View Single Post
Old 03-07-2006, 01:25 AM   #50
Samuel Dravis
@Samuel Dravis
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,980
"He specifically said that he believed in God and that 'all morality is derived from God'. The quote was directly related: "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet."
Your quote is not equivalent. Mine was basically a paraphrase of ET's words by someone else, but yours says

'He believes in god and that all morality is derived from god" == "Kill them all, god knows his own."

Those sentences are not even basically the same, they merely deal with related subjects. I guess I should have said that mine were equivalent in the first place to avoid you taking advantage of that to make an unrelated (to this specific discussion) jab at religion.

Woah, that's profound reasoning! [/stinging sarcasm]
It really is amazing how many people think they can make absolute judgments and still pretend to be morally relative. I showed that edlib was either not morally relative or that his opinions didn't matter because they had no value in relation to other people. He said that everyone's belief should be respected and all beliefs are of equal value and cannot be denied. I deny that statement, but according to him, my belief is valid. Funny thing is, my statement can't be both valid and invalid at the same time; it's either one or the other. Therefore edlib's proposition that everyone's beliefs are equal is absurd, and you should realize that.

A bottle of beer says she's a creationut or IDiot. Why should we take a representative of the American Taliban seriously?
If you are talking of this page, I do not agree with a single thing said on there, save one: "Those who control the access to the minds of children will set the agenda for the future of the nation and the future of the western world."

That's the truth, and I'm sure both you and I can agree on it.

Speaking of religion, may I remind you that I have never once brought up any sort of metaphysical explanation for my ideas in this thread? I replied to ET's apparent thought that there is a soul in people giving them personality, but I didn't start the discussion. So, let's keep religion out of this thread, whether you're bashing it or advocating it. It's irrelevant to this debate, and my position as well.

More to the point, why did you take her seriously and where did you find that quote?
Why should I not take her seriously? She is able to make her own decision as to what she believes, is she not? Or do you only think that persons who agree with you are entitled to judge what is correct?

Source. My original source misquoted her, it seems, and she turns out not to be a right wing hack. I'm sorry for that and I will check them more carefully in the future. My point made with it still stands, however -

True: "At the moment of conception, a life starts. And this life has its own unique set of DNA, which contains a blueprint for the whole genetic makeup. The sex is determined. We know there's a life because it's growing and changing."

True: "What kind of life is it? Each species reproduces after its own kind. So human beings can only reproduce other human beings."

A fetus is a human life, unlike what TK said, and that addresses this quote too:

Quite the contrary. In a previous post of mine, I made a little list of constraints that a definition of 'living human being' would have to obey in order to make sense. Until and unless you or anyone else provides a consistent definition obeying these constraints, the definition is purely political. And it is you who fail to acknowledge that defining it to be - say - sixth week of gestation is a legitimate political decision.
"At the moment of conception, a life starts. And this life has its own unique set of DNA, which contains a blueprint for the whole genetic makeup. The sex is determined. We know there's a life because it's growing and changing."

Yes, it's a life. It's human life. The Roe vs. Wade decision did not argue that it was not human life because that arguement is untenable. Rather, they decided what 'personhood' means, which is very different from declaring that something is not human life.

Why do you think that you do not need to define the time when cognitive ability starts, when that is the very basis of your judgment as to whether or not the fetus is enough of a person to be spared the axe? You must define it, and you must prove that you're justified in your definition, because the alternative is that you have a distinct possibility that you are killing a being, an innocent person, that has the right to life. If you're ok with that, fine. But you're not going to have a bunch of friends in that club, I assure you.

If you cannot define the start of said abilities so they are not so vague as to allow the murder of individuals (which is already illegal), the state has the obligation to outlaw abortions. The primary purpose of the state is to protect those under it, and unless you can give a concrete definition of exactly when life obtains personhood and justify it to the extent there is no doubt, abortions should be outlawed.

No, I don't have to prove that a fetus is a person. I just have to prove that you could be wrong. My position is very safe; I will never have supported infanticide, whether it is or not. Your position is not safe, and I do expect you to prove without doubt that there will be no harm to innocents because of your actions. I expect that out of you because you say you do not wish to impose your views on other people. I expect that out of you as human beings who care about the wellbeing of others around them. I expect that out of you because, without that action on your part, you prove you are a parasite on the human race, a destructive being who cares nothing for other's rights, even to the simple point of finding out what they are, and has no qualms about imposing your will on the unwilling.

