How an individual can progress through known stages of life, without actually being alive
• How an individual can begin his life as something other than human and magically transform into a human at some later, unspecified, point in time

None of that was explained in your link. That's probably because the link was not discussing scientific facts at all:

What does it mean to be alive? What does it mean to be human? Is a zygote or an embryo alive? Is a zygote or an embryo a human being? These are intricate philosophical questions that often incite intense debate, for their answers are used as evidence in the answers to questions about the moral status of a zygote, embryo or fetus.​

The entire post was discussing philosophy, not science... which is why is contains zero scientific facts.

Demonstration that a zygote is a sentient being.

You could have just said, "nothing can convince me" rather than demanding what you know is scientifically impossible. Now your answer begs the question, if a human zygote is not human, what species is it prior to becoming sentient? If the human zygote is not alive, how does it mature while being devoid of life?

That argument is bogus... The assertion that blacks weren't human was simply a way of justifying what some wanted in the first place....

Those who want to keep abortion legal use the same argument to justify allowing the practice.

We make up a name for the enemy that implies that they are less than human. We're not killing humans, no we're killing gooks, or hadj, or something else. It's a coping mechanism.

Those who support abortion claim we are not killing actual human beings, we are killing zygotes, clumps of cells, fetuses, "potential" human beings or something else. Clearly trying to justify their support for abortion by claiming the victim is something less than human. Is that your coping mechanism?

It is my opinion that a human life begins when the individual becomes a sentient being. It is you opinion that life begins at conception. Neither opinion is provable, so mine is just as good as yours.

There's that good old Pragmatic coping mechanism of Fallibilism... Every opinion is equal because there are no facts and nothing can be proven.

My opinion is provable. Biologically, at conception, an individual is formed, it is alive, and it is human. You have tried to refute the truth of those scientific facts with philosophical musings, not science.

The difference is that I'm not trying to enshrine mine into law.

Seeing as your opinion is based on something other than scientific fact, it's a good idea to not codify it into law.

 

[PLC1]

Should the taxpayer be forced to subsidize, or foot the bill entirely, for abortions?

No.

Is it your contention that there are no laws regulating the practice of abortion?

Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion.

Of course not. Were there no laws, however, it would be legal would it not?

Were these "facts" somewhere in that link? I read the entire thing and didn't see the "facts" explaining:

• How an individual can be created yet not be alive
• How an individual can progress through known stages of life, without actually being alive
• How an individual can begin his life as something other than human and magically transform into a human at some later, unspecified, point in time

You just weren't looking then.

None of that was explained in your link. That's probably because the link was not discussing scientific facts at all:
n.

What does it mean to be alive? What does it mean to be human? Is a zygote or an embryo alive? Is a zygote or an embryo a human being? These are intricate philosophical questions that often incite intense debate, for their answers are used as evidence in the answers to questions about the moral status of a zygote, embryo or fetus.​

The entire post was discussing philosophy, not science... which is why is contains zero scientific facts.

That was just the introduction.

You could have just said, "nothing can convince me" rather than demanding what you know is scientifically impossible. Now your answer begs the question, if a human zygote is not human, what species is it prior to becoming sentient? If the human zygote is not alive, how does it mature while being devoid of life?

It is not possible, because a zygote is not a human being.

Those who want to keep abortion legal use the same argument to justify allowing the practice.


Those who support abortion claim we are not killing actual human beings, we are killing zygotes, clumps of cells, fetuses, "potential" human beings or something else. Clearly trying to justify their support for abortion by claiming the victim is something less than human. Is that your coping mechanism?

No, I don't support abortion. Killing a potential human being is an immoral act, in my opinion. I just don't want to impose my values on the rest of society.

There's that good old Pragmatic coping mechanism of Fallibilism... Every opinion is equal because there are no facts and nothing can be proven.

My opinion is provable. Biologically, at conception, an individual is formed, it is alive, and it is human. You have tried to refute the truth of those scientific facts with philosophical musings, not science.


Seeing as your opinion is based on something other than scientific fact, it's a good idea to not codify it into law.

No, the lack of sentience is a scientific fact. A human is a sentient being, therefore, a zygote is not yet a human being.

Anyway, there is no need to codify individual choice into law, just not pass a law against it.

I'd think all of your talk about not violating individual rights would have brought you to the same conclusion had you not bought into the "abortion is murder" idea.

 

[GenSeneca]

That was just the introduction.

Which explains the contents is not scientific but philosophical.

It is not possible, because a zygote is not a human being.

Then what species is it? ...and why, if tested, would the test results show that it was human?

A human is a sentient being, therefore, a zygote is not yet a human being.

What species are we prior to sentience?

