Turning the corner on "woke"?

[Rob Necronomicon]

Correction: You're a 12 year old princess.

I would have said 9. Young at heart go me... 

Better than being some old dirty bastard of course, right Prat?

Ok groomer.

Sorry, I like to bed old men like you. 

[Rob Necronomicon]

it's not really definable, even within the context of a specific religion.

Wow... You won the whole interwebs with this. That alone ladies and gentlemen has every scientist in the world now trembling and rethinking everything they have learned.

All I can say is 'thank you', cowPat. You've proven that you are indeed a clueless moron. Between that astounding bit of reasoning, and the little Bugler boy's Iraq statement about Hitchens. Sheer class... Pair of fookin' muppets.

"Not really definable...." Haw haw haw...

The world doesn't operate the way religious extremists like you believe it does.

"Not really definable...." HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

Genius! Thanks again. 

[Pat]

it's not really definable, even within the context of a specific religion.

Wow... You won the whole interwebs with this. That alone ladies and gentlemen has every scientist in the world now trembling and rethinking everything they have learned.

All I can say is 'thank you', cowPat. You've proven that you are indeed a clueless moron. Between that astounding bit of reasoning, and the little Bugler boy's Iraq statement about Hitchens. Sheer class... Pair of fookin' muppets.

"Not really definable...." Haw haw haw...

The world doesn't operate the way religious extremists like you believe it does.

"Not really definable...." HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

Genius! Thanks again. 

Yes, it's not definable.

You're so stupid you don't even realize you're the stupidest person in the room.

[Rob Necronomicon]

Hey cowPat, bigfoot is behind you, honest!

"Not really definable...." HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

[jhkim]

I'll just quote myself there:
"I'm asking you at what stage do we consider it to be a person?"

I believe that science shows that it is both alive and a human being from conception.
Person is of course the legal term for when a being has rights, particularly in this case the right to life.
The choices I've heard are:
1) from conception
2) when the heart starts beating
3) when they feel pain
4) when they are conscious
5) at birth
I go with 1.

Do you have reasons behind that choice? This is the big question to me.

For me, I choose #4 because more broadly than the abortion debate, I believe that conscious thought and feelings are what define people as people. If I encountered non-human lifeforms, what I would want to know about them is what they thought and felt -- that's how I would judge about whether they were people or not. If we encountered aliens who didn't feel pain and didn't have a heartbeat, but still thought and felt similar to us, I'd rate them as people and I'd say it was a moral wrong to kill them.

In the real-world case of keeping someone on life support, I think the important distinction is whether they are still thinking and feeling. If someone's heart stops, then I'd say we should try to restart the heart or get them an artificial heart or transplanted heart. If someone's brain is destroyed, though, then I would call them dead even if we could keep the rest of the body going.

And I do think that the cases of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and human tissue samples are important. If you believe that a zygote is a human being with a right to life, then that should apply to IVF embryos.

[Rob Necronomicon]

I'll just quote myself there:
"I'm asking you at what stage do we consider it to be a person?"

I believe that science shows that it is both alive and a human being from conception.
Person is of course the legal term for when a being has rights, particularly in this case the right to life.
The choices I've heard are:
1) from conception
2) when the heart starts beating
3) when they feel pain
4) when they are conscious
5) at birth
I go with 1.

Do you have reasons behind that choice? This is the big question to me.

For me, I choose #4 because more broadly than the abortion debate, I believe that conscious thought and feelings are what define people as people. If I encountered non-human lifeforms, what I would want to know about them is what they thought and felt -- that's how I would judge about whether they were people or not. If we encountered aliens who didn't feel pain and didn't have a heartbeat, but still thought and felt similar to us, I'd rate them as people and I'd say it was a moral wrong to kill them.

I'd totally agree... 'Conscious' brain activity would be crucial to making that decision IMO.

[wmarshal]

People lose consciousness when they go to sleep. Consciousness hasn't been detected in babies until they're about 5 months old. So killing a baby a 3 months ought not to be murder since it's not the taking of a person's life? I find drawing the line at consciousness a poor definition.

[jhkim]

People lose consciousness when they go to sleep. Consciousness hasn't been detected in babies until they're about 5 months old. So killing a baby a 3 months ought not to be murder since it's not the taking of a person's life? I find drawing the line at consciousness a poor definition.

DocJones used the term "conscious", and I was picking among the numbered choice that DocJones offered that is closest to my definition.

My point is that personhood is based on thoughts and feelings in general. The exact quality of thoughts and feelings isn't easy to describe, and one word is never going to do that justice - whether that single word is "consciousness", "sapience", or any other. But the point is that if we exclude abortion, every other case of "Should we morally treat this entity as a person?" - the answer is generally about examining what their thoughts and feelings are.

[Rob Necronomicon]

People lose consciousness when they go to sleep. Consciousness hasn't been detected in babies until they're about 5 months old. So killing a baby a 3 months ought not to be murder since it's not the taking of a person's life? I find drawing the line at consciousness a poor definition.

But that's where all the protection comes in. Such as the 12 weeks continuum (it may vary a bit from country to country).

[wmarshal]

People lose consciousness when they go to sleep. Consciousness hasn't been detected in babies until they're about 5 months old. So killing a baby a 3 months ought not to be murder since it's not the taking of a person's life? I find drawing the line at consciousness a poor definition.

But that's where all the protection comes in. Such as the 12 weeks continuum (it may vary a bit from country to country).