A contrieved example that has yet to happen. But if we are to be consistent, then we should let those who pay for the treatment decide. If the government pays for the treatment, then it is a political decision, if the government doesn't want to pay for it, then it's none of its business.
You did not answer the question. Is it ethical to kill them? You can answer that, so do it.

Maybe I should get into the habit of counting the mistakes and misrepresentations I catch you making. Is this the third or the fourth in this thread?
So there are no neurons in the fetus at all? Absolutely no neurological activity whatsoever?

Yeah, right. And pigs fly.
Whether or not they are held accountable, they are accountable.

It most certainly wasn't in any of the scholarly works you claim to be citing.
I didn't cite her other than as was in my quote. All my citations are noted by a number in brackets, like so: [1].

You have quite clearly missed the mark on what exactly my argument is. You are putting words in my mouth, and assuming things that I never stated. I didn't say being currently concious makes someone a person. I said having the cognitive capability of concious thought is what makes a person. I wasn't not a person last night while I was sleeping, but if you pulled my brain out of my head and kept the rest of my body alive on life-support I would be not a person. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I at any point contraticted myself and deduced that nobody is a person.
Because you said it.

"[When does a fetus become a person?] When there is a brain and a nervous system capable of performing some manner of cognitive function."

"We are discussing the termination of a lifeform that has no brain. Nothing there that is capable of any cognitive functions."

"All that we are as people is defined by the memories and functions that occur in our brain. It doesn't matter if my heart keeps on beating, without a brain to run this body I would no longer exist."

Defined by the memories and functions of the brain, eh? I then showed you that even a temporary flat EEG does not mean a person is not still a person, unless you hold your position: remember, you define the person as only the sum of their parts - if there's no function than there is no person, even if that state is temporary. I doubt many would agree with you on that given the same example.

Of course, right after that you said that they are still a person even if they do have a flat EEG temporarily, contradicting yourself and setting up the supposition that you may believe in souls or whatever because you removed the definition of personhood from the function of the brain.

1. Person = brain function
2. Person who has no brain function temporarily = not a person by your above definition
3.Then you say they those without brain function temporarily = person
4. Assuming you meant that they somehow retain personhood even if they are effectively braindead at the moment, and since that contradicts with your original definition, there must be some other way that the personhood is preserved, i.e, a soul, because that's the only thing that would answer your contradiction and not change the material situation. Then, of course, you deny the possibility of the soul, and therefore no one is a person because no one can be a person since there are no such things as souls. It's very easy to see where I got it from.

When there is a brain and a nervous system capable of performing some manner of cognitive function.
Cognition includes perception. Since you define personhood as cognitive functions, do you propose that every single fetus be extensively tested for pain or any other responses before they are aborted? Even the slightest response is a response, and that would make them people. Remember that science is not perfect as well, and we could be missing something anyway simply due to the level of our technology and understanding.

Again, can you tell me a specific time that a fetus begins to percieve anything? I've asked this quite a few times, but no one seems to be able to give me a clear, concrete answer; no time after fertilization that can be put into a clear law.


1. Since you claim that everything is explainable by physics, what physics do you mean? Our current physics? Obviously that's false, because science is not in the business of objective truth, it's in the business of what seems like the best truth at the time. Historically this is true, and it will continue to be the true. Theories have been disproven and will continue to be.

2. Since you can't use our current physics to explain everything, do you propose that there is some sort of 'perfect' physics that explains it? But that's a circular argument - all phenomena are explainable by physics because physics is what explains all phenomena. That doesn't sound like a very useful way to explain things to me.

I restate my request for you to provide us with the secondary source that you really cite, rather than a copy of its bibliography (that may or may not bear any resemblance to reality).

Oh, and by the way, I wish to restate my request that you provide the rest of us with your full bibliography.
Yes, yes, hold on. I will do it tomorrow, as well as answering the rest. It's late.

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 03-07-2006 at 03:40 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: