The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[sakinago]

I don’t know what planet he’s on but it’s not earth, he thanked me for that clearly sarcastic post about the soul not being able to pass through the mother’s body.

I must have read your post wrong, but yes it is possible, until proven otherwise, that the soul can't penetrate a body that's already occupied by another soul. (I lean towards re-incarnation and am agnostic).

So you guys a laughing at ME. So what's your take on all this? Chuz, you've yet to say why you oppose abortion, instead you Chuz Deflection. So come on, what's your deal?

It’s 100% unprovable either way, and also 100% supposition, is there is 0 point to debating it, Bc nobody here has the answers, including you. Your stance was you suppose there is no soul in womb, so kill away. Which is like saying if you were in a car and saw someone laying on the road, “I’m just gonna suppose and assume they’re dead and run over them.” Your still responsible for killing them if they are actually alive, despite your suppositions.

Your standard of a soul was also based on memory, so if I get a concussion and have anterograde amnesia...I guess I just temporarily loose my soul? Does that sound right to you?

I'm saying this theory abortion related or not, trying to figure things out like everyone else...
So why do you oppose abortion? What's YOUR story?

Valuing human life, the least of humans/speech/many other things are the first to go in a downward spiral.

So you believe that every human life is unique? With its own soul that will die with the fetus? Something like that?

I don’t know why you’re dragging the souls into it again, but I believe human life itself needs to be protected. The nazis were a westernized culture, very similar to us and the rest of Europe. They weren’t savages, they weren’t a barbarian warrior culture, they were regular people like you and me. What happened to them is they started placing extra value on certain races, and placed lower value onto not only other races, but also the deformed, mentally challenged, mentally ill, and started to put a fiscal worth on their lives. They said as a a society we can’t afford the “dysgenic”, and the money spent on dysgenic is better served going to the non dysgenic. And put down thousands of humans like they were old sick dogs, and justified it by saying they were being “humane”.

If you don’t believe will ever fall into that sort of thinking, A, we’re doing it now with abortion, B. Look at the milgram experiment. Milgram back in the 50s was asking the very same question of “how the hell did a modern society, ever come to commit these terrible acts?” Well he set up an experiment, that was fake but made to seem real, where the test subjects believed they were asking quiz questions, and then give progressively worse electric shots when the “other test subject” (that was really just a recording) got the answers wrong. And he set it up so that a guy in a lab coat that called himself a doctor was sitting in the room with the real test subjects to give them directions. How the experiment went is the recording (that the subject thought was really someone on the other side of the wall), would get the first few right, and then start getting some wrong, and start complaining about his heart condition with the initial lower voltage shocks. As the test went on the recording would start really complaining more and more about their heart, and actually start screaming and begging the actual test subject to stop shocking them. At this time the subject would start to get a little concerned for the fake man, and look to the doctor and the doctor would tell them, “it’s safe, he’s fine, continue with the study.” Some 70%-80% of regular people (like you and me) would continue shocking the poor fake subject, despite more and more desperate pleads for them to stop, and the “doctor” would just say continue the study. And so they’d continue even past the point to where the recorded mans voice stopped, and the fake subject seemed to be unresponsive or dead, and they’d still continue to shock them with harder and more powerful electric shocks, even after the guy on the other side of the wall was non responsive.Just because a guy in a lab coat said it was ok. We as humans far too often just go along with what perceived authority figures say, or what society tells us is ok. Milgram also did another experiment where he’d have six guys in an elevator facing the back of the elevator instead of the door, and whenever a random person would get on, he be very confused and uncomfortable, but then he’d eventually turn around and face the back of the elevator, just because everyone else was.

 

[sakinago]

Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point

You are really fixated on this. I don’t see it as particularly relevant to the inquiry concerning the moral implications of a human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization versus one that’s existed 48 months since fertilization.

It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

Which means that it is a moot point

Not a moot point, an abortion can happen at any time after fertilization.

It is moot point because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

And has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of a child in the womb. It's a canard whose only purpose is to justify a wrong as a right

A human is a human, whether in the womb or not right? Not all “wrongs” are equal. Individuals and societies weigh the moral implications of wrongs, rights, and situations, then ascribe proportional punishments/responses. And most people I know would save people that have “consciousness capability” over the 1000 embryos that don’t.

But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do when you began to exist as a human being

But consciousness has much to do with the moral implications of my being. Before I had consciousness, I did not care if I existed or not; when I’m no longer capable of consciousness, I won’t care if I exist or not.

Are you conscious when you are sleeping?

What percentage of abortions are done at 48 hours?

Is the percentage really relevant if every human matters equally? Just one killing would be morally unacceptable. And yet people sometimes take loved ones off life support knowing that it will kill them. And most people I know don’t think a rape victim should be punished if they take an “abortion pill” a week after they’re raped.

My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule. Which is what you are still doing.

I think I might have to ask the question differently, do you think the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization, should be equal to the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization?

Now that is a good question. A fair question too.

I don't know, but that's a discussion for each state. I'd like to see that happen.

>>>”It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter”

Ok, yeah and when do you think “personhood rights” are established? If you’re like many pro-life absolutists you probably think its at the “moment of fertilization”. But what if there’s a metabolic failure and the genetic combination fails mid-process, was the “person” ever alive? To me, a moment, is hardly ever simply a moment. I see grey areas everywhere.
Or we could look at “the law”, but remember you can only advance “the law” in favor of your argument if you agree with the law. In the USA it would primarily be the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”. It’s a fair enough law in my opinion. But I don’t see how it establishes “personhood rights” at the moment of fertilization without being unconstitutional. If “protection of the laws” are different for a zygote depending on whether its inside the womb or out, or the mood of the mother, then the zygote is not receiving “equal protection of the laws”. So is the law not establishing “personhood rights” or is it not constitutional? As it is, I think it supports my view of the diminished rights of the zygote.

>>>”But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life”

The “intentional killing of human life” can sometimes be justified. Massive combinations of different scenarios lead to moral ambiguity at times.

>>>”Are you conscious when you are sleeping?”

I certainly still have brain activity. My memories, and personality are preserved. Consciousness is another grey area, not simply back and white; and sleeping is a simple case. Traumatic brain injuries are where things get complicated, with the ultimate end point of legal brain death. If I’m laying in a hospital legally brain dead, I hope the doctors and my family make the decision to kill me. But I don’t think my life matters so much at that point. But all the moral ambiguity surrounding brain death still presumes one basic fact: that a brain exists.

>>>”My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule.”

What rule am I defining? My position is that the life of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization doesn’t matter as much as a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization. If you think they matter equally, then you’d have to apply an equal punishment to the killer of either one. If they matter equally, then a rape victim can’t premeditatedly kill a week old blastocyst within her anymore than she could premeditatedly kill a toddler. Anyone that wants to give an exception to a rape victim has to either acknowledge that not all lives matter equally, or apply equal punishment for the premeditated killing of either.

Hypothetical: same sort of situation as terry chiavo, this case is called sherry Tiavo. Arguably brain dead, partial vegetable (full brain death works too if you want), kept alive artificially on machines. Husband wants to pull the plug, family doesn’t want him too. Difference here is that terry’s doctor says there’s an 85% she’ll make a full recovery and be a full functioning human being again within a year...is it ok for the husband to pull the plug then?

