So what's so bad about scientific research on Jewish remains anyway?

[g5000]

You are confusing fetus with person. Don't.

You are confusing a Jew with a person. Don't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Times have changed, on the living at least.

Why not go back? It doesn't matter if the law says it doesn't. I mean, just think what breakthroughs we could find if we could do vivisection again. Right?

Didn't know we'd stopped?

 

[kwc57]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research, so long as that research benefits real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

The dead and the never born, once cold, are non-people. We bury them, we don't throw them birthday parties...

"Never born" because they were human beings murdered in the womb. My neighbor has been causing some problems not controlling his weeds and dogs and it is very inconvenient to me. I'm guessing your solution is to dehumanize him so I can justify "dismissing" my little problem? Nice little rationalization you've got going on there. Wrong, immoral, but nice.

You are also confusing fetus with person. You won't win any arguments starting from a false premise.

Fetus is just a stage of personhood like child or adult. Your argument is that if you can claim a fetus isn't a person, it's ok to kill it. So, as long as KKK members don't consider blacks to be persons or I don't consider my neighbor a person, there is no moral or ethical issue with killing them, correct? I'm just trying to apply your "logic" here.

 

[kwc57]

 

[amrchaos]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research that will benefit real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

We already have!! Blacks, Asians, Whites, Jews, children, adolescent, Teens, adults, the elderly, etc... Hey, you name the classification, we pretty much already studied the biology of their deceased. Any other questions?

 

[amrchaos]

I see

Pedro is trying to equate the dead with the living.

Tell us Pedro, if a dead person has a disease, do you you treat the dead person? Why or why not?

Now do you understand? Pretty simple, is it not?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research that will benefit real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

We already have!! Blacks, Asians, Whites, Jews, children, adolescent, Teens, adults, the elderly, etc... Hey, you name the classification, we pretty much already studied the biology of their deceased. Any other questions?

You're right. You've made your case quite convincingly and you're right. You find us a pregnant Jew and a scalpel and I'm sure we can use what we learn from it to treat many real people.

 

[amrchaos]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research that will benefit real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

We already have!! Blacks, Asians, Whites, Jews, children, adolescent, Teens, adults, the elderly, etc... Hey, you name the classification, we pretty much already studied the biology of their deceased. Any other questions?

You're right. You've made your case quite convincingly and you're right. You find us a pregnant Jew and a scalpel and I'm sure we can use what we learn from it to treat many real people.

Are we talking dead with consent, or alive?

Can you make the distinction, Pedro? Because if you can't, there is no need to talk to you anymore!

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research that will benefit real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

We already have!! Blacks, Asians, Whites, Jews, children, adolescent, Teens, adults, the elderly, etc... Hey, you name the classification, we pretty much already studied the biology of their deceased. Any other questions?

You're right. You've made your case quite convincingly and you're right. You find us a pregnant Jew and a scalpel and I'm sure we can use what we learn from it to treat many real people.

Are we talking dead with consent, or alive?

Can you make the distinction, Pedro? Because if you can't, there is no need to talk to you anymore!

I'm pretty sure only people can give consent to anything. Cattle don't consent to being shot. People make the decision for them. Clearly you and I are both people. We both have rights non-people lack, even if those non-people are living creatures, such as a cow or a Jew. So how about it? Are you willing to help us cure AIDS? I promise, no actual people will be harmed.

 

[amrchaos]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research that will benefit real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

We already have!! Blacks, Asians, Whites, Jews, children, adolescent, Teens, adults, the elderly, etc... Hey, you name the classification, we pretty much already studied the biology of their deceased. Any other questions?

You're right. You've made your case quite convincingly and you're right. You find us a pregnant Jew and a scalpel and I'm sure we can use what we learn from it to treat many real people.

Are we talking dead with consent, or alive?

Can you make the distinction, Pedro? Because if you can't, there is no need to talk to you anymore!

I'm pretty sure only people can give consent to anything. Cattle don't consent to being shot. People make the decision for them. Clearly you and I are both people. We both have rights non-people lack, even if those non-people are living creatures, such as a cow or a Jew. So how about it? Are you willing to help us cure AIDS? I promise, no actual people will be harmed.

1)So you can't make a distinction between the living and the dead.

2)You do not know how consent is gained. One way is to give it before you die. Another is not to state either or but the family gave consent.

3)You continue to act like we are declaring a living group of people as 'non people' when it is you who is creating this false narrative!!

Preposterous. Talking to you is a waste of time. I might as well talk to a 'non-person', aka a wall!!

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

1)So you can't make a distinction between the living and the dead.

