The Elephant in the Room

[Granite]

I don't think they realize how ridiculous it is to insist on this kind of standard for personhood, the implications of this "reasoning," or how this foolish kind of rigor demeans and undermines their intentions.

 

[Jukia]

You're such a weasel. I quoted him directly.

A weasel? Wow.

Actually, it is interesting that you quote mined Alate. It is clear from a reading of more than the sentence you quoted that he was speaking of early undifferentiated cells. Interesting that you picked what you wanted, then when I suggested otherwise, you called me a name.

 

[Yorzhik]

If you were actually paying attention to what I've been saying in this thread you'd already know the answers to your questions. I have said, heartbeat and brainwaves should be the determiner because they are what determine whether we deem someone alive or dead (i.e. person or dead body) at any other stage of development.

Realize that if your criteria are wrong, you are supporting a lot of human death.

And then realize your criteria are just as valid as any other criteria before birth deciding which humans get to be persons.

Its obviously human, but is is a PERSON?

Unless you want to go down the slippery slope of deciding which humans get to be persons, yes, it is a person.

It has human DNA that's for sure, and it has settings that tell it to go through its developmental program. Biologically its a special type of cell. It isn't even tissue yet.

And that's where those humans need to be at that point in development. They aren't dead because they don't have brainwaves or a heartbeat.

Its fairly clear there's life before birth even from a Biblical perspective, but in the OT it isn't given the same rights as a born human being.

It isn't given the right to life in the bible? I'm curious where you find that.

Not scientifically. Its called a fetus after a certain point, and embryo before that, a blastocyst still earlier and a zygote or morula after fertilization. You want to call all these stages a "baby", without cause.

Not without cause. In common terms a baby is a child in the womb.

A single human cell should not have the same rights as a baby.

You meant "a human that starts as a single cell should not have the same rights as a baby"

But every human should have the right to life. And in the beginning every human starts as a single cell.

I'm not a clump of cells, neither are you. I say a clump and undifferentiated to say there are no organs, no brain, no heart, no skeleton, no digestive system, not even blood. A Zygote to blastocyst is a minimally organized group of cells i.e. a clump. So no I am not a clump of cells, I am a highly organized union of a wide variety of cell types. Some making up brain and heart which are what allow a human being (rather than a single cell) to have the functions we associate with humans.

Fine. You are a group of inter-working cells that started as single cell and began to be a group of inter-working cells from the moment you were at the two cell stage.

Probably not a whole lot. I think they would fight it regardless because they recognize how draconian "personhood" based on zygotes would actually be.

I'm sure they only spend a few hundred dollars here or there to stop personhood movements.

But the real reason personhood doesn't pass is because Christians are so opposed to it. They are convinced that not being able to use the pill is draconian? They are convinced that requiring frozen embryos to be adopted is draconian? You call that draconian? You don't know what draconian means. Now; the systematic killing of millions of humans, that's draconian.

 

[Yorzhik]

A weasel? Wow.

Actually, it is interesting that you quote mined Alate. It is clear from a reading of more than the sentence you quoted that he was speaking of early undifferentiated cells. Interesting that you picked what you wanted, then when I suggested otherwise, you called me a name.

Not only are you a weasel, but you aren't very good at reading either.

 

[Alate_One]

Realize that if your criteria are wrong, you are supporting a lot of human death.

Possibly, but if zygotes are people, there's an even larger amount of death happening naturally.

And then realize your criteria are just as valid as any other criteria before birth deciding which humans get to be persons.

Nothing makes your criteria any more valuable than mine.

Unless you want to go down the slippery slope of deciding which humans get to be persons, yes, it is a person.

You want to go down the slippery slope of defining single cells as people?

And that's where those humans need to be at that point in development. They aren't dead because they don't have brainwaves or a heartbeat.

No they aren't dead, but its a simple, measurable criteria that people will be able to agree on.

It isn't given the right to life in the bible? I'm curious where you find that.

If you can find something that gives a right to life for them, let me know. There are only fines for accidental miscarriage in the OT.

Not without cause. In common terms a baby is a child in the womb.

You're using circular terminology. Now a zygote is not only a baby, it's a child . . . A zygote isn't actually attached to anything, its just floating around.

Fine. You are a group of inter-working cells that started as single cell and began to be a group of inter-working cells from the moment you were at the two cell stage.

Those cells were not differentiated until much later.

I'm sure they only spend a few hundred dollars here or there to stop personhood movements.