 

[MPS777]

Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point

You are really fixated on this. I don’t see it as particularly relevant to the inquiry concerning the moral implications of a human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization versus one that’s existed 48 months since fertilization.

It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

Which means that it is a moot point

Not a moot point, an abortion can happen at any time after fertilization.

It is moot point because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

And has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of a child in the womb. It's a canard whose only purpose is to justify a wrong as a right

A human is a human, whether in the womb or not right? Not all “wrongs” are equal. Individuals and societies weigh the moral implications of wrongs, rights, and situations, then ascribe proportional punishments/responses. And most people I know would save people that have “consciousness capability” over the 1000 embryos that don’t.

But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do when you began to exist as a human being

But consciousness has much to do with the moral implications of my being. Before I had consciousness, I did not care if I existed or not; when I’m no longer capable of consciousness, I won’t care if I exist or not.

Are you conscious when you are sleeping?

What percentage of abortions are done at 48 hours?

Is the percentage really relevant if every human matters equally? Just one killing would be morally unacceptable. And yet people sometimes take loved ones off life support knowing that it will kill them. And most people I know don’t think a rape victim should be punished if they take an “abortion pill” a week after they’re raped.

My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule. Which is what you are still doing.

I think I might have to ask the question differently, do you think the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization, should be equal to the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization?

Now that is a good question. A fair question too.

I don't know, but that's a discussion for each state. I'd like to see that happen.

>>>”It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter”

Ok, yeah and when do you think “personhood rights” are established? If you’re like many pro-life absolutists you probably think its at the “moment of fertilization”. But what if there’s a metabolic failure and the genetic combination fails mid-process, was the “person” ever alive? To me, a moment, is hardly ever simply a moment. I see grey areas everywhere.
Or we could look at “the law”, but remember you can only advance “the law” in favor of your argument if you agree with the law. In the USA it would primarily be the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”. It’s a fair enough law in my opinion. But I don’t see how it establishes “personhood rights” at the moment of fertilization without being unconstitutional. If “protection of the laws” are different for a zygote depending on whether its inside the womb or out, or the mood of the mother, then the zygote is not receiving “equal protection of the laws”. So is the law not establishing “personhood rights” or is it not constitutional? As it is, I think it supports my view of the diminished rights of the zygote.

>>>”But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life”

The “intentional killing of human life” can sometimes be justified. Massive combinations of different scenarios lead to moral ambiguity at times.

>>>”Are you conscious when you are sleeping?”

I certainly still have brain activity. My memories, and personality are preserved. Consciousness is another grey area, not simply back and white; and sleeping is a simple case. Traumatic brain injuries are where things get complicated, with the ultimate end point of legal brain death. If I’m laying in a hospital legally brain dead, I hope the doctors and my family make the decision to kill me. But I don’t think my life matters so much at that point. But all the moral ambiguity surrounding brain death still presumes one basic fact: that a brain exists.

>>>”My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule.”

What rule am I defining? My position is that the life of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization doesn’t matter as much as a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization. If you think they matter equally, then you’d have to apply an equal punishment to the killer of either one. If they matter equally, then a rape victim can’t premeditatedly kill a week old blastocyst within her anymore than she could premeditatedly kill a toddler. Anyone that wants to give an exception to a rape victim has to either acknowledge that not all lives matter equally, or apply equal punishment for the premeditated killing of either.

Hypothetical: same sort of situation as terry chiavo, this case is called sherry Tiavo. Arguably brain dead, partial vegetable (full brain death works too if you want), kept alive artificially on machines. Husband wants to pull the plug, family doesn’t want him too. Difference here is that terry’s doctor says there’s an 85% she’ll make a full recovery and be a full functioning human being again within a year...is it ok for the husband to pull the plug then?

I just did a little research into the Terri Schiavo and I didn’t see any reference to an 85% chance of full recovery. Is it even legal to pull the plug at those odds? No, I wouldn’t pull the plug.

 

[sakinago]

Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point

You are really fixated on this. I don’t see it as particularly relevant to the inquiry concerning the moral implications of a human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization versus one that’s existed 48 months since fertilization.

It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

Which means that it is a moot point

Not a moot point, an abortion can happen at any time after fertilization.

It is moot point because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

And has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of a child in the womb. It's a canard whose only purpose is to justify a wrong as a right

A human is a human, whether in the womb or not right? Not all “wrongs” are equal. Individuals and societies weigh the moral implications of wrongs, rights, and situations, then ascribe proportional punishments/responses. And most people I know would save people that have “consciousness capability” over the 1000 embryos that don’t.

But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do when you began to exist as a human being

But consciousness has much to do with the moral implications of my being. Before I had consciousness, I did not care if I existed or not; when I’m no longer capable of consciousness, I won’t care if I exist or not.

Are you conscious when you are sleeping?

What percentage of abortions are done at 48 hours?

Is the percentage really relevant if every human matters equally? Just one killing would be morally unacceptable. And yet people sometimes take loved ones off life support knowing that it will kill them. And most people I know don’t think a rape victim should be punished if they take an “abortion pill” a week after they’re raped.

My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule. Which is what you are still doing.

I think I might have to ask the question differently, do you think the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization, should be equal to the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization?

Now that is a good question. A fair question too.

I don't know, but that's a discussion for each state. I'd like to see that happen.

>>>”It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter”

Ok, yeah and when do you think “personhood rights” are established? If you’re like many pro-life absolutists you probably think its at the “moment of fertilization”. But what if there’s a metabolic failure and the genetic combination fails mid-process, was the “person” ever alive? To me, a moment, is hardly ever simply a moment. I see grey areas everywhere.
Or we could look at “the law”, but remember you can only advance “the law” in favor of your argument if you agree with the law. In the USA it would primarily be the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”. It’s a fair enough law in my opinion. But I don’t see how it establishes “personhood rights” at the moment of fertilization without being unconstitutional. If “protection of the laws” are different for a zygote depending on whether its inside the womb or out, or the mood of the mother, then the zygote is not receiving “equal protection of the laws”. So is the law not establishing “personhood rights” or is it not constitutional? As it is, I think it supports my view of the diminished rights of the zygote.

>>>”But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life”

The “intentional killing of human life” can sometimes be justified. Massive combinations of different scenarios lead to moral ambiguity at times.

>>>”Are you conscious when you are sleeping?”

I certainly still have brain activity. My memories, and personality are preserved. Consciousness is another grey area, not simply back and white; and sleeping is a simple case. Traumatic brain injuries are where things get complicated, with the ultimate end point of legal brain death. If I’m laying in a hospital legally brain dead, I hope the doctors and my family make the decision to kill me. But I don’t think my life matters so much at that point. But all the moral ambiguity surrounding brain death still presumes one basic fact: that a brain exists.

>>>”My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule.”

