Humanism
- Thread starter civ_king
- Start date
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Most Humanists would simply say that's a contradiction in terms. A human life begins at birth.
Then most humanists value ideology and personal opinion over science, which is a direct contradiction of the whole manifesto.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
For the record, as a Humanist myself, I should probably present my view. One of the nice things about Humanism being a philosophy instead of a religion is that you can adapt it.
We haven't pinned down exactly when a human life begins, and we probably never will. However, it's sometime in the second to third trimester. That's good, because the vast majority of abortions occur before then. However, we can't outlaw abortions at any period, because that's making a moral judgment that should ultimately be left up to the mother.
Actually, the second reason probably has just as many or more Humanist adherents as the first I offered.
Well, first and foremost, a human life begins the moment fertilization ends, roughly about 22 hours after the sperm and egg meet up. This is a scientific fact. The whole "A human life begins sometime during the second and third trimester" line is philosophical mumbo-jumbo. That's one reason I don't get humanists. They go on and on and on about science when it suits them, but totally disregards it when it doesn't.
But, moving on... Your argument makes little sense. It's like issuing deer hunting licenses without anyone knowing what a deer is, and letting each person shoot whatever they think is a deer. Obviously, someone might shoot a deer, but they're gonna' shot a hell of a lot of things which aren't a deer, something I'm sure no one would dare think to be okay. So if it isn't okay to go shooting at things willy-nilly, then how can it be okay to go wantonly killing the unborn? Until you define what something is and isn't, an action can't be legalized which targets the very thing you can't define.
What I find to be quite humorous is that nowhere, aside from abortion, does the law allow someone to engage in an action which harms another person or individual on the basis of it being a "personal decision". Of course, the response I'm going to get to this is something along the lines of "It's not a person". Which is all fine and dandy, except it leaves us with an entirely illogical argument. Obviously, abortion is legal because it's considered to be labeled under the whole right to privacy thing. Well, a right to privacy only exists if an action doesn't harm another person or individual. And the only way for abortion to be considered a right to privacy is if the ZEF isn't considered a person or individual. But, by assuming a ZEF isn't a person or an individual, then you presuppose an answer to the question you said was unanswerable. And if you presuppose an answer to the question you said was unanswerable, then your entire argument which followed from the initial claim becomes moot.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Ridiculous. A clump of fertilized egg is pretty much indistinguishable from an un-fertilized egg and sperm. You're attempt to define human life as "undeniably" beginning there stinks of partisanship of the highest order, since the majority of doctors don't agree with your view, let alone the vast majority you would require to make such sweeping claims. The date I'm referring to is when brain functions and the central nervous system come online. Before then, the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain when aborted, and lacks any of the distinguishing features of being a human being.
Your objection to my "personal decision" argument is fundamentally rooted in your misconceived notion that we know where human life begins. It's a simple fact that we don't know, don't agree, and most likely never will. There is an argument to be made that the courts should err on the side of the fetus, but I prefer to err on the side of the mother, since she's ultimately the ones who has the decision to make.
There's no "bipartisanship" here. Science doesn't do party lines
. Just so you know, I do happen to have a degree in marine biology. No, it doesn't make me an expert on everything, but I would think I know a little something about something. Anyway, as "ridiculous" as you want to make it out to be, it really isn't. You not accepting a fact doesn't make it any less of a fact, and the fact is that human life begins once fertilization ends. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is. You're going to be supremely hard pressed to find any MD-- Or anyone with a biology degree, for that matter-- Who disagrees with this assertion. In fact, you're going to be hard-pressed to find any biology textbook or some kind of reputable scientific source or anything concerning embryology which disagrees (Speaking of which, here's a nice little website on embryology for you) with this assertion. The only people who disagree, are lay people, so to speak, because to assert the opposite is preposterous poppycock that doesn't make much sense....And, I have a question for you, are those born with anencephaly not humans?
The simple fact is that we do know. And we've known for a very long time. I suppose it's easier to assume that we don't know, because to acknowledge the fact that we do know would mean that you would have to acknowledge the fact that your argument is based on an incorrect assumption.