But the real reason personhood doesn't pass is because Christians are so opposed to it. They are convinced that not being able to use the pill is draconian? They are convinced that requiring frozen embryos to be adopted is draconian? You call that draconian? You don't know what draconian means. Now; the systematic killing of millions of humans, that's draconian.

Lets envision what the country would look like with personhood enacted.

The pill, the ring, any hormone based contraceptive would be illegal. Essentially condoms would be the order of the day, to a lesser degree diaphragms but they require a prescription. So in many cases its condom or nothing. Women are in the position if they can't get their partner to wear a condom, they have a chance of getting pregnant and there's NOTHING they can do about it because all abortion, even the morning after pill is illegal.

I can tell you the people of the United States will not put up with a situation like that. You'll have a resurgence of illegal abortion, women, doctors being put in jail (unless you don't intend to enforce these cases as actual murder). The funny thing is the abortion rate might not actually be that low if the statistics from countries that do not have legalized abortion are correct. Likely there would be illegal trade in the pill. And what would you do to stop it?

The thing is the US is a democracy, so I can guarantee this will NEVER pass. In short you are wasting your breath defining a zygote as a person. How about we figure out how we can *actually* save babies?

 

[Stripe]

Nothing makes your criteria any more valuable than mine.

The fact that people are created at conception makes your criteria bigotry and dehumanisation of the tiniest people. Your position is exactly analogous to slave traders and Nazis who justified their behaviour by denying personhood to their victims.

You want to go down the slippery slope of defining single cells as people?

Yeah .. zipppiiieeee .. CRASH .... no more pill. lain:

Oh, the humanity. lain:

No they aren't dead, but its a simple, measurable criteria that people will be able to agree on.

And of course if enough people agree it must be good, right?

You're in love with your popularity, aren't you?

If you can find something that gives a right to life for them, let me know. There are only fines for accidental miscarriage in the OT.

Stick to the evolution, mate. You suck at theology. :up:

You're using circular terminology. Now a zygote is not only a baby, it's a child . . . A zygote isn't actually attached to anything, its just floating around.

One is tempted to say the same thing about you, not to mention your ethereal criteria for personhood.

Lets envision what the country would look like with personhood enacted.

Yes, we're all bored with the arguments from popularity and authority. Let's try an argument from consequence. lain:

The thing is the US is a democracy, so I can guarantee this will NEVER pass. In short you are wasting your breath defining a zygote as a person. How about we figure out how we can *actually* save babies?

You can start by teaching people that human beings are created at conception according to biology.

Any physical trait used to determine personhood is just going to convince people that there might be a situation where it is acceptable to murder a child.

 

[Alate_One]

The fact that people are created at conception makes your criteria bigotry and dehumanisation of the tiniest people. Your position is exactly analogous to slave traders and Nazis who justified their behaviour by denying personhood to their victims.

No, it isn't. Your hyperbole is meaningless.

Society will NEVER acknowledge one cell as a person. Its simply ludicrous. I don't have to de-humanize anything. Did you forget what a zygote is? ONE CELL. You're trying to humanize something that even you don't put on the same level as a baby.

And of course if enough people agree it must be good, right?

And "Stripe says so" is even better then?

You're in love with your popularity, aren't you?

There's no basis for your idea other than "Oooh one cell with 46 chromosomes, it must be a person!"

Stick to the evolution, mate. You suck at theology. :up:

If I suck so bad at it, why don't you actually refute me instead of just saying "you suck"?

One is tempted to say the same thing about you, not to mention your ethereal criteria for personhood.

Its not ethereal, its quite concrete.

You can start by teaching people that human beings are created at conception according to biology.

The first cell of a new individual is made at conception (unless its not viable or turns into one of those moles). But that cell being a person, with rights is not "according to biology". You cannot get ethics from biological facts.

Any physical trait used to determine personhood is just going to convince people that there might be a situation where it is acceptable to murder a child.

We are physical beings, we must use physical traits ultimately.

 

[Stripe]

No, it isn't. Your hyperbole is meaningless.

I think the point I've made is very easily understood and I'll leave it up to the reader to decide for himself if it is valid.

Society will NEVER acknowledge one cell as a person.

I bet lots of people said they'd never recognise black people as people either.

Its simply ludicrous. I don't have to de-humanize anything. Did you forget what a zygote is? ONE CELL.

You're clearly not much of a biologist if you cannot understand that people start life as one cell.

You're trying to humanize something that even you don't put on the same level as a baby.

I'm not trying to humanise anything. :idunno:

At conception what we have is a tiny, single-celled human being.