2)You do not know how consent is gained. One way is to give it before you die. Another is not to state either or but the family gave consent.

3)You continue to act like we are declaring a living group of people as 'non people' when it is you who is creating this false narrative!!

Preposterous. Talking to you is a waste of time. I might as well talk to a 'non-person', aka a wall!!

1. Obviously there is a difference between a human who is alive and one into whose head you have driven a spike. That's irrelevant to the original point that justifying the practice of harvesting organs from abortion victims by proclaiming them non-people can be proven clearly false by substituting them with another class of human being which has been legally deprived of personhood
2. People can give their consent to euthanasia. People can consent to donating their body to science. There is not a requirement to obtain the consent of a living creature that doesn't have personhood status. Legally it's irrelevant to the butcher what the cow thinks of being slaughtered, or to the abortionist how the fetus squirms and tries to move away from the source of the pain. That's the entire point of opposing fetal personhood, and of the status of personhood itself.
3. A fetus is alive. The stage of "fetus" is just an extremely early part of the human life cycle. You declare a fetus a non-person. How exactly are we not justified in thinking this means that you are, in fact, declaring a living group of humans as non-people?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So we can use classes of humans we've chosen to legally define as non-people as sources of vital tissues for medical research, so long as that research benefits real people? Awesome. There are lots of people who agree with you across the political spectrum.

The dead and the never born, once cold, are non-people. We bury them, we don't throw them birthday parties...

"Never born" because they were human beings murdered in the womb. My neighbor has been causing some problems not controlling his weeds and dogs and it is very inconvenient to me. I'm guessing your solution is to dehumanize him so I can justify "dismissing" my little problem? Nice little rationalization you've got going on there. Wrong, immoral, but nice.

You are also confusing fetus with person. You won't win any arguments starting from a false premise.

Fetus is just a stage of personhood like child or adult. Your argument is that if you can claim a fetus isn't a person, it's ok to kill it. So, as long as KKK members don't consider blacks to be persons or I don't consider my neighbor a person, there is no moral or ethical issue with killing them, correct? I'm just trying to apply your "logic" here.

The logic here is there are persons, and there are potential persons. When you are pregnant you don't have a baby, you are, potentially, having one. If it makes it out in one piece, with a working brain, you have a person. Otherwise you have a body, living or not. It's not complicated. Batter versus cake. For cake you need time, and an oven...

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The logic here is there are persons, and there are potential persons. When you are pregnant you don't have a baby, you are, potentially, having one. If it makes it out in one piece, with a working brain, you have a person. Otherwise you have a body, living or not. It's not complicated. Batter versus cake. For cake you need time, and an oven...

You do understand that we would see sperm and eggs as the batter, right? It's not a potential cake anymore when you've already mixed everything up and stuck it in the oven. It is basically a cake at that point. It's just still in the process of baking.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The logic here is there are persons, and there are potential persons. When you are pregnant you don't have a baby, you are, potentially, having one. If it makes it out in one piece, with a working brain, you have a person. Otherwise you have a body, living or not. It's not complicated. Batter versus cake. For cake you need time, and an oven...

You do understand that we would see sperm and eggs as the batter, right? It's not a potential cake anymore when you've mixed everything up and stuck it in the oven. It is a cake at that point. It's just not finished until the baking is done.

No, it's batter. The necessary ingredients if you have some time, luck, and heat. Nature treats it as batter, which is why you should never, never announce a pregnancy until the fourth month and even then only to people you are close to, and I'm not about to argue with nature. Most of what is conceived will not live to see the light of day. The womb is not a safe-house, it's a testing lab and it tosses 50% of what tries to cling to its walls. That is batter, not cake. For cake we have these cute little hats, a few thousand diapers, and a college fund. Most do not make the cut. Deal with it.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

No, it's batter. The necessary ingredients if you have some time, luck, and heat.

You've mixed the milk, eggs, and flour. You poured it into a pan and put the pan in the oven. You're giving it the time and heat. It's about halfway done. You'd still call that half risen cake batter?

Nature treats it as batter, which is why you should never, never announce a pregnancy until the fourth month and even then only to people you are close to, and I'm not about to argue with nature. Most of what is conceived will not live to see the light of day. The womb is not a safe-house, it's a testing lab and it tosses 50% of what tries to cling to its walls. That is batter, not cake. For cake we have these cute little hats, a few thousand diapers, and a college fund. Most do not make the cut. Deal with it.

We've been over this argument from nature thing before. Regardless of how flawed the natural process may be, that doesn't mean we should actively condone killing humans - whom I would consider people and you would not - on the grounds that they might die anyway.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, it's batter. The necessary ingredients if you have some time, luck, and heat.