What rule am I defining? My position is that the life of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization doesn’t matter as much as a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization. If you think they matter equally, then you’d have to apply an equal punishment to the killer of either one. If they matter equally, then a rape victim can’t premeditatedly kill a week old blastocyst within her anymore than she could premeditatedly kill a toddler. Anyone that wants to give an exception to a rape victim has to either acknowledge that not all lives matter equally, or apply equal punishment for the premeditated killing of either.

Hypothetical: same sort of situation as terry chiavo, this case is called sherry Tiavo. Arguably brain dead, partial vegetable (full brain death works too if you want), kept alive artificially on machines. Husband wants to pull the plug, family doesn’t want him too. Difference here is that terry’s doctor says there’s an 85% she’ll make a full recovery and be a full functioning human being again within a year...is it ok for the husband to pull the plug then?

I just did a little research into the Terri Schiavo and I didn’t see any reference to an 85% chance of full recovery. Is it even legal to pull the plug at those odds? No, I wouldn’t pull the plug.

No that wasn’t the case with her, I said it was a hypothetical and changed the names from terry to Sherry Taivo. But what if the doctor said “ as of now, 40% odds she’ll make a full recovery, and if she continues to improve, in a month or 2 her odds will jump to 85%” what about then, do you pull the plug?

 

[MPS777]

Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point

You are really fixated on this. I don’t see it as particularly relevant to the inquiry concerning the moral implications of a human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization versus one that’s existed 48 months since fertilization.

It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

Which means that it is a moot point

Not a moot point, an abortion can happen at any time after fertilization.

It is moot point because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

And has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of a child in the womb. It's a canard whose only purpose is to justify a wrong as a right

A human is a human, whether in the womb or not right? Not all “wrongs” are equal. Individuals and societies weigh the moral implications of wrongs, rights, and situations, then ascribe proportional punishments/responses. And most people I know would save people that have “consciousness capability” over the 1000 embryos that don’t.

But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do when you began to exist as a human being

But consciousness has much to do with the moral implications of my being. Before I had consciousness, I did not care if I existed or not; when I’m no longer capable of consciousness, I won’t care if I exist or not.

Are you conscious when you are sleeping?

What percentage of abortions are done at 48 hours?

Is the percentage really relevant if every human matters equally? Just one killing would be morally unacceptable. And yet people sometimes take loved ones off life support knowing that it will kill them. And most people I know don’t think a rape victim should be punished if they take an “abortion pill” a week after they’re raped.

My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule. Which is what you are still doing.

I think I might have to ask the question differently, do you think the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization, should be equal to the punishment for the premeditated killing of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization?

Now that is a good question. A fair question too.

I don't know, but that's a discussion for each state. I'd like to see that happen.

>>>”It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter”

Ok, yeah and when do you think “personhood rights” are established? If you’re like many pro-life absolutists you probably think its at the “moment of fertilization”. But what if there’s a metabolic failure and the genetic combination fails mid-process, was the “person” ever alive? To me, a moment, is hardly ever simply a moment. I see grey areas everywhere.
Or we could look at “the law”, but remember you can only advance “the law” in favor of your argument if you agree with the law. In the USA it would primarily be the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”. It’s a fair enough law in my opinion. But I don’t see how it establishes “personhood rights” at the moment of fertilization without being unconstitutional. If “protection of the laws” are different for a zygote depending on whether its inside the womb or out, or the mood of the mother, then the zygote is not receiving “equal protection of the laws”. So is the law not establishing “personhood rights” or is it not constitutional? As it is, I think it supports my view of the diminished rights of the zygote.

>>>”But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life”

The “intentional killing of human life” can sometimes be justified. Massive combinations of different scenarios lead to moral ambiguity at times.

>>>”Are you conscious when you are sleeping?”

I certainly still have brain activity. My memories, and personality are preserved. Consciousness is another grey area, not simply back and white; and sleeping is a simple case. Traumatic brain injuries are where things get complicated, with the ultimate end point of legal brain death. If I’m laying in a hospital legally brain dead, I hope the doctors and my family make the decision to kill me. But I don’t think my life matters so much at that point. But all the moral ambiguity surrounding brain death still presumes one basic fact: that a brain exists.

>>>”My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule.”

What rule am I defining? My position is that the life of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization doesn’t matter as much as a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization. If you think they matter equally, then you’d have to apply an equal punishment to the killer of either one. If they matter equally, then a rape victim can’t premeditatedly kill a week old blastocyst within her anymore than she could premeditatedly kill a toddler. Anyone that wants to give an exception to a rape victim has to either acknowledge that not all lives matter equally, or apply equal punishment for the premeditated killing of either.

Hypothetical: same sort of situation as terry chiavo, this case is called sherry Tiavo. Arguably brain dead, partial vegetable (full brain death works too if you want), kept alive artificially on machines. Husband wants to pull the plug, family doesn’t want him too. Difference here is that terry’s doctor says there’s an 85% she’ll make a full recovery and be a full functioning human being again within a year...is it ok for the husband to pull the plug then?

I just did a little research into the Terri Schiavo and I didn’t see any reference to an 85% chance of full recovery. Is it even legal to pull the plug at those odds? No, I wouldn’t pull the plug.

No that wasn’t the case with her, I said it was a hypothetical and changed the names from terry to Sherry Taivo. But what if the doctor said “ as of now, 40% odds she’ll make a full recovery, and if she continues to improve, in a month or 2 her odds will jump to 85%” what about then, do you pull the plug?

Of course we could move the probabilities around by varying increments ad infinitum. Then we could mix in various doctors with second opinions ad infinitum. I’m not a doctor or a lawyer, so I’m not going to get stuck in the weeds there. My question is, why is the person who pulled the plug on Terri Schiavo not in jail?

 

[Taz]

I must have read your post wrong, but yes it is possible, until proven otherwise, that the soul can't penetrate a body that's already occupied by another soul. (I lean towards re-incarnation and am agnostic).

So you guys a laughing at ME. So what's your take on all this? Chuz, you've yet to say why you oppose abortion, instead you Chuz Deflection. So come on, what's your deal?

It’s 100% unprovable either way, and also 100% supposition, is there is 0 point to debating it, Bc nobody here has the answers, including you. Your stance was you suppose there is no soul in womb, so kill away. Which is like saying if you were in a car and saw someone laying on the road, “I’m just gonna suppose and assume they’re dead and run over them.” Your still responsible for killing them if they are actually alive, despite your suppositions.

Your standard of a soul was also based on memory, so if I get a concussion and have anterograde amnesia...I guess I just temporarily loose my soul? Does that sound right to you?

I'm saying this theory abortion related or not, trying to figure things out like everyone else...
So why do you oppose abortion? What's YOUR story?

Valuing human life, the least of humans/speech/many other things are the first to go in a downward spiral.

So you believe that every human life is unique? With its own soul that will die with the fetus? Something like that?

I don’t know why you’re dragging the souls into it again, but I believe human life itself needs to be protected. The nazis were a westernized culture, very similar to us and the rest of Europe. They weren’t savages, they weren’t a barbarian warrior culture, they were regular people like you and me. What happened to them is they started placing extra value on certain races, and placed lower value onto not only other races, but also the deformed, mentally challenged, mentally ill, and started to put a fiscal worth on their lives. They said as a a society we can’t afford the “dysgenic”, and the money spent on dysgenic is better served going to the non dysgenic. And put down thousands of humans like they were old sick dogs, and justified it by saying they were being “humane”.