Anyway, there is no need to codify individual choice into law, just not pass a law against it.

There is no individual right to kill another individual who is no threat to your life.

I'd think all of your talk about not violating individual rights would have brought you to the same conclusion had you not bought into the "abortion is murder" idea.

See above. You would have come to the same conclusion had you not bought into the "less than human" idea.

 

[PLC1]

Which explains the contents is not scientific but philosophical.


Then what species is it? ...and why, if tested, would the test results show that it was human?


What species are we prior to sentience?


There is no individual right to kill another individual who is no threat to your life.


See above. You would have come to the same conclusion had you not bought into the "less than human" idea.

This entire discussion hinges on the definition of human life. I say that a human is a sentient being, therefore, a non sentient being is not a human. A zygote is, of course, not some other species, but is a potential human. You say that sentience is not necessary for a human to be a human, and therefore life begins when sperm meets egg.

I can see your side, and perhaps you're right. On the other hand, not everyone will agree with your point of view. OK so far, we can have a philosophical disagreement and life goes on with no way to prove who is right. It doesn't matter, not until you want to impose your philosophical position on everyone else by force of law.

As an analogy, there are many people in this world who are totally convinced that their god will wreak terrible vengeance on anyone who does not believe the same way that they do. If they want to believe that, fine. When they decide to pass laws requiring that everyone follow their faith, then there is a problem.

It's a similar issue.

 

[rationalist]

Any pro lifer who is in favour of war, execution, poverty etc is just a hyopcrite and their ranting views are worthless

 

[GenSeneca]

A zygote is, of course, not some other species, but is a potential human.

What species is it, if not human?

OK so far, we can have a philosophical disagreement and life goes on with no way to prove who is right.

No, once again you're pointing to your philosophical opinion and trying to claim it's equal to scientific biological fact.

Test a human zygote, DNA will biologically prove that it is an individual and that it is human. The fact that it is not dead is proof that biologically, it is alive.

A living human zygote is a living, individual, human - biological fact.

Humans need to have sentience before they are human. - Philosophical opinion.

 

[GenSeneca]

Any pro lifer who is in favour of war, execution, poverty etc is just a hyopcrite and their ranting views are worthless

Look who's talking about ranting, worthless views...

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

What species is it, if not human?


No, once again you're pointing to your philosophical opinion and trying to claim it's equal to scientific biological fact.

Test a human zygote, DNA will biologically prove that it is an individual and that it is human. The fact that it is not dead is proof that biologically, it is alive.

A living human zygote is a living, individual, human - biological fact.

Humans need to have sentience before they are human. - Philosophical opinion.

So if a pregnant woman smokes and it leads to a miscarriage, she should be charged with murder?

 

[PLC1]

So if a pregnant woman smokes and it leads to a miscarriage, she should be charged with murder?

Some legislators in Utah say yes.

http://jezebel.com/5479032/the-next-anti choice-target-miscarriage

I must admit, it is consistent with the view that life begins at conception, and killing a zygote at any stage is tantamount to killing a baby.

 

[GenSeneca]

Some legislators in Utah say yes.

http://jezebel.com/5479032/the-next-anti choice-target-miscarriage

I must admit, it is consistent with the view that life begins at conception, and killing a zygote at any stage is tantamount to killing a baby.

That's quite the slanted source for news... Celebrity, sex and fashion for women.

Measure on illegal abortions heads to governor

The Utah Senate has joined the House in allowing homicide charges against expectant mothers who arrange illegal abortions.

The bill responds to a case in which a Vernal woman allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause miscarriage but could not be charged. The Senate on Thursday approved HB12 on a vote of 24-4, criminalizing a woman's "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" leading to a pregnancy's illegal termination. It specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion.

 

[GenSeneca]

So if a pregnant woman smokes and it leads to a miscarriage, she should be charged with murder?

There is no conclusive scientific proof of smoking causing miscarriages.

Quid pro quo...

As an abortion supporter, should taxpayers be forced to subsidize, or foot the bill entirely, for abortions?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

There is no conclusive scientific proof of smoking causing miscarriages.

Quid pro quo...

As an abortion supporter, should taxpayers be forced to subsidize, or foot the bill entirely, for abortions?

at some point science will catch up, and causes of miscarriages will be able to be determined. at that point, does the rights of the zygote begin to infringe on the rights of an actual person? i know republicans love the "unintended consequences" argument.

When doctors say x, y, and z can cause harm to the zygote, fetus, etc... does that make those x, y, and z illegal? If scientists say it can cause abnormalities, miscarriages, etc... then those activities are now infringing on your zygotes supposed rights.

i dont buy the whole Living, DNA, Human = person with individual rights