You've mixed the milk, eggs, and flour. You poured it into a pan and put the pan in the oven. You're giving it the time and heat. It's about halfway done. You'd still call that half risen cake batter?

Nature treats it as batter, which is why you should never, never announce a pregnancy until the fourth month and even then only to people you are close to, and I'm not about to argue with nature. Most of what is conceived will not live to see the light of day. The womb is not a safe-house, it's a testing lab and it tosses 50% of what tries to cling to its walls. That is batter, not cake. For cake we have these cute little hats, a few thousand diapers, and a college fund. Most do not make the cut. Deal with it.

We've been over this argument from nature thing before. Regardless of how flawed the natural process may be, that doesn't mean we should actively condone killing humans - whom I would consider people and you would not - on the grounds that they might die anyway.

Just because you consider batter to be a cake doesn't mean the rest of us are going to make that mistake. Nature doesn't and neither will I. If it ain't baked, it ain't cake.

Those are not the only human things that are not persons BTW. When the brain goes, or you don't have one, living or dead that's a body not a person.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Just because you consider batter to be a cake doesn't mean the rest of us are going to make that mistake. Nature doesn't and neither will I. If it ain't baked, it ain't cake.

I don't think "nature" really has an opinion on culinary (or embryological) matters. Anyway, are you intentionally saying that it's batter until it magically becomes cake the moment you pull it out of the oven, without any sort of intermediary stage in between those two?

Those are not the only human things that are not persons BTW. When the brain goes, or you don't have one, living or dead that's a body not a person.

Which goes back to the point of the OP that, since personhood is an arbitrary status assigned by those who already possess it, then we are entirely free to choose who should have it and who should be deprived of it. There's no good reason to stop at babies when we could substantially improve the living situation of real people through the additional use of human groups historically considered non-persons, such as women, Jews, and blacks. That was the point of the OP. If you really want to make this case then you should at least be aware of how versatile it has already proven to be.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just because you consider batter to be a cake doesn't mean the rest of us are going to make that mistake. Nature doesn't and neither will I. If it ain't baked, it ain't cake.

I don't think "nature" really has an opinion on culinary (or embryological) matters. Anyway, are you intentionally saying that it's batter until it magically becomes cake the moment you pull it out of the oven, without any sort of intermediary stage in between those two?

Those are not the only human things that are not persons BTW. When the brain goes, or you don't have one, living or dead that's a body not a person.

Which goes back to the point of the OP that, since personhood is an arbitrary status assigned by those who already possess it, then we are entirely free to choose who should have it and who should be deprived of it. There's no good reason to stop at babies when we could substantially improve the living situation of real people through the additional use of human groups historically considered non-persons, such as women, Jews, and blacks. That was the point of the OP. If you really want to make this case then you should at least be aware of how versatile it has already proven to be.

A cake that hasn't finished baking isn't a cake. You wouldn't eat it. And you wouldn't try to play fetch with a stillborn puppy or one still in the womb. The one that matters is the one that's out and and acting like a puppy.

And your "but ******* and Jews were non-persons once" argument no longer plays. We are past that stage but the question "do we have a person or a body" still applies. I'm not about to overrule nature and say what's in the womb is the same as what's out. She thinks batter better bake for a while before you start picking out baby clothes and I concur.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

A cake that hasn't finished baking isn't a cake. You wouldn't eat it.

You're right. I wouldn't eat a cake until it was finished baking. That's because it's an egg containing product that hasn't finished baking, though, not because I would look at it and just see liquid batter rising solidly up out of the pan.

And you wouldn't try to play fetch with a stillborn puppy or one still in the womb. The one that matters is the one that's out and and acting like a puppy.

I wouldn't play fetch with an unborn puppy due to the... logistical... issues with that, but I absolutely have played with puppies in the womb. It's fun feeling them move and kick against you. I've played with a lot of my cousins in my aunts' bellies too, and ache for the day I can lay with my wife and feel and talk to our own children.

And your "but ******* and Jews were non-persons once" argument no longer plays. We are past that stage but the question "do we have a person or a body" still applies. I'm not about to overrule nature and say what's in the womb is the same as what's out. She thinks batter better bake for a while before you start picking out baby clothes and I concur.

Some of us have moved beyond trying to decide who's worth the protections of personhood and who isn't. Clearly the vast majority hasn't caught up to us yet.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Some of us have moved beyond trying to decide who's worth the protections of personhood and who isn't.

There is no ability to move past it. It's an open question and always will be. What you have done is taken an all or nothing position, and that is nothing like real life.