If you don’t believe will ever fall into that sort of thinking, A, we’re doing it now with abortion, B. Look at the milgram experiment. Milgram back in the 50s was asking the very same question of “how the hell did a modern society, ever come to commit these terrible acts?” Well he set up an experiment, that was fake but made to seem real, where the test subjects believed they were asking quiz questions, and then give progressively worse electric shots when the “other test subject” (that was really just a recording) got the answers wrong. And he set it up so that a guy in a lab coat that called himself a doctor was sitting in the room with the real test subjects to give them directions. How the experiment went is the recording (that the subject thought was really someone on the other side of the wall), would get the first few right, and then start getting some wrong, and start complaining about his heart condition with the initial lower voltage shocks. As the test went on the recording would start really complaining more and more about their heart, and actually start screaming and begging the actual test subject to stop shocking them. At this time the subject would start to get a little concerned for the fake man, and look to the doctor and the doctor would tell them, “it’s safe, he’s fine, continue with the study.” Some 70%-80% of regular people (like you and me) would continue shocking the poor fake subject, despite more and more desperate pleads for them to stop, and the “doctor” would just say continue the study. And so they’d continue even past the point to where the recorded mans voice stopped, and the fake subject seemed to be unresponsive or dead, and they’d still continue to shock them with harder and more powerful electric shocks, even after the guy on the other side of the wall was non responsive.Just because a guy in a lab coat said it was ok. We as humans far too often just go along with what perceived authority figures say, or what society tells us is ok. Milgram also did another experiment where he’d have six guys in an elevator facing the back of the elevator instead of the door, and whenever a random person would get on, he be very confused and uncomfortable, but then he’d eventually turn around and face the back of the elevator, just because everyone else was.

You make no sense. This whole Nazi story is irrelevant to the question of abortion. It's not even what the Nazis were doing.

So ALL life should be protected? Even badly deformed fetuses with no chance of a pain-free (short) life?

 

[sakinago]

It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

It is moot point because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter.

But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life.

Are you conscious when you are sleeping?

My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule. Which is what you are still doing.

Now that is a good question. A fair question too.

I don't know, but that's a discussion for each state. I'd like to see that happen.

>>>”It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter”

Ok, yeah and when do you think “personhood rights” are established? If you’re like many pro-life absolutists you probably think its at the “moment of fertilization”. But what if there’s a metabolic failure and the genetic combination fails mid-process, was the “person” ever alive? To me, a moment, is hardly ever simply a moment. I see grey areas everywhere.
Or we could look at “the law”, but remember you can only advance “the law” in favor of your argument if you agree with the law. In the USA it would primarily be the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”. It’s a fair enough law in my opinion. But I don’t see how it establishes “personhood rights” at the moment of fertilization without being unconstitutional. If “protection of the laws” are different for a zygote depending on whether its inside the womb or out, or the mood of the mother, then the zygote is not receiving “equal protection of the laws”. So is the law not establishing “personhood rights” or is it not constitutional? As it is, I think it supports my view of the diminished rights of the zygote.

>>>”But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life”

The “intentional killing of human life” can sometimes be justified. Massive combinations of different scenarios lead to moral ambiguity at times.

>>>”Are you conscious when you are sleeping?”

I certainly still have brain activity. My memories, and personality are preserved. Consciousness is another grey area, not simply back and white; and sleeping is a simple case. Traumatic brain injuries are where things get complicated, with the ultimate end point of legal brain death. If I’m laying in a hospital legally brain dead, I hope the doctors and my family make the decision to kill me. But I don’t think my life matters so much at that point. But all the moral ambiguity surrounding brain death still presumes one basic fact: that a brain exists.

>>>”My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule.”

What rule am I defining? My position is that the life of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization doesn’t matter as much as a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization. If you think they matter equally, then you’d have to apply an equal punishment to the killer of either one. If they matter equally, then a rape victim can’t premeditatedly kill a week old blastocyst within her anymore than she could premeditatedly kill a toddler. Anyone that wants to give an exception to a rape victim has to either acknowledge that not all lives matter equally, or apply equal punishment for the premeditated killing of either.

Hypothetical: same sort of situation as terry chiavo, this case is called sherry Tiavo. Arguably brain dead, partial vegetable (full brain death works too if you want), kept alive artificially on machines. Husband wants to pull the plug, family doesn’t want him too. Difference here is that terry’s doctor says there’s an 85% she’ll make a full recovery and be a full functioning human being again within a year...is it ok for the husband to pull the plug then?

I just did a little research into the Terri Schiavo and I didn’t see any reference to an 85% chance of full recovery. Is it even legal to pull the plug at those odds? No, I wouldn’t pull the plug.

No that wasn’t the case with her, I said it was a hypothetical and changed the names from terry to Sherry Taivo. But what if the doctor said “ as of now, 40% odds she’ll make a full recovery, and if she continues to improve, in a month or 2 her odds will jump to 85%” what about then, do you pull the plug?

Of course we could move the probabilities around by varying increments ad infinitum. Then we could mix in various doctors with second opinions ad infinitum. I’m not a doctor or a lawyer, so I’m not going to get stuck in the weeds there. My question is, why is the person who pulled the plug on Terri Schiavo not in jail?

Well I picked these prognosis’s for reason, they’re the same prognosis’s of carrying a baby to term. So why is it wrong in the case our hypothetical sherry to pull the plug, but totally ok to do it with the same prognosis in pregnancy?

 

[sakinago]

It’s 100% unprovable either way, and also 100% supposition, is there is 0 point to debating it, Bc nobody here has the answers, including you. Your stance was you suppose there is no soul in womb, so kill away. Which is like saying if you were in a car and saw someone laying on the road, “I’m just gonna suppose and assume they’re dead and run over them.” Your still responsible for killing them if they are actually alive, despite your suppositions.

Your standard of a soul was also based on memory, so if I get a concussion and have anterograde amnesia...I guess I just temporarily loose my soul? Does that sound right to you?

I'm saying this theory abortion related or not, trying to figure things out like everyone else...
So why do you oppose abortion? What's YOUR story?

Valuing human life, the least of humans/speech/many other things are the first to go in a downward spiral.

So you believe that every human life is unique? With its own soul that will die with the fetus? Something like that?

I don’t know why you’re dragging the souls into it again, but I believe human life itself needs to be protected. The nazis were a westernized culture, very similar to us and the rest of Europe. They weren’t savages, they weren’t a barbarian warrior culture, they were regular people like you and me. What happened to them is they started placing extra value on certain races, and placed lower value onto not only other races, but also the deformed, mentally challenged, mentally ill, and started to put a fiscal worth on their lives. They said as a a society we can’t afford the “dysgenic”, and the money spent on dysgenic is better served going to the non dysgenic. And put down thousands of humans like they were old sick dogs, and justified it by saying they were being “humane”.