Nerves have nothing to do with a ZEF being alive or even being human
No, it's simply a matter of you failing to recognize the difference between a life and personhood. You're conflating two separate meanings of the word "human"Bei1052 said:
When someone says "A human life begins sometime during the second and third trimester" they mean "A person is created sometime during the second and third trimester" requiring things such as self-awareness, ability to feel pain, et cetera. No one is denying that an embryo has human DNA and is alive, just that it's not truly human as it is not a person.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Thank you Bill for showing me the error of my ways. I thought I was arguing over what a human being was, turns out the other person wanted to talk about what was alive. What a crazy world we live in.
Jeez, Bill. I certainly can read.
*points to his post at 10:37, especially to the "philosophical mumbo-jumbo" and "It's not a person" parts*
See? No conflation. Seriously now. Could you at least make the effort?
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Bei, are you seriously trying to argue that there's no difference between being alive and being a human? I'm chowing down a chicken and rice burrito, but does that make me a murderer? Most folks would say no. It's a simple fact that an early fetus doesn't posses any characteristics of a person. In order to argue otherwise, it's you who must resort to philosophical mumbo-jumbo about potentiality and unimpeded progress.
If you're going to hastily dismiss it with the words "philosophical mumbo-jumbo" and simply equate personhood with conception without actually explaining why you think so, then there's no need for you to be in this thread
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
Bei1052 is right btw. At fertilization a human looks exactly how it's supposed to look at that stage of life. I don't know why people refuse to recognize it as a human life? They enjoy their get-out-of-jail-free abortion card or something?
And what about the baby? The baby gets no say in whether or not it lives? That's the problem with abortion. There's a whole new human being inside that mother, whether she likes it or not. And just because it's not born yet or doesn't look like a human after birth doesn't mean it's any less human or that killing it is any more acceptable.
This "Humanism" movement can kiss my butt if that's how they think.
And what about the baby? The baby gets no say in whether or not it lives? That's the problem with abortion. There's a whole new human being inside that mother, whether she likes it or not. And just because it's not born yet or doesn't look like a human after birth doesn't mean it's any less human or that killing it is any more acceptable.
This "Humanism" movement can kiss my butt if that's how they think.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Wait, we're going off of "looks" as the ultimate indicator of humanity and personhood? As opposed to say, mental function and ability to feel sensations?
I know it's hard for you to comprehend this, but it's not because it doesn't have human DNA or anything, but because it lacks personhood, which is what grants human (personhood) rights to beings. You can't conflate the definitions "human as in human DNA" and "human as in personhood"
The opposite of being alive is being dead. The opposite of being human is not being a human. Being alive and being human aren't opposites nor are they mutually exclusive. But, anyway, that's not what I said nor is even close to anything I said. What I said there's no difference is between a human in the born state and being a human in the unborn state.
Because chicken and rice = A human?
I thought we went over this already? You say that a ZEF doesn't posses any characteristics of a person yet, by your own admission, you can't define what a person is or when someone becomes instilled with it. So how do you know a ZEF isn't a person? The answer is that you don't.
Which is why you ignored this the first time.
You ummm... Do realize that between the two of us, the only one to argue personhood is you, don't you?
1) Tell that to my Biology teacher with a PhD,There's no "bipartisanship" here. Science doesn't do party lines
...And, I have a question for you, are those born with anencephaly not humans?
The simple fact is that we do know. And we've known for a very long time. I suppose it's easier to assume that we don't know, because to acknowledge the fact that we do know would mean that you would have to acknowledge the fact that your argument is based on an incorrect assumption.
Nerves have nothing to do with a ZEF being alive or even being human
2) "...And, I have a question for you, are those born with anencephaly not humans?" I don't know the answer to that question
3) what is a "ZEF"?
4) we are drifting off topic
5) Über x-post
If you're going to hastily dismiss it with the words "philosophical mumbo-jumbo" and simply equate personhood with conception without actually explaining why you think so, then there's no need for you to be in this thread
Do you know why the issue of personhood is philosophical mumbo-jumbo? Because, not only is it undefinable (Thus meaning you can't use it to deny someone rights), it exists solely to discriminate against one subset of the population. But, see, we can play this game.
Define a "person".
1) Tell that to my Biology teacher with a PhD,
I'd like to have a word with your biology teacher, then. I'd also wonder where he got his PhD from.
Without being uber technical, it's basically a condition in which the brain doesn't fully form. As a result, people born with anencephaly basically lack any form of consciousness or higher brain functions.
Zygote
Embryo
Fetus