So are you and jhkim in agreement, or not? It seems that you are both saying you're picking option 4 from the list, but you're also saying a limit should be placed at 12 weeks of pregnancy, which I don't think is what jhkim is agreeing to.
Nevermind, I lost track of who was responding to whom.

[wmarshal]

People lose consciousness when they go to sleep. Consciousness hasn't been detected in babies until they're about 5 months old. So killing a baby a 3 months ought not to be murder since it's not the taking of a person's life? I find drawing the line at consciousness a poor definition.

DocJones used the term "conscious", and I was picking among the numbered choice that DocJones offered that is closest to my definition.

My point is that personhood is based on thoughts and feelings in general. The exact quality of thoughts and feelings isn't easy to describe, and one word is never going to do that justice - whether that single word is "consciousness", "sapience", or any other. But the point is that if we exclude abortion, every other case of "Should we morally treat this entity as a person?" - the answer is generally about examining what their thoughts and feelings are.

As I understand your reasoning it still sounds like you're saying killing a 3-month old baby should not be considered murder as the baby would not meet your definition of a person. Should that the killing of a 3-month old baby be considered more like the killing of a pet then?

[wmarshal]

People lose consciousness when they go to sleep. Consciousness hasn't been detected in babies until they're about 5 months old. So killing a baby a 3 months ought not to be murder since it's not the taking of a person's life? I find drawing the line at consciousness a poor definition.

But that's where all the protection comes in. Such as the 12 weeks continuum (it may vary a bit from country to country).

So are you and jhkim in agreement, or not? It seems that you are both saying you're picking option 4 from the list, but you're also saying a limit should be placed at 12 weeks of pregnancy, which I don't think is what jhkim is agreeing to.

Ugh, sorry Rob, I got confused in who was quoting and agreeing with whom.

[Rob Necronomicon]

People lose consciousness when they go to sleep. Consciousness hasn't been detected in babies until they're about 5 months old. So killing a baby a 3 months ought not to be murder since it's not the taking of a person's life? I find drawing the line at consciousness a poor definition.

But that's where all the protection comes in. Such as the 12 weeks continuum (it may vary a bit from country to country).

So are you and jhkim in agreement, or not? It seems that you are both saying you're picking option 4 from the list, but you're also saying a limit should be placed at 12 weeks of pregnancy, which I don't think is what jhkim is agreeing to.

Well, this is what I was trying to say earlier defining life (via consciousness) is 'nebulous' as we can see here. So, I agree with his definition but I'd always advocate the termination done before 12 weeks. Unless the mother was in grave danger. Basically, I'm in line with Irish law.

[Rob Necronomicon]

People lose consciousness when they go to sleep. Consciousness hasn't been detected in babies until they're about 5 months old. So killing a baby a 3 months ought not to be murder since it's not the taking of a person's life? I find drawing the line at consciousness a poor definition.

But that's where all the protection comes in. Such as the 12 weeks continuum (it may vary a bit from country to country).

So are you and jhkim in agreement, or not? It seems that you are both saying you're picking option 4 from the list, but you're also saying a limit should be placed at 12 weeks of pregnancy, which I don't think is what jhkim is agreeing to.

Ugh, sorry Rob, I got confused in who was quoting and agreeing with whom.

No worries... I get confused as well with all the quotes too.

[GeekyBugle]

People lose consciousness when they go to sleep. Consciousness hasn't been detected in babies until they're about 5 months old. So killing a baby a 3 months ought not to be murder since it's not the taking of a person's life? I find drawing the line at consciousness a poor definition.

DocJones used the term "conscious", and I was picking among the numbered choice that DocJones offered that is closest to my definition.

My point is that personhood is based on thoughts and feelings in general. The exact quality of thoughts and feelings isn't easy to describe, and one word is never going to do that justice - whether that single word is "consciousness", "sapience", or any other. But the point is that if we exclude abortion, every other case of "Should we morally treat this entity as a person?" - the answer is generally about examining what their thoughts and feelings are.

Like it was pointed to you babies DON'T have thoughts, do you think a newborn thinks: "I'm hungry, I better cry so my mom comes and feeds me"?

Sapience means : sagacity, wisdom. Are you sure you want that as the term that grants personhood? I have a great case that ALL leftoids lack sapience.

Feelings as in an emotional reaction? So can we kill all the people who don't show that?

And you're back at square one, ZERO arguments that don't end up killing what you would define as people.

People means human, we define a human as someone who is part of the human race, I'm sure you don't need the definition of that one so...

Since we can find examples that you would consider a person that don't fulfill ALL of the criteria in the scientific definition of human race, how can we KNOW someone is a human?

If I took cell samples from you and an adult chimp we can know who is the human and who is the chimp without ever seeing either.

If we take cell samples of a human zygote and a zygote from ANY OTHER species we can know which one is human.

Hell scientists will call it a HUMAN zygote and so do we in common parlance.

You are just a clump of cells, a bigger more defined clump of cells than a zygote, but a clump of cells none the less.

So, at what point in the human development do you stopped being a thing and became a human?

What's the point in the pregnancy when a thing magically becomes a human? You guys act like you believe in the breath of life but refuse to say so and to define at what point EXACTLY does the breath of life enter the body.

I was once like that, when I was an anti-theist atheist, then I stopped being an anti-theist because as an atheist I could see religion does have a place and a roll in the development of a sane society/individual.

And then I regained my faith.

You CLAIM to be a Christian and yet you don't act like one.