And "Stripe says so" is even better then?

It's possible. :idunno:

As soon as you produce something rational that says otherwise I remain justified in what I believe.

There's no basis for your idea other than "Oooh one cell with 46 chromosomes, it must be a person!"

You're not much of a biologist, are you. Can't you tell the difference between kinds of cells?

If I suck so bad at it, why don't you actually refute me instead of just saying "you suck"?

Refute what? You just keep spouting platitudes.

Its not ethereal, its quite concrete.

Oh yeah? So a heartbeat and brainwaves are very easy to detect in the very young, are they? We struggle to determine the viability of grown adults with the best equipment, yet you're absolutely certain that killing off babies when they are small enough is of no moral consequence.

When is it that personhood arrives, Alate? At the first beat of the heart? When is that? How does that even happen?

When does personhood end, Alate? When the heart stops beating?

When does it become justifiable to intentionally destroy any chance at life a person might have?

The first cell of a new individual is made at conception (unless its not viable or turns into one of those moles). But that cell being a person, with rights is not "according to biology". You cannot get ethics from biological facts.

And thus we see quite clearly that your opposition is based upon nothing but your opinion. Ethically speaking, if you are unsure, you should automatically assume life. Not so you.

There's a hunting mantra that states one should clearly identify one's target and consider the background. Your mantra is that because one cannot determine ethics by any biological means and because personhood must be determined by a physical trait one is justified in chemical warfare when one suspects one might potentially be able to one day hear a rustle in the undergrowth.

You've no biology, no physics and no ethics on your side. Admittedly you do have a lot of popular opinion and convenience on your side.

We are physical beings, we must use physical traits ultimately.

So now you think it is possible to deny personhood according to some physical trait? I wish you evolutionists could make up your brain cell.

 

[Yorzhik]

This deserves it's own post.

Realize that if your criteria are wrong, you are supporting a lot of human death.

Possibly, but if zygotes are people, there's an even larger amount of death happening naturally.

"Possibly"?!?!? POSSIBLY?!?!?!?!? POSSIBLY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oh, wait, there's a "but"... Alate must have a reason that he's not sure whether he's murdering people or not. And that reason is...

drum-roll please...

"because most people don't die of be being murdered"

What? (cough, cough, sputter) What? That's it? That's your reason?

Saying "Possibly, but if zygote's are people, there are a few methods of birth control that won't be available anymore." would have been a better response.

Saying "Possibly, but if zygote's are people, logic dictates that I won't be as popular anymore." would have been a better response.

God is going to require an explanation from you on this one, Alate. And, by God, I won't let it go either.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This deserves it's own post.


"Possibly"?!?!? POSSIBLY?!?!?!?!? POSSIBLY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oh, wait, there's a "but"... Alate must have a reason that he's not sure whether he's murdering people or not. And that reason is...

drum-roll please...

"because most people don't die of be being murdered"

What? (cough, cough, sputter) What? That's it? That's your reason?

Saying "Possibly, but if zygote's are people, there are a few methods of birth control that won't be available anymore." would have been a better response.

Saying "Possibly, but if zygote's are people, logic dictates that I won't be as popular anymore." would have been a better response.

God is going to require an explanation from you on this one, Alate. And, by God, I won't let it go either.

:first: POTD

 

[Yorzhik]

Nothing makes your criteria any more valuable than mine.

My criteria doesn't include "possibly we might be murdering people". That makes my criteria more valuable.

You want to go down the slippery slope of defining single cells as people?

What slippery slope? We might declare aspirin illegal?

The reason you haven't defended your position by showing how it won't be a part of a slippery slope leading to more murder, is because you know with your position there is no reason other popular positions won't stretch killing pre-born humans out to at least birth.

Lets envision what the country would look like with personhood enacted.

The pill, the ring, any hormone based contraceptive would be illegal. Essentially condoms would be the order of the day, to a lesser degree diaphragms but they require a prescription. So in many cases its condom or nothing. Women are in the position if they can't get their partner to wear a condom, they have a chance of getting pregnant and there's NOTHING they can do about it because all abortion, even the morning after pill is illegal.

I can tell you the people of the United States will not put up with a situation like that. You'll have a resurgence of illegal abortion, women, doctors being put in jail (unless you don't intend to enforce these cases as actual murder). The funny thing is the abortion rate might not actually be that low if the statistics from countries that do not have legalized abortion are correct. Likely there would be illegal trade in the pill. And what would you do to stop it?