If you don’t believe will ever fall into that sort of thinking, A, we’re doing it now with abortion, B. Look at the milgram experiment. Milgram back in the 50s was asking the very same question of “how the hell did a modern society, ever come to commit these terrible acts?” Well he set up an experiment, that was fake but made to seem real, where the test subjects believed they were asking quiz questions, and then give progressively worse electric shots when the “other test subject” (that was really just a recording) got the answers wrong. And he set it up so that a guy in a lab coat that called himself a doctor was sitting in the room with the real test subjects to give them directions. How the experiment went is the recording (that the subject thought was really someone on the other side of the wall), would get the first few right, and then start getting some wrong, and start complaining about his heart condition with the initial lower voltage shocks. As the test went on the recording would start really complaining more and more about their heart, and actually start screaming and begging the actual test subject to stop shocking them. At this time the subject would start to get a little concerned for the fake man, and look to the doctor and the doctor would tell them, “it’s safe, he’s fine, continue with the study.” Some 70%-80% of regular people (like you and me) would continue shocking the poor fake subject, despite more and more desperate pleads for them to stop, and the “doctor” would just say continue the study. And so they’d continue even past the point to where the recorded mans voice stopped, and the fake subject seemed to be unresponsive or dead, and they’d still continue to shock them with harder and more powerful electric shocks, even after the guy on the other side of the wall was non responsive.Just because a guy in a lab coat said it was ok. We as humans far too often just go along with what perceived authority figures say, or what society tells us is ok. Milgram also did another experiment where he’d have six guys in an elevator facing the back of the elevator instead of the door, and whenever a random person would get on, he be very confused and uncomfortable, but then he’d eventually turn around and face the back of the elevator, just because everyone else was.

You make no sense. This whole Nazi story is irrelevant to the question of abortion. It's not even what the Nazis were doing.

So ALL life should be protected? Even badly deformed fetuses with no chance of a pain-free (short) life?

Well you asked why I’m against abortion, and it’s because human life should be and is protected under our constitution, and the first step of devaluing life is the life we find “inconvenient”, just like the nazis did. In this case it’s the fetus.

A severely deformed baby in pain happens how often?? If you want to debate over that, then you might as well debate that walking outside is dangerous because you could get struck by lightning. No we’re talking about 99.8 percent of abortions that take place, because they are an inconvenience. Stop changing the subject.

 

[Taz]

I'm saying this theory abortion related or not, trying to figure things out like everyone else...
So why do you oppose abortion? What's YOUR story?

Valuing human life, the least of humans/speech/many other things are the first to go in a downward spiral.

So you believe that every human life is unique? With its own soul that will die with the fetus? Something like that?

I don’t know why you’re dragging the souls into it again, but I believe human life itself needs to be protected. The nazis were a westernized culture, very similar to us and the rest of Europe. They weren’t savages, they weren’t a barbarian warrior culture, they were regular people like you and me. What happened to them is they started placing extra value on certain races, and placed lower value onto not only other races, but also the deformed, mentally challenged, mentally ill, and started to put a fiscal worth on their lives. They said as a a society we can’t afford the “dysgenic”, and the money spent on dysgenic is better served going to the non dysgenic. And put down thousands of humans like they were old sick dogs, and justified it by saying they were being “humane”.

If you don’t believe will ever fall into that sort of thinking, A, we’re doing it now with abortion, B. Look at the milgram experiment. Milgram back in the 50s was asking the very same question of “how the hell did a modern society, ever come to commit these terrible acts?” Well he set up an experiment, that was fake but made to seem real, where the test subjects believed they were asking quiz questions, and then give progressively worse electric shots when the “other test subject” (that was really just a recording) got the answers wrong. And he set it up so that a guy in a lab coat that called himself a doctor was sitting in the room with the real test subjects to give them directions. How the experiment went is the recording (that the subject thought was really someone on the other side of the wall), would get the first few right, and then start getting some wrong, and start complaining about his heart condition with the initial lower voltage shocks. As the test went on the recording would start really complaining more and more about their heart, and actually start screaming and begging the actual test subject to stop shocking them. At this time the subject would start to get a little concerned for the fake man, and look to the doctor and the doctor would tell them, “it’s safe, he’s fine, continue with the study.” Some 70%-80% of regular people (like you and me) would continue shocking the poor fake subject, despite more and more desperate pleads for them to stop, and the “doctor” would just say continue the study. And so they’d continue even past the point to where the recorded mans voice stopped, and the fake subject seemed to be unresponsive or dead, and they’d still continue to shock them with harder and more powerful electric shocks, even after the guy on the other side of the wall was non responsive.Just because a guy in a lab coat said it was ok. We as humans far too often just go along with what perceived authority figures say, or what society tells us is ok. Milgram also did another experiment where he’d have six guys in an elevator facing the back of the elevator instead of the door, and whenever a random person would get on, he be very confused and uncomfortable, but then he’d eventually turn around and face the back of the elevator, just because everyone else was.

You make no sense. This whole Nazi story is irrelevant to the question of abortion. It's not even what the Nazis were doing.

So ALL life should be protected? Even badly deformed fetuses with no chance of a pain-free (short) life?

Well you asked why I’m against abortion, and it’s because human life should be and is protected under our constitution, and the first step of devaluing life is the life we find “inconvenient”, just like the nazis did. In this case it’s the fetus.

A severely deformed baby in pain happens how often?? If you want to debate over that, then you might as well debate that walking outside is dangerous because you could get struck by lightning. No we’re talking about 99.8 percent of abortions that take place, because they are an inconvenience. Stop changing the subject.

I see a fetus as an empty vessel, not yet instilled with consciousness/ a soul. Re-incarnation shows us that the body can be changed over and over again, with no apparent consequence to the soul.

 

[sakinago]

Valuing human life, the least of humans/speech/many other things are the first to go in a downward spiral.

So you believe that every human life is unique? With its own soul that will die with the fetus? Something like that?

I don’t know why you’re dragging the souls into it again, but I believe human life itself needs to be protected. The nazis were a westernized culture, very similar to us and the rest of Europe. They weren’t savages, they weren’t a barbarian warrior culture, they were regular people like you and me. What happened to them is they started placing extra value on certain races, and placed lower value onto not only other races, but also the deformed, mentally challenged, mentally ill, and started to put a fiscal worth on their lives. They said as a a society we can’t afford the “dysgenic”, and the money spent on dysgenic is better served going to the non dysgenic. And put down thousands of humans like they were old sick dogs, and justified it by saying they were being “humane”.

