The Elephant in the Room

[Alate_One]

No, you said (and reiterated in this very quote) it isn't morally wrong to define a person anytime before birth. By that measure, it isn't wrong to define when a human isn't a person after birth either.

This is absolutely illogical to what I've said. I said it is WRONG to fail to define a person before birth. Save in the case of death, why would we discriminate after, when I specifically said this was wrong?

Who said they are the same thing? Are you now changing what defines a person to an amount of fondness?

You've ALL been equating the two. Are they morally equivalent or not? Do you save the baby or the thousands of embryos in the freezer?

What is it that defines a person in Alate_One's mind? and why should his opinion take precedence over someone else's?

Why should your opinion take precedence?

No, according to the context of your comment, it was continuing to develop after it had a head at least. You'll also agree that same baby was continuing to develop before it had a head at least, and not may have been? You were willing to kill that baby.

And every time I eat a sandwich I destroy thousands of fields of grain. Crush acorns with your car and you destroy a forest.

So Alate_One feels that everything will be fine if I just take care of the babies he didn't feel like killing... Does that sound right to you Alate_One?

I'd love for every embryo to develop. Its physically impossible to do so currently. Do you want to DO something about that or keep waving your arms around?

COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY?!?!?! That seems so drastic! Draconian even! I don't suppose you could tease out a quote where I, or Stripe, or fool, has said anything against IVF? I mean, something so severe isn't something you'd make up would you?

IVF creates embryos. It ALWAYS creates more embryos than can possibly be implanted and brought to term. Therefore you will have to destroy/throw out/kill some of them. If zygotes and blastocysts are people then this is mass murder.

 

[Stripe]

But if a zygote turns into a Hydatidiform mole, and you called it a person is it still a person? Was it a person and then ceased to be one, or were you wrong about it being a person in the first place?

A zygote won't "turn into" a hydatidiform mole. It will already be in such a condition.

A zygote won't turn into a person. He is already in that condition.

This is absolutely illogical to what I've said. I said it is WRONG to fail to define a person before birth. Save in the case of death, why would we discriminate after, when I specifically said this was wrong?

Nothing you've said on this subject passes any sort of rational analysis. It's no surprise that very little of what you say can be easily understood.

Why should your opinion take precedence?

Why should your opinion take precedence?

Our position has biology on its side. Yours has a reliance upon the detection of a heartbeat.

IVF creates embryos. It ALWAYS creates more embryos than can possibly be implanted and brought to term.

You're not very good at this biology stuff, are you?

Did you get your PHD out of a weetbix packet?

Therefore you will have to destroy/throw out/kill some of them.

No, that is not at all necessary. You have to either be lying about this or lying about knowing anything at all about biology.

If zygotes and blastocysts are people then this is mass murder.

You're right.

 

[Jukia]

Case by case. Generally speaking a person results from natural conception when a man's sperm fuses with a woman's egg creating a distinct, new person. There may be artificial ways in which the same end might be met and there might be cases where the result is not viable, but generally speaking what we have at conception is a person with an eternal soul and spirit.

If the resulting zygote is not viable is it therefor not a person?

 

[Alate_One]

A zygote won't "turn into" a hydatidiform mole. It will already be in such a condition.

No, it won't "already be in the condition". Its a zygote. A zygote is one cell. A hydatidiform mole is a multicellular structure.

A zygote won't turn into a person. He is already in that condition.

By your definition of a person. Since a hydatidiform mole originates from sperm and egg (and that was the basis of your definition of a person), why is it not a person?

Nothing you've said on this subject passes any sort of rational analysis. It's no surprise that very little of what you say can be easily understood.

What I've said is perfectly rational. You just don't like it.

Our position has biology on its side. Yours has a reliance upon the detection of a heartbeat.

No opinion on personhood has "biology on its side". There is no biological definition of a "person". You have to figure that out for yourself.

You're not very good at this biology stuff, are you?

You don't seem to be very good at biology or logic.

Did you get your PHD out of a weetbix packet?

I think you got your bioethics from a bumpersticker. Your "person" definition is so loose as to be useless.

No, that is not at all necessary. You have to either be lying about this or lying about knowing anything at all about biology.

Whenever you do a procedure in science, you can't start with EXACTLY what you need because something will go wrong and you will end up with nothing. A good proportion of eggs, sperm and the resulting zygotes will not be viable, so you always produce more than you need. The problem has actually gotten worse because fertility drugs have become more powerful and implantation more efficient leading to more leftover embryos.

Could you do IVF in such a way that you didn't have ANY leftover embryos? Maybe, but biology generally doesn't give you exactly what you need. You'll always be stuck with extras.

