What does it mean to be human" thread -split from Obama 'fail' thread

[foxpaws]

This is my last response on this subject to you. It's pointless because you're more interested in spin than thoughtful discussion. You are very conscious that other people may actual read this and you seem incapable of ever abandoning your propaganda in a public forum.

You are consistently and deliberately avoiding the points I'm making. This is yet another post from you that invests most of the time and space in explaining why you don't need to respond to a challenge or just avoiding a direct response. I've invested far too much energy in this all ready, and it's simply not realistic to chase you on each and every point.

And I haven't invested energy as well? Cal, obviously this is an important topic to me. So, let's not chase each other on all sorts of points. Can we just find a few? And let's face it, only a few people do read this - but, in all reality, I can admit that I won't change a single mind, or alter anyone's view point. What I am trying to understand is how you feel about this subject.

My viewpoint is very simple. In this discussion, I just seek honesty and consistency. You have demonstrated neither.

That isn't what I meant to ask - what is your viewpoint on this subject? Do you think all abortions should be outlawed? Or should we allow abortions in only certain cases. Or should we put a timeline on them? That is what I meant by viewpoint.

Can I ask that - you know mine, why can't I know yours?

That's not what I asked. Are you saying that the mother would be FORCED to utilize this hypothetical technology and from what point. Would a RU86 type pill be legal in your hypothetical situation? Could a 'mother' chose to destroy a fetus despite this option? Would the creation of this technology mean that government could impose it's will on a women who may having differing views of life?

I don't know the answers to all those questions Cal. To tell you the truth I haven't really even thought of 'artificial wombs' in any real aspects at all. Should we discuss this now? Or maybe we should wait until later and not include this right now in our 'few important points'. Would that be OK?

You state this like I'm not being reasonable asking for clarity on a particularly important issue. Can you honestly say you've never heard this issue brought up before?

I have heard of this issue, (emotional distress) a little, but honestly, I didn't really pay much attention and dismissed it out of hand. Sort of like the thing that Foss brought up with rape. If abortions are only allowed because of rape, then many women will lie. If emotional distress is allowed as a reason for late term abortions than many women will lie. It isn't a good idea. That is why I didn't include it in my reasons that a late term abortion would be acceptable.

So knowing this, you would be prepared to support a legal ban on later term, partial birth abortion in any case where the life of the mother wasn't at risk?

Yes, I would. So, does this put this question to rest - and should we be able not to include this any longer in the 'few important questions'?

This point is of note. It demonstrates how you are conscious of whether or not others will read this, and that is why you never leave your activist operative propaganda mode.

It has been years since I wrote for political causes. If it sounds propaganda related I don't mean it to. I may be guilty of falling back to a writing style I feel comfortable with, but I am making a real effort not to. And, I still contend that very few people read this, and none will be swayed. Just look at the views - tiny. I am trying really hard to explain my views/opinions/beliefs on this.

The concept of unique human life, of being, of spirit IS NOT scientific. It is by definition an issue of spirituality or faith. This is another one of the fundamental flaws of your argument, and a point I have made that you fail to acknowledge.

If you eliminate that spiritual element of the discussion, you're left simply with a general concept of life. A biological life exists from the point of conception, that's really not a subject of debate. If you want to be strictly scientific about it, conception begins life, but society and the individual decide when we grant it "human being" status.

It isn't scientific for you or me, but the concept of human life to someone who is an atheist it is scientific - isn't it? Looking at the Ayn Rand site, which is very atheist, and to them there is no question that 'human' life doesn't start at conception, they would allow abortion all the way until birth. Looking at almost any atheist site you will find the same. I think this is one of those 'few' important points. How do we combine the idea of when unique human life starts for those who don't have a core of spirituality or faith, with those of us who do. Isn't this the freedom of religion question? I would really like to look at this point more Cal, isn't this a core question?

You can't even use the quote tool honestly.
A person with integrity can't believe that a person is alive and then say someone has the right to destroy it- without provided an explanation justifying the act.

I had all that in my quote of yours - I don't understand????

There's no doubt that the children are alive, as there is no debate whether a fetus is alive. The value of it's life is placed on it either by society or a higher power.

But, Cal, there is 'debate' on whether the fetus is alive. You may believe that it is defined as human life from conception, but many do not. So how can you say that there isn't any debate on whether or not the fetus can be declare as possessing 'human life'.

Since you feel that the spiritual issue isn't supported by science and merely an opinion, then we're only left with the value that the individual society has bestowed upon the individual. Using your logic, you have no right or responsibility to prevent any harm from befalling those children. This moral relativism position absolves you from that situation just as it does the abortion issue in this country.

But those children are uniquely human - by any definition. Science, faith, whatever. Cal, are you trying to compare a 2 cell being and a 2 year old child? Is that what you are trying to discuss here? Is this one of the few 'important' events that we should be discussing? That is fine with me.

If you are infact right, then you should be confident allowing this to move back from the realm of the judicial to the political. Of course, this is yet another contradiction in your various arguments and points.

I have stated this quite a few times. I would love for this to go to the people, on the federal level - is that what you mean 'political'?

Again, you fail to acknowledge that this issue has been decided by the Supreme Court right now and not subject to ballot initiatives.

I know it has been decided by Roe V Wade - I have stated that a lot, haven't I Cal? It probably can't be changed by state ballot initiatives, is that what you mean when you say 'ballot initiatives', you are talking about the state level and not the federal level? I do think the state level ballot issues are interesting though to see how the people are voting on this issue.

And I would love to have this go to the people. The whole thing could be done and over with.
You're contradicting something you said earlier.
But if that's how you feel, then you'd embrace the overturn of Roe V Wade.

I would like to see where I ever said that I didn't want this to go to the people Cal. But, yes, if the people wanted it, on a national leve to overturn Roe v. Wade I would accept it. Embrace may be a stretch, but I would accept it.

Is it really that difficult to respond to? I don't think it is. There are even questions, with question marks, in it, to help you avoid confusion. You're refusal to respond it is deliberate. That's a rather telling statement about you.

So, since I am really confused - this is what you posted in post #105 - is this what you are talking about???
There are philosophers who accept that the fetus is alive, but that the mother should be able to terminate the life after it has been born, either because the child has a disability or due to the convenience or greater good of society and the mother. While accepts that the fetus or infant is alive, but that greater good needs to be achieved.

I ask that because this is how I replied to it in post #106
This first paragraph is a supposition that you say is put forth by a group of philosophers. Are you asking me if I agree with them? They are philosophers. They philosophize. They make you ask questions within yourself. I don’t think it is ‘do you agree or disagree’, but ‘think about this.’ Do you want to ask me a question about this idea that they have put forth?

I even quoted your paragraph in my response - maybe this isn't what you meant to talk about - could you maybe just cut and paste what you are talking about? I really am trying to answer your questions, but I don't see any in your post. I am asking again... I am sorry, but I think I have gotten off track here or something.

Plus, I think you could answer my question, what is your stand on abortion...

But, since you won't respond to this post - you don't have to answer that do you Cal? I think that is the real reason why you are threatening to leave. It is easy for you to push and push and push me, but when I ask what your stand is, you just go.

If nothing else, everyone here knows my opinion on this subject, in a lot of detail. If nothing else, I am honest right there. I honestly state what I believe, and how I feel regarding abortion. I gave timelines, when abortions should and shouldn't be allowed.

Can't you be that honest as well Cal?

 

[fossten]

I never asked for "comprehensive, open-ended essays"

Read the wording of your questions. They're completely open ended, and sound like essay questions.

 

[Calabrio]

It isn't scientific for you or me, but the concept of human life to someone who is an atheist it is scientific - isn't it?
...

From a purely scientific perspective, the distinction that you or I might grant to "human life" doesn't exist. That's purely a creation of spirituality and faith. From a scientific view, "human life" is a designation that society has created and grants.

Some credible scientists will argue that a robot is capable of becoming "alive" simply because we (humans) can impart it with such. So determining "human life" from a purely scientific perspective will be impossible.

And with this scientific view, there is no distinction between human "life" or any other kind of life. Aborting a fetus at conception or the day after it's been born is no different. The organism is more complicated, but that's all. These are all moral and ethical decisions that people and our society has imposed, but they aren't scientific.

Issues of life, by their very definition are spiritual and ethical. If you feel that there is a spirituality, that there is a unique human spirit, then you are ethically required to defend it. And if you can't, then you need to acknowledge the destruction of the "life." And if you take a position like that, I would expect the person to be able to explain why it's acceptable. (as I mentioned in the case of the death penalty.)

I don't think this is a "freedom of religion" question at all. I think it's a fundamental issue that defines our society. Regardless you're religion, you don't have a right to destroy those that society regards as the living. And because a particular religion, sect, or philosophy, doesn't share that recognition, that doesn't exempt them from.

It's far to easy to hide behind "science" in this discussion. The truth is, science doesn't have all the answers. Without the cover of science, we can't fall back on moral relativism and we're forced to contemplate difficult issues.

I don't presume to have the answer for this one... I'm still trying to get my head around the questions.
I think I've pretty much responded to everything in your last post, so I'll avoid any further quoted replies.

 

[alexfranke]

Read the wording of your questions. They're completely open ended, and sound like essay questions.

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting essays. I find I usually get more thoughtful answers with open ended questions, so I guess I tend to phrase them that way. So I'll take a stab at the first one to give you an example of the type of thing I was hoping to see.

"Before I formed you, I knew you" suggests that the soul is in the mind of God even before conception. Is this a reasonable interpretation? If not, why? How do you interpret this in the context of this discussion? How would biblical scholars interpret this in the context of this discussion?

And my (completely fudged and pulled from thin air) layman's response might be:

Usually no. God was talking specifically to Jeremiah with a unique purpose in mind. God makes similar statements in (?) and (?), but always under the same circumstances. In fact the Hebrew "know" used here isn't even used to describe tangibles. Think of it as, "I've had a plan for you all along." So I would say that birth control isn't abortion because there's no human life. Most Protestant scholars would probably agree, but Roman Catholics would not because the Pope decreed it a mortal sin.

...shortest essay I ever wrote.

I'm going to drop this now. If you want to answer, then I'm all ears. (I struggle with these types of things sometimes.) But I would hope that if you do, that you would also be open to discussion without feeling like I'm playing games.

 

[alexfranke]

It isn't scientific for you or me, but the concept of human life to someone who is an atheist it is scientific - isn't it? Looking at the Ayn Rand site, which is very atheist, and to them there is no question that 'human' life doesn't start at conception, they would allow abortion all the way until birth.

I was actually talking about this very issue with an atheist today. She's an explicit strong atheist. Her biggest beef was with a government (any government) telling her what she can and can't do. She conceded that the baby should have the moral right to be protected by society and that she should be expected to protect the fetus/baby starting from when its brain becomes active. In her words, "brain activity = thought = person."

I can inquire more in you're interested.

 

[fossten]

I was actually talking about this very issue with an atheist today. She's an explicit strong atheist. Her biggest beef was with a government (any government) telling her what she can and can't do. She conceded that the baby should have the moral right to be protected by society and that she should be expected to protect the fetus/baby starting from when its brain becomes active. In her words, "brain activity = thought = person."

I can inquire more in you're interested.

I would ask her why she uses brain activity as a bright line to determine that a life is worth protecting or preserving.

Should euthanasia be performed on an adult who has lost his brain functions in a hospital?

Does the government get to tell her that she can't kill her 2 year old son if he has a stroke or gets a head injury that causes memory loss?

 

[foxpaws]

Alex...

This goes back to my point earlier about the philosophical versus the scientific discussion. People here are free to believe whatever they want. (Heck, I know someone who believes that her walls talk to her.) So anytime you try to use a belief as a basis for an argument, you're on very shaky ground...

That is why I wouldn't try to use my 'beliefs' to tell anyone how they should feel or act about this subject or any subject. There isn't anyway I could prove what I believe - so I am on shaky ground with my beliefs regarding the start of life.

As far as the brain wave thing - I know a lot of people who use that as an origin point for defining 'human life', not just atheists. It seems to mean something the 'brain activity = thought = person' correlation.

...another interesting side-track. I think it's very important that we respect cultural differences, but I have a hard time defining the line. That a living, breathing baby is precious and deserves protection is practically universally axiomatic (although there are some that don't see it so black and white), but what about things like mutilation rituals? Maybe that's a different thread...

We are all guilty of wandering about a bit here - this side track of Cal's is interesting, but as you said, probably a different thread.

I still disagree with this terminology. I would argue scientifically that it does have life, and that it does have human life. What I can't argue, though, is whether it's a human being.

I am very guilty of this - I stated really, really early on that biologically there is no question, all life begins at conception, but I guess what we have been discussing all along is when does that biological life become a human being.

That's a nice thought, but I think it would hardly be over and done with... It might be a different set of complaints and debates, but even when the people make their voices heard, not everyone agrees...

Well, what would be over and done with is Roe vs Wade - and the argument that the Supreme Court shouldn't be the one that decides this issue. The debate would continue, but it would be easier to argue the 'what if' parts if there wasn't the court to contend with. We wouldn't have to guess what the people wanted if somehow it got to the amendment stage.

Seems to me that the federal government could set parameters and let the states figure out the details. Something like, "We value human life and recognize that human life becomes a human being before before or when it is born. But you can't deny an abortion if the mother's life is a risk, and you can't allow a late-term abortion if the mother's life is not at risk. Beyond that, you (the states) figure it out."

I think that since the constitution defines many things that depend on the word 'life' that it would make sense if 'life' was defined on a federal level. Unlike marriage, which the constitution doesn't address. Marriage would make sense to a be state by state issue. As far as the word life - something that Cal brings up, the 14th amendment. What about those rights in the 14th amendment - they really can't be different from state to state. They need to be based on a strict definition of life. So, if that moment it decided as 22 weeks... then those 'rights' kick in then.

 

[alexfranke]

I would ask her why she uses brain activity as a bright line to determine that a life is worth protecting or preserving.

She says it's because she doesn't consider it a "sentient human life" until it has brain activity.

Should euthanasia be performed on an adult who has lost his brain functions in a hospital?

She says she would hope that the patient had a living will with instructions about how he/she wanted to be treated in this type of case. In the case there's not one, she says she feels the family could make that determination and any disagreements could be handled by the courts, if necessary. She says her living will says to pull the plug if she's brain dead, and after any needed organs are removed.

Does the government get to tell her that she can't kill her 2 year old son if he has a stroke or gets a head injury that causes memory loss?

She happens to have a 2 year old son -- nearly 3, I guess. She says the parents and society/government have a responsibility to protect the injured child, and that killing him if he's not already brain dead is murder. So I guess the short answer is yes.

Edit: One other thing, she said that personally abortion is not an option, with just a couple of exceptions (such as "if I'm likely to die in labor").