If you don’t believe will ever fall into that sort of thinking, A, we’re doing it now with abortion, B. Look at the milgram experiment. Milgram back in the 50s was asking the very same question of “how the hell did a modern society, ever come to commit these terrible acts?” Well he set up an experiment, that was fake but made to seem real, where the test subjects believed they were asking quiz questions, and then give progressively worse electric shots when the “other test subject” (that was really just a recording) got the answers wrong. And he set it up so that a guy in a lab coat that called himself a doctor was sitting in the room with the real test subjects to give them directions. How the experiment went is the recording (that the subject thought was really someone on the other side of the wall), would get the first few right, and then start getting some wrong, and start complaining about his heart condition with the initial lower voltage shocks. As the test went on the recording would start really complaining more and more about their heart, and actually start screaming and begging the actual test subject to stop shocking them. At this time the subject would start to get a little concerned for the fake man, and look to the doctor and the doctor would tell them, “it’s safe, he’s fine, continue with the study.” Some 70%-80% of regular people (like you and me) would continue shocking the poor fake subject, despite more and more desperate pleads for them to stop, and the “doctor” would just say continue the study. And so they’d continue even past the point to where the recorded mans voice stopped, and the fake subject seemed to be unresponsive or dead, and they’d still continue to shock them with harder and more powerful electric shocks, even after the guy on the other side of the wall was non responsive.Just because a guy in a lab coat said it was ok. We as humans far too often just go along with what perceived authority figures say, or what society tells us is ok. Milgram also did another experiment where he’d have six guys in an elevator facing the back of the elevator instead of the door, and whenever a random person would get on, he be very confused and uncomfortable, but then he’d eventually turn around and face the back of the elevator, just because everyone else was.

You make no sense. This whole Nazi story is irrelevant to the question of abortion. It's not even what the Nazis were doing.

So ALL life should be protected? Even badly deformed fetuses with no chance of a pain-free (short) life?

Well you asked why I’m against abortion, and it’s because human life should be and is protected under our constitution, and the first step of devaluing life is the life we find “inconvenient”, just like the nazis did. In this case it’s the fetus.

A severely deformed baby in pain happens how often?? If you want to debate over that, then you might as well debate that walking outside is dangerous because you could get struck by lightning. No we’re talking about 99.8 percent of abortions that take place, because they are an inconvenience. Stop changing the subject.

I see a fetus as an empty vessel, not yet instilled with consciousness/ a soul. Re-incarnation shows us that the body can be changed over and over again, with no apparent consequence to the soul.

That’s a religious belief system, based on your own guess...I’m sure you wouldn’t want a doctor just kind of guessing when it came to you own life.

A better theory for the soul, is that there is light given off at the moment of conception. That’s a true story. Maybe that’s when the soul goes in. certainly more evidence for that than your assumption

 

[Taz]

So you believe that every human life is unique? With its own soul that will die with the fetus? Something like that?

I don’t know why you’re dragging the souls into it again, but I believe human life itself needs to be protected. The nazis were a westernized culture, very similar to us and the rest of Europe. They weren’t savages, they weren’t a barbarian warrior culture, they were regular people like you and me. What happened to them is they started placing extra value on certain races, and placed lower value onto not only other races, but also the deformed, mentally challenged, mentally ill, and started to put a fiscal worth on their lives. They said as a a society we can’t afford the “dysgenic”, and the money spent on dysgenic is better served going to the non dysgenic. And put down thousands of humans like they were old sick dogs, and justified it by saying they were being “humane”.

If you don’t believe will ever fall into that sort of thinking, A, we’re doing it now with abortion, B. Look at the milgram experiment. Milgram back in the 50s was asking the very same question of “how the hell did a modern society, ever come to commit these terrible acts?” Well he set up an experiment, that was fake but made to seem real, where the test subjects believed they were asking quiz questions, and then give progressively worse electric shots when the “other test subject” (that was really just a recording) got the answers wrong. And he set it up so that a guy in a lab coat that called himself a doctor was sitting in the room with the real test subjects to give them directions. How the experiment went is the recording (that the subject thought was really someone on the other side of the wall), would get the first few right, and then start getting some wrong, and start complaining about his heart condition with the initial lower voltage shocks. As the test went on the recording would start really complaining more and more about their heart, and actually start screaming and begging the actual test subject to stop shocking them. At this time the subject would start to get a little concerned for the fake man, and look to the doctor and the doctor would tell them, “it’s safe, he’s fine, continue with the study.” Some 70%-80% of regular people (like you and me) would continue shocking the poor fake subject, despite more and more desperate pleads for them to stop, and the “doctor” would just say continue the study. And so they’d continue even past the point to where the recorded mans voice stopped, and the fake subject seemed to be unresponsive or dead, and they’d still continue to shock them with harder and more powerful electric shocks, even after the guy on the other side of the wall was non responsive.Just because a guy in a lab coat said it was ok. We as humans far too often just go along with what perceived authority figures say, or what society tells us is ok. Milgram also did another experiment where he’d have six guys in an elevator facing the back of the elevator instead of the door, and whenever a random person would get on, he be very confused and uncomfortable, but then he’d eventually turn around and face the back of the elevator, just because everyone else was.

You make no sense. This whole Nazi story is irrelevant to the question of abortion. It's not even what the Nazis were doing.

So ALL life should be protected? Even badly deformed fetuses with no chance of a pain-free (short) life?

Well you asked why I’m against abortion, and it’s because human life should be and is protected under our constitution, and the first step of devaluing life is the life we find “inconvenient”, just like the nazis did. In this case it’s the fetus.

A severely deformed baby in pain happens how often?? If you want to debate over that, then you might as well debate that walking outside is dangerous because you could get struck by lightning. No we’re talking about 99.8 percent of abortions that take place, because they are an inconvenience. Stop changing the subject.

I see a fetus as an empty vessel, not yet instilled with consciousness/ a soul. Re-incarnation shows us that the body can be changed over and over again, with no apparent consequence to the soul.

That’s a religious belief system, based on your own guess...I’m sure you wouldn’t want a doctor just kind of guessing when it came to you own life.

A better theory for the soul, is that there is light given off at the moment of conception. That’s a true story. Maybe that’s when the soul goes in. certainly more evidence for that than your assumption

My soul didn't sit around for 9 months in a sack filled with fluid. I would have remembered something like that.

 

[sakinago]

I don’t know why you’re dragging the souls into it again, but I believe human life itself needs to be protected. The nazis were a westernized culture, very similar to us and the rest of Europe. They weren’t savages, they weren’t a barbarian warrior culture, they were regular people like you and me. What happened to them is they started placing extra value on certain races, and placed lower value onto not only other races, but also the deformed, mentally challenged, mentally ill, and started to put a fiscal worth on their lives. They said as a a society we can’t afford the “dysgenic”, and the money spent on dysgenic is better served going to the non dysgenic. And put down thousands of humans like they were old sick dogs, and justified it by saying they were being “humane”.