We already have, in the US alone, an estimated 500,000 spare frozen embryos.

 

[Stripe]

If the resulting zygote is not viable is it therefor not a person?

Who knows? :idunno:

That's the thing. Nobody knows what the condition of the person is until the person is discovered and correctly diagnosed. If he is dead then there's no point worrying about keeping him alive. If he's alive then you don't initiate proceedings to kill him. If you don't know then ... you don't know.

And if you don't know, but are looking to kill anything that might be there then you're acting with murderous intent.

No, it won't "already be in the condition". Its a zygote. A zygote is one cell. A hydatidiform mole is a multicellular structure.

And a single cell can come in a number of different conditions.

By your definition of a person. Since a hydatidiform mole originates from sperm and egg (and that was the basis of your definition of a person), why is it not a person?

What is my definition of a person, liar?

No opinion on personhood has "biology on its side". There is no biological definition of a "person". You have to figure that out for yourself.

So your insistence that heartbeats and brainwaves are somehow relevant was just another lie, I take it?

I think you got your bioethics from a bumpersticker. Your "person" definition is so loose as to be useless.

I have never tried to define personhood. That's been your game.

I say it is very simple to know what is and what is not a person. The product of a successful human conception is a person. Can you squeeze anything into that generalisation that might not be a person?

Whenever you do a procedure in science, you can't start with EXACTLY what you need because something will go wrong and you will end up with nothing. A good proportion of eggs, sperm and the resulting zygotes will not be viable, so you always produce more than you need.

No, you don't always.

You're just flat out lying or completely unaware of what is possible and practiced in fertility labs. Either way, you're a liar.

Could you do IVF in such a way that you didn't have ANY leftover embryos? Maybe

Maybe?

Is that some kind of concession?

 

[Alate_One]

And a single cell can come in a number of different conditions.

This is true. How do you know which one is a person?

What is my definition of a person, liar?

This is what you said:

Case by case. Generally speaking a person results from natural conception when a man's sperm fuses with a woman's egg creating a distinct, new person.

So, if a person results from a fusion of egg and sperm, is a hydatidiform mole a person or not? and how do you know?

So your insistence that heartbeats and brainwaves are somehow relevant was just another lie, I take it?

No. They are biological functions we can measure. Biology doesn't tell me that heartbeat and brainwaves define a person any more than biology tells me a zygote is a person. Biology simply tells us how human beings develop. Where the person and the soul fit in are not scientific questions, period.

The product of a successful human conception is a person. Can you squeeze anything into that generalisation that might not be a person?

Define "successful conception".

You're just flat out lying or completely unaware of what is possible and practiced in fertility labs. Either way, you're a liar.

I know how fertility labs are practiced in the US. I know that in some other countries, spare embryos MUST be destroyed.

Maybe?

Is that some kind of concession?

Somewhat, but when you're dealing with biology, you can't be assured that everything will go according to plan. We might be able to do better with IVF than currently, but you'll reduce extra embryos, not eliminate them.

We also haven't dealt with pre-implantation screening. I spose you would think it was morally wrong to not implant embryos you KNEW were going to have a horrible (possibly fatal) disease?

 

[Stripe]

This is true. How do you know which one is a person?

Until you find one of them dead you can safely regard them all as people. What would be the harm in that?

This is what you said:

That is what I said. Now could you show me where I defined personhood?

So, if a person results from a fusion of egg and sperm, is a hydatidiform mole a person or not? and how do you know?

By looking.

I know how fertility labs are practiced in the US. I know that in some other countries, spare embryos MUST be destroyed. Somewhat, but when you're dealing with biology, you can't be assured that everything will go according to plan. We might be able to do better with IVF than currently, but you'll reduce extra embryos, not eliminate them. We also haven't dealt with pre-implantation screening. I spose you would think it was morally wrong to not implant embryos you KNEW were going to have a horrible (possibly fatal) disease?

Nice dodging. :thumb:

 

[elohiym]

A person is a person no matter how small.

:up:

 

[Alate_One]

Until you find one of them dead you can safely regard them all as people. What would be the harm in that?

Turning women on the pill into murderers, calling stem cell research mass murder, that sort of harm. Over a definition which isn't agreed upon.

If you personally want to regard them as people, feel free. Don't ask the rest of us to accept that just because you said so.

That is what I said. Now could you show me where I defined personhood?

You said "a person generally results from". Its a definition based on origin. The problem is the same origin doesn't necessarily give the same results.

By looking.

Okay I thought you just got through explaining how using physical appearance was just plain evil and discriminatory . . . . .