The thing is the US is a democracy, so I can guarantee this will NEVER pass. In short you are wasting your breath defining a zygote as a person. How about we figure out how we can *actually* save babies?

That's it? A few of the many birth control methods won't be available? That's the kind of weak argument that should have you re-thinking your position. As Stripe said, many people were using typical weak arguments like popularity and minor inconvenience to support slavery, too.

 

[chatmaggot]

Possibly, but if zygotes are people, there's an even larger amount of death happening naturally.

Is there something wrong with people dying naturally?

When I am ninety-seven years old and my body stops working and I die...do you think that will be an injustice?

 

[Alate_One]

"because most people don't die of be being murdered"

What? (cough, cough, sputter) What? That's it? That's your reason?

I said possibly to say it is possible for me to be wrong on this issue, but I do not see any reason other than you people screaming at the top of your lungs that one cell is a person. You've yet to offer a scriptural reason or any other reason than saying "its the first cell it MUST be a person"! Neither you nor anyone else has answered why. It all comes down to "because you say so".

At least I am using an already agreed upon criterion for other stages of life.

Saying "Possibly, but if zygote's are people, there are a few methods of birth control that won't be available anymore." would have been a better response.

Gee if you'd read the rest of my post, you'd have seen I said that as well. But sure jump on one sentence and ignore my context which said THIS VERY THING. If anyone is dishonest in this discussion it is you.

God is going to require an explanation from you on this one, Alate. And, by God, I won't let it go either.

Look, no one in my family has used hormonal birth control for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting zygotes. If you and everyone else personally want to decide that using such things are immoral and you want to advocate for people not to use them feel free. But personhood as a law (which is what we were originally talking about) will not happen for the reasons I already outlined, and you ignored.

Understand that there is tons of death in this world, children and the unborn included, many of which have nothing to do with abortion. What have you done about those people? The number of blastocysts that fail to implant unnaturally from hormone based contraception is likely to be far smaller than actual abortions (considering the pill does not always or primarily function as stopping implantation) much less any of the other horrible things people are doing to children.

If you are actually interested in saving children, even IF you called zygotes children, you should be looking at ways that will work and will stand. Do you think God will reward those that say "I stood on principle and saved zero babies" vs. I saved 20,000 babies because I made a compromise? (It sounds suspiciously like the man who buried his talents) And we don't even know if zygotes are people.

Any way you look at it personhood as a potential law is pointless and a waste of time.

 

[Stripe]

Do you think God will reward those that say "I stood on principle and saved zero babies" vs. I saved 20,000 babies because I made a compromise?

I'd prefer the reward for having stood for what is right. :up:

 

[Yorzhik]

I said possibly to say it is possible for me to be wrong on this issue,...

I know. But if you are possibly wrong, then don't err on the side if death.

... but I do not see any reason other than you people screaming at the top of your lungs that one cell is a person. You've yet to offer a scriptural reason or any other reason than saying "its the first cell it MUST be a person"! Neither you nor anyone else has answered why. It all comes down to "because you say so".

That's only because you haven't been reading. Scripturally, God loves all humans. Biologically, all humans start as a single cell. That's just me agreeing with God and science; it has never been just "because I say so".

You, OTOH, created criteria that are no better than anyone else's. It truly is based on "because you say so".

At least I am using an already agreed upon criterion for other stages of life.

Yeah, if we are trying to figure out if the organism is alive. But wait, you already know the human developing before it has a heartbeat or brainwaves is alive. Your criteria don't mean much.

Gee if you'd read the rest of my post, you'd have seen I said that as well.

I know, that was the point.

You are too proud to listen. I used those examples because you listed them later on. But you couldn't see how lame they were. I was exposing *all* your arguments, not just the worst one.

Look, no one in my family has used hormonal birth control for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting zygotes. If you and everyone else personally want to decide that using such things are immoral and you want to advocate for people not to use them feel free. But personhood as a law (which is what we were originally talking about) will not happen for the reasons I already outlined, and you ignored.

If you don't like slavery, don't buy one.

Understand that there is tons of death in this world, children and the unborn included, many of which have nothing to do with abortion. What have you done about those people? The number of blastocysts that fail to implant unnaturally from hormone based contraception is likely to be far smaller than actual abortions (considering the pill does not always or primarily function as stopping implantation) much less any of the other horrible things people are doing to children.

If you are actually interested in saving children, even IF you called zygotes children, you should be looking at ways that will work and will stand. Do you think God will reward those that say "I stood on principle and saved zero babies" vs. I saved 20,000 babies because I made a compromise? (It sounds suspiciously like the man who buried his talents) And we don't even know if zygotes are people.