If you don’t believe will ever fall into that sort of thinking, A, we’re doing it now with abortion, B. Look at the milgram experiment. Milgram back in the 50s was asking the very same question of “how the hell did a modern society, ever come to commit these terrible acts?” Well he set up an experiment, that was fake but made to seem real, where the test subjects believed they were asking quiz questions, and then give progressively worse electric shots when the “other test subject” (that was really just a recording) got the answers wrong. And he set it up so that a guy in a lab coat that called himself a doctor was sitting in the room with the real test subjects to give them directions. How the experiment went is the recording (that the subject thought was really someone on the other side of the wall), would get the first few right, and then start getting some wrong, and start complaining about his heart condition with the initial lower voltage shocks. As the test went on the recording would start really complaining more and more about their heart, and actually start screaming and begging the actual test subject to stop shocking them. At this time the subject would start to get a little concerned for the fake man, and look to the doctor and the doctor would tell them, “it’s safe, he’s fine, continue with the study.” Some 70%-80% of regular people (like you and me) would continue shocking the poor fake subject, despite more and more desperate pleads for them to stop, and the “doctor” would just say continue the study. And so they’d continue even past the point to where the recorded mans voice stopped, and the fake subject seemed to be unresponsive or dead, and they’d still continue to shock them with harder and more powerful electric shocks, even after the guy on the other side of the wall was non responsive.Just because a guy in a lab coat said it was ok. We as humans far too often just go along with what perceived authority figures say, or what society tells us is ok. Milgram also did another experiment where he’d have six guys in an elevator facing the back of the elevator instead of the door, and whenever a random person would get on, he be very confused and uncomfortable, but then he’d eventually turn around and face the back of the elevator, just because everyone else was.

You make no sense. This whole Nazi story is irrelevant to the question of abortion. It's not even what the Nazis were doing.

So ALL life should be protected? Even badly deformed fetuses with no chance of a pain-free (short) life?

Well you asked why I’m against abortion, and it’s because human life should be and is protected under our constitution, and the first step of devaluing life is the life we find “inconvenient”, just like the nazis did. In this case it’s the fetus.

A severely deformed baby in pain happens how often?? If you want to debate over that, then you might as well debate that walking outside is dangerous because you could get struck by lightning. No we’re talking about 99.8 percent of abortions that take place, because they are an inconvenience. Stop changing the subject.

I see a fetus as an empty vessel, not yet instilled with consciousness/ a soul. Re-incarnation shows us that the body can be changed over and over again, with no apparent consequence to the soul.

That’s a religious belief system, based on your own guess...I’m sure you wouldn’t want a doctor just kind of guessing when it came to you own life.

A better theory for the soul, is that there is light given off at the moment of conception. That’s a true story. Maybe that’s when the soul goes in. certainly more evidence for that than your assumption

My soul didn't sit around for 9 months in a sack filled with fluid. I would have remembered something like that.

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

 

[Taz]

You make no sense. This whole Nazi story is irrelevant to the question of abortion. It's not even what the Nazis were doing.

So ALL life should be protected? Even badly deformed fetuses with no chance of a pain-free (short) life?

Well you asked why I’m against abortion, and it’s because human life should be and is protected under our constitution, and the first step of devaluing life is the life we find “inconvenient”, just like the nazis did. In this case it’s the fetus.

A severely deformed baby in pain happens how often?? If you want to debate over that, then you might as well debate that walking outside is dangerous because you could get struck by lightning. No we’re talking about 99.8 percent of abortions that take place, because they are an inconvenience. Stop changing the subject.

I see a fetus as an empty vessel, not yet instilled with consciousness/ a soul. Re-incarnation shows us that the body can be changed over and over again, with no apparent consequence to the soul.

That’s a religious belief system, based on your own guess...I’m sure you wouldn’t want a doctor just kind of guessing when it came to you own life.

A better theory for the soul, is that there is light given off at the moment of conception. That’s a true story. Maybe that’s when the soul goes in. certainly more evidence for that than your assumption

My soul didn't sit around for 9 months in a sack filled with fluid. I would have remembered something like that.

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

Prove it.

 

[sakinago]

Well you asked why I’m against abortion, and it’s because human life should be and is protected under our constitution, and the first step of devaluing life is the life we find “inconvenient”, just like the nazis did. In this case it’s the fetus.

A severely deformed baby in pain happens how often?? If you want to debate over that, then you might as well debate that walking outside is dangerous because you could get struck by lightning. No we’re talking about 99.8 percent of abortions that take place, because they are an inconvenience. Stop changing the subject.

I see a fetus as an empty vessel, not yet instilled with consciousness/ a soul. Re-incarnation shows us that the body can be changed over and over again, with no apparent consequence to the soul.

That’s a religious belief system, based on your own guess...I’m sure you wouldn’t want a doctor just kind of guessing when it came to you own life.

A better theory for the soul, is that there is light given off at the moment of conception. That’s a true story. Maybe that’s when the soul goes in. certainly more evidence for that than your assumption

My soul didn't sit around for 9 months in a sack filled with fluid. I would have remembered something like that.

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

 

[MPS777]

>>>”It is relevant because once personhood is established rights are vested and time doesn't matter”

Ok, yeah and when do you think “personhood rights” are established? If you’re like many pro-life absolutists you probably think its at the “moment of fertilization”. But what if there’s a metabolic failure and the genetic combination fails mid-process, was the “person” ever alive? To me, a moment, is hardly ever simply a moment. I see grey areas everywhere.
Or we could look at “the law”, but remember you can only advance “the law” in favor of your argument if you agree with the law. In the USA it would primarily be the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”. It’s a fair enough law in my opinion. But I don’t see how it establishes “personhood rights” at the moment of fertilization without being unconstitutional. If “protection of the laws” are different for a zygote depending on whether its inside the womb or out, or the mood of the mother, then the zygote is not receiving “equal protection of the laws”. So is the law not establishing “personhood rights” or is it not constitutional? As it is, I think it supports my view of the diminished rights of the zygote.

>>>”But it doesn't justify the intentional killing of human life”

The “intentional killing of human life” can sometimes be justified. Massive combinations of different scenarios lead to moral ambiguity at times.

>>>”Are you conscious when you are sleeping?”

I certainly still have brain activity. My memories, and personality are preserved. Consciousness is another grey area, not simply back and white; and sleeping is a simple case. Traumatic brain injuries are where things get complicated, with the ultimate end point of legal brain death. If I’m laying in a hospital legally brain dead, I hope the doctors and my family make the decision to kill me. But I don’t think my life matters so much at that point. But all the moral ambiguity surrounding brain death still presumes one basic fact: that a brain exists.

>>>”My point was that you are trying to use an exception to define a rule.”

What rule am I defining? My position is that the life of an innocent human that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization doesn’t matter as much as a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization. If you think they matter equally, then you’d have to apply an equal punishment to the killer of either one. If they matter equally, then a rape victim can’t premeditatedly kill a week old blastocyst within her anymore than she could premeditatedly kill a toddler. Anyone that wants to give an exception to a rape victim has to either acknowledge that not all lives matter equally, or apply equal punishment for the premeditated killing of either.

Hypothetical: same sort of situation as terry chiavo, this case is called sherry Tiavo. Arguably brain dead, partial vegetable (full brain death works too if you want), kept alive artificially on machines. Husband wants to pull the plug, family doesn’t want him too. Difference here is that terry’s doctor says there’s an 85% she’ll make a full recovery and be a full functioning human being again within a year...is it ok for the husband to pull the plug then?

I just did a little research into the Terri Schiavo and I didn’t see any reference to an 85% chance of full recovery. Is it even legal to pull the plug at those odds? No, I wouldn’t pull the plug.

No that wasn’t the case with her, I said it was a hypothetical and changed the names from terry to Sherry Taivo. But what if the doctor said “ as of now, 40% odds she’ll make a full recovery, and if she continues to improve, in a month or 2 her odds will jump to 85%” what about then, do you pull the plug?

Of course we could move the probabilities around by varying increments ad infinitum. Then we could mix in various doctors with second opinions ad infinitum. I’m not a doctor or a lawyer, so I’m not going to get stuck in the weeds there. My question is, why is the person who pulled the plug on Terri Schiavo not in jail?

Well I picked these prognosis’s for reason, they’re the same prognosis’s of carrying a baby to term. So why is it wrong in the case our hypothetical sherry to pull the plug, but totally ok to do it with the same prognosis in pregnancy?

First of all, I’ve never said that abortion is always totally ok, you can go back and check the record on that one. But I think one difference is that I don’t think a human being has established their rights until they’ve achieved conscious capacity of some type. A zygote’s never come close.

And I’m going to go back to the burning fertility clinic dilemma, because my honest answer informs my opinion about relative human “worth”. So I consider this:
I’m a firefighter responding to the fire and I find a room. In one corner is a small refrigerator labeled “100 embryos”, and in the other corner is two toddlers. Huddled brother and sister, crying and confused. Even if 10 of those embryos were my own, I’d rescue the toddlers. I bet the various parents of the 90 other embryos would make the same call. A FEELING and THINKING brother and sister, with a family somewhere that loves them. Parents that have poured their hearts and soul into them. Versus what, a bunch of embryos with undifferentiated cells that by scientific definition have never had any free agency. Quite honestly, those have less priority to me than the toddlers, because they don’t matter as much. I wouldn’t really feel bad because I know those embryos never even had remotely the capacity to care. Like empty vessels.

 

[Taz]

I see a fetus as an empty vessel, not yet instilled with consciousness/ a soul. Re-incarnation shows us that the body can be changed over and over again, with no apparent consequence to the soul.

That’s a religious belief system, based on your own guess...I’m sure you wouldn’t want a doctor just kind of guessing when it came to you own life.

A better theory for the soul, is that there is light given off at the moment of conception. That’s a true story. Maybe that’s when the soul goes in. certainly more evidence for that than your assumption

My soul didn't sit around for 9 months in a sack filled with fluid. I would have remembered something like that.

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

 

[sakinago]

Hypothetical: same sort of situation as terry chiavo, this case is called sherry Tiavo. Arguably brain dead, partial vegetable (full brain death works too if you want), kept alive artificially on machines. Husband wants to pull the plug, family doesn’t want him too. Difference here is that terry’s doctor says there’s an 85% she’ll make a full recovery and be a full functioning human being again within a year...is it ok for the husband to pull the plug then?

I just did a little research into the Terri Schiavo and I didn’t see any reference to an 85% chance of full recovery. Is it even legal to pull the plug at those odds? No, I wouldn’t pull the plug.

No that wasn’t the case with her, I said it was a hypothetical and changed the names from terry to Sherry Taivo. But what if the doctor said “ as of now, 40% odds she’ll make a full recovery, and if she continues to improve, in a month or 2 her odds will jump to 85%” what about then, do you pull the plug?

Of course we could move the probabilities around by varying increments ad infinitum. Then we could mix in various doctors with second opinions ad infinitum. I’m not a doctor or a lawyer, so I’m not going to get stuck in the weeds there. My question is, why is the person who pulled the plug on Terri Schiavo not in jail?

Well I picked these prognosis’s for reason, they’re the same prognosis’s of carrying a baby to term. So why is it wrong in the case our hypothetical sherry to pull the plug, but totally ok to do it with the same prognosis in pregnancy?

First of all, I’ve never said that abortion is always totally ok, you can go back and check the record on that one. But I think one difference is that I don’t think a human being has established their rights until they’ve achieved conscious capacity of some type. A zygote’s never come close.

And I’m going to go back to the burning fertility clinic dilemma, because my honest answer informs my opinion about relative human “worth”. So I consider this:
I’m a firefighter responding to the fire and I find a room. In one corner is a small refrigerator labeled “100 embryos”, and in the other corner is two toddlers. Huddled brother and sister, crying and confused. Even if 10 of those embryos were my own, I’d rescue the toddlers. I bet the various parents of the 90 other embryos would make the same call. A FEELING and THINKING brother and sister, with a family somewhere that loves them. Parents that have poured their hearts and soul into them. Versus what, a bunch of embryos with undifferentiated cells that by scientific definition have never had any free agency. Quite honestly, those have less priority to me than the toddlers, because they don’t matter as much. I wouldn’t really feel bad because I know those embryos never even had remotely the capacity to care. Like empty vessels.

A. A women would never know she was pregnant with a zygote, which is the first stage of the embryonic stage (lasts about 4 days). By the time she knows she’s pregnant, she’s usually out of the embryonic stage. So the whole calling it a zygote is just minimizing. If you’re feeling the need to unjustly minimize something, you’re probably on the wrong track. If not you shouldn’t have to resort to minimizing to help justify this in your mind. This should be telling you something.

B. To answer your question these frozen embryos, aren’t implanted, are suspended, don’t have a mother to raise them yet, don’t have the odds of survival the already formed toddlers do, save the toddlers. Not that hard. Still a tragedy, but not that hard.

C. And your basing your beliefs solely on the fact that you cannot personalize what you refer to as just a clump of cells. Kind of like the box scenario. You can press a button and get 10 million dollars, but someone random around the world dies...a lot of people behind close doors would press the button. It’s because we can’t personalize with them. Or like how we just kind of shrug our shoulders when 60 die in a terrorist attack in Africa, but loose our minds when 5 die in a shooting in America a couple towns away. Life is the standard we set, that “embryo” is human life, just in a different stage. Now you’re playing a game where you’re adding value to some human life over others, would you rather have 5 severely autistic people die, or one super smart scientist? The crazy part is we don’t have to play this game at all. Birth control is the easiest and cheapest it has ever been, there is zero excuse to act irresponsibly and not use any sort of birth control when your participating in the act of reproduction, ZERO. We don’t need to play this game. Draw the line at life, and make people take responsibility for their actions

D. The prognosis’s I gave in my scenarios are for common legal abortions.

 

[sakinago]

That’s a religious belief system, based on your own guess...I’m sure you wouldn’t want a doctor just kind of guessing when it came to you own life.

A better theory for the soul, is that there is light given off at the moment of conception. That’s a true story. Maybe that’s when the soul goes in. certainly more evidence for that than your assumption

My soul didn't sit around for 9 months in a sack filled with fluid. I would have remembered something like that.

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

 

[Chuz Life]

My soul didn't sit around for 9 months in a sack filled with fluid. I would have remembered something like that.

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

I think you are being trolled.

 

[sakinago]

Memory is all in the brain, which is why you can get hit on the head and loose your memory. Your theory on memory is just insane

Prove it.

I’ll prove it but first you must look up “what is an appeal to ignorance”.

I'll look that up after you prove it.

I’ll do it for you.
“Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).”

And by your standard since we don’t remember our years as a toddler, it’s perfectly fine to kill a toddler right? Since they are soulless?

I think you are being trolled.

That or it’s really just a 8 year old who doesn’t know any better. I’m definitely suspecting that.