Funny thing is if we go back to the Bible we find only fines being paid for accidental abortion, not the same result as we see from accidental murder of an adult. The Talmud even draws the line only at what we would call partial birth abortion.

 

[Stripe]

Turning women on the pill into murderers, calling stem cell research mass murder, that sort of harm. Over a definition which isn't agreed upon.

Disagreement does not justify a continuation of the status quo. You're going to have to do a lot better than misrepresentation and a reliance upon the existence of your ideas to mount a rational case against personhood.

If you personally want to regard them as people, feel free. Don't ask the rest of us to accept that just because you said so.

If you personally want to regard them as something other than people then you should be aware of the very dangerous ground you're on. And nothing you say is of any value.

You said "a person generally results from". Its a definition based on origin. The problem is the same origin doesn't necessarily give the same results.

Definition. Generalisation. Conception. Contraception.

You have a real problem with this English stuff, don't you?

Okay I thought you just got through explaining how using physical appearance was just plain evil and discriminatory . . . . .

If you're using it to deny people personhood. Context and intent, Alate. You're going to have to learn about these things if you want to have a rational discussion. :up:

Funny thing is if we go back to the Bible we find only fines being paid for accidental abortion, not the same result as we see from accidental murder of an adult. The Talmud even draws the line only at what we would call partial birth abortion.

Stick with the evolution, mate. You suck at biology and theology.

 

[Alate_One]

Disagreement does not justify a continuation of the status quo. You're going to have to do a lot better than misrepresentation and a reliance upon the existence of your ideas to mount a rational case against personhood.

Who says I am for the status quo? What I've proposed is anything but that and far more likely to gain widespread acceptance and actually change the status quo. But of course you want to make the perfect (in your mind) the enemy of the good.

If you personally want to regard them as something other than people then you should be aware of the very dangerous ground you're on. And nothing you say is of any value.

And personhood also has dangerous and unwarranted implications. Nothing I say has any value because you say so? Because you're already committed to a particular view no matter what.

If you're using it to deny people personhood. Context and intent, Alate. You're going to have to learn about these things if you want to have a rational discussion.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing Stripe, denying personhood. You keep applying the same standard and then pretending it isn't the same.

Stick with the evolution, mate. You suck at biology and theology.

Must not be doing too bad of a job if YOU are saying that.

 

[Stripe]

Who says I am for the status quo? What I've proposed is anything but that and far more likely to gain widespread acceptance and actually change the status quo. But of course you want to make the perfect (in your mind) the enemy of the good. And personhood also has dangerous and unwarranted implications. Nothing I say has any value because you say so? Because you're already committed to a particular view no matter what.

Nothing you say is good. Most of what you say is based on lies. None of your evidence is valid and all of your ideals are compromises that cost lives.

 

[Alate_One]

Nothing you say is good. Most of what you say is based on lies. None of your evidence is valid and all of your ideals are compromises that cost lives.

Opinion, supposition and summary dismissal, standard fare for you.

What are the lies, Stripe?

 

[Delmar]

Is still think that counts a fertilized egg, I think you have lost any clkiam to ue of the terms 'freshly' im afraid

A zygote is not an egg.

 

[Delmar]

Turning women on the pill into murderers

Nobody is turning anyone into anything they are not. Either they are killing innocent little ones, or they are not.

 

[Alate_One]

A zygote is not an egg.

It is the immediate result of the fertilization of the egg. It IS an egg + sperm. That's it. It hasn't even divided yet.

Nobody is turning anyone into anything they are not. Either they are killing innocent little ones, or they are not.

Only if preventing implantation is defined as killing and a zygote is defined as a person.

So yes its all about what definitions you choose to use that turns what was formerly thought to be innocent into murder.

 

[Yorzhik]

This is absolutely illogical to what I've said. I said it is WRONG to fail to define a person before birth. Save in the case of death, why would we discriminate after, when I specifically said this was wrong?

The reason you gave that it was WRONG to fail to define a person before birth was by virtue of your opinion. By that logic, one can just as easily define a person by any number of characteristics they personally feel are the right ones for them before or after birth.

You've ALL been equating the two. Are they morally equivalent or not? Do you save the baby or the thousands of embryos in the freezer?

I would save the more developed baby based on fondness. However, if I were in the IFV business I might be more fond of the snowflake babies for the same reason. However, personhood is not based on fondness.

Why should your opinion take precedence?

It isn't my opinion that all humans are special to God and we have no authority to kill an innocent human. Or would you disagree?

At least please notice that by the measure you are admitting to here, there is no reason not to kill people at any time before birth... or after.