Any way you look at it personhood as a potential law is pointless and a waste of time.

Compromising on murder will never be rewarded by God, even if we lose everything on this earth because we never compromised.

 

[Alate_One]

I know. But if you are possibly wrong, then don't err on the side if death.

That's only because you haven't been reading. Scripturally, God loves all humans. Biologically, all humans start as a single cell. That's just me agreeing with God and science; it has never been just "because I say so".

Humans are egg cells before that and germline cells before that and ALL of them are ALIVE . . . . Science doesn't tell you which ones are PEOPLE and deserve a total right to life.

You, OTOH, created criteria that are no better than anyone else's. It truly is based on "because you say so".

It has the agreed upon status in society for other stages of life, so not it's not just *I* say so, its what society is converging on.

Yeah, if we are trying to figure out if the organism is alive. But wait, you already know the human developing before it has a heartbeat or brainwaves is alive. Your criteria don't mean much.

No I'm trying to figure out if its a PERSON. "Alive" isn't the question. When *I* am dead, many of my cells will still be alive, that doesn't make ME alive.

I know, that was the point.

You are too proud to listen. I used those examples because you listed them later on. But you couldn't see how lame they were. I was exposing *all* your arguments, not just the worst one.

Your position is based on a particular principle, so is mine.

If you don't like slavery, don't buy one.

This kind of comparison is just plain stupid and you know it. But even using your analogy, slavery was first subject to restrictions before it was finally banned.

Compromising on murder will never be rewarded by God, even if we lose everything on this earth because we never compromised.

Its not me personally losing things that's the issue, the issue is how many people (however they are defined) ACTUALLY GET SAVED! You're continually ignoring this point, which has been one of my main points from the beginning.

The statistics show that Americans as a whole are READY for more restrictions on abortion. A majority of Americans favor 2nd and third trimester abortions being restricted or banned. It would be relatively easy to save millions of babies by enacting restrictions that followed the wishes of the American people. But if you move the bar to zygotes, nobody other than the most extreme will be behind you and NO babies will be saved because policy will not be changed.

What do you think is more important, human life or principle that saves no lives? Give me a proposal restricting abortion that can be implemented and I will get behind it. Would you do the same or still stand on "principle" and let babies die in the meantime?

 

[Stripe]

If you're going to change your stance on anything, Alate, this is what you should be changing on. Sure, it'll make you unpopular, but then insisting that all surgical abortions are murder is one sure fire way to never become elected in a general election.

What do you have to lose?

 

[Stripe]

Its not me personally losing things that's the issue, the issue is how many people (however they are defined) ACTUALLY GET SAVED! You're continually ignoring this point, which has been one of my main points from the beginning.

The statistics show that Americans as a whole are READY for more restrictions on abortion. A majority of Americans favor 2nd and third trimester abortions being restricted or banned. It would be relatively easy to save millions of babies by enacting restrictions that followed the wishes of the American people. But if you move the bar to zygotes, nobody other than the most extreme will be behind you and NO babies will be saved because policy will not be changed.

What do you think is more important, human life or principle that saves no lives? Give me a proposal restricting abortion that can be implemented and I will get behind it. Would you do the same or still stand on "principle" and let babies die in the meantime?

If the only reason you have to argue with us is because you think the personhood movement might be more readily received with a few compromises then why are you so insistent that we not believe that people are created at conception?

 

[Alate_One]

If the only reason you have to argue with us is because you think the personhood movement might be more readily received with a few compromises then why are you so insistent that we not believe that people are created at conception?

Because I am not convinced a single cell is a person and I think its somewhat dangerous to make that assertion because in the very near future, every cell in our bodies will be able to be turned into a zygote. When that happens the line between "person" by your definition and tissue will be totally blurred.

However, the fact that your "principled" stand destroys any chance of personhood actually getting anything done is even more troubling.

 

[fool]

Because I am not convinced a single cell is a person and I think its somewhat dangerous to make that assertion because in the very near future, every cell in our bodies will be able to be turned into a zygote. When that happens the line between "person" by your definition and tissue will be totally blurred.

No it won't be.
When you take your cell and make a zygote that zygote is your twin brother.
Get a piece of paper and map it out if you have to.
This is not rocket science it's birds and bees.

However, the fact that your "principled" stand destroys any chance of personhood actually getting anything done is even more troubling.

Appeal to consequence is a logical fallacy and as no bearing of the truth.