No, according to the context of your comment, it was continuing to develop after it had a head at least. You'll also agree that same baby was continuing to develop before it had a head at least, and not may have been? You were willing to kill that baby.

And every time I eat a sandwich I destroy thousands of fields of grain. Crush acorns with your car and you destroy a forest.

Lame. You are either equating humans to plants, or you are obfuscating.

Just admit that the baby with "a head at least" was continuing to develop from a point before it had "a head at least". You were willing to kill that baby.

So Alate_One feels that everything will be fine if I just take care of the babies he didn't feel like killing... Does that sound right to you Alate_One?

I'd love for every embryo to develop. Its physically impossible to do so currently. Do you want to DO something about that or keep waving your arms around?

But you don't even want to save those it is physically possible to save!

And I am doing more than waving my arms. One of the things I'm doing is to expose apathetic Christians like yourself.

IVF creates embryos. It ALWAYS creates more embryos than can possibly be implanted and brought to term. Therefore you will have to destroy/throw out/kill some of them. If zygotes and blastocysts are people then this is mass murder.

Right. These are some babies that are physically possible to save.

 

[Granite]

Nobody is turning anyone into anything they are not. Either they are killing innocent little ones, or they are not.

...and women on the pill aren't.

 

[Alate_One]

The reason you gave that it was WRONG to fail to define a person before birth was by virtue of your opinion. By that logic, one can just as easily define a person by any number of characteristics they personally feel are the right ones for them before or after birth.

Your criteria ultimately come down to what YOU FEEL is right. I don't believe it is right to damage the rights of obvious people at the expense of zygotes and blastocysts.

I would save the more developed baby based on fondness. However, if I were in the IFV business I might be more fond of the snowflake babies for the same reason. However, personhood is not based on fondness.

No it isn't. It should be based on specific criteria which I've given. A snowflake baby is the result of a frozen embryo, not the embryo itself.

It isn't my opinion that all humans are special to God and we have no authority to kill an innocent human. Or would you disagree?

Yes, but the idea that a zygote is an "innocent human" is your opinion. There is nothing in the Bible to tell you that, there's nothing in biology to tell you a zygote is a person.

At least please notice that by the measure you are admitting to here, there is no reason not to kill people at any time before birth... or after."

No. Thou shalt not kill at least applies to birth and after. The Bible hints at human life/personhood before birth but it isn't specific as to when. The Talmud indicates personhood AT birth.

Just admit that the baby with "a head at least" was continuing to develop from a point before it had "a head at least". You were willing to kill that baby.

Its not a "baby" just as an acorn isn't a tree. Its a helpful analogy since it strips away the loaded terms you're using.

But you don't even want to save those it is physically possible to save!

I want to save pre-born BABIES not clumps of undifferentiated cells.

And I am doing more than waving my arms. One of the things I'm doing is to expose apathetic Christians like yourself.

Wow that's just pathetic. Are you doing anything else? Because you realize personhood is going nowhere.

Right. These are some babies that are physically possible to save.

I believe its more valuable to save actual babies rather than clumps of cells. Do you understand that?

 

[Yorzhik]

It should be based on specific criteria which I've given.

You haven't given any specific criteria. Are you saying "it has a head at least" is the criteria of which you speak? Could you give us the list of criteria and tell us why that should take precedence over any other criteria up to birth?

Yes, but the idea that a zygote is an "innocent human" is your opinion.

So a human at the one cell stage isn't a human? Or is it not innocent? If it is a human, and it hasn't committed a crime, then it isn't my opinion and you're wrong.

No. Thou shalt not kill at least applies to birth and after. The Bible hints at human life/personhood before birth but it isn't specific as to when. The Talmud indicates personhood AT birth.

So Alate has no problem with partial birth abortion by the measure of his faith. But he does have a problem with it according to... what? His feelings? Science? Can he give a straight answer to the question of why he has a problem with killing a child up to birth?

Its not a "baby" just as an acorn isn't a tree. Its a helpful analogy since it strips away the loaded terms you're using.

It isn't a loaded term. A baby is called such up until it is a toddler. It is called a baby while it is in the womb. However, if it hurts your heart too much to call it a baby, you can try again: Just admit that the human with "a head at least" was continuing to develop from a point before it had "a head at least". You were willing to kill that human.

I want to save pre-born BABIES not clumps of undifferentiated cells.

Wow that's just pathetic. Are you doing anything else? Because you realize personhood is going nowhere.

I believe its more valuable to save actual babies rather than clumps of cells. Do you understand that?

*You* are a clump of cells.

If personhood was going nowhere, the anti-personhood crowed wouldn't be spending any money to fight it. But they are.