- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nebraska: Women overwhelmed with joy and in tears, after abortion ban bill fails
Posted on 5/1/23 at 10:54 am to DavidTheGnome
Posted on 5/1/23 at 10:54 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:Is it human? If not, what species is it? It's got human DNA.
Except it’s not. Not fully. There’s no consciousness and while developing into a full fledged person it’s not there yet.
Is it living? From conception, it is developing. Dead organisms don't develop, but living ones do.
So yes, it is a living human being from conception. Its level of consciousness doesn't determine its humanity, nor its status as "living".
This post was edited on 5/1/23 at 10:55 am
2
Posted on 5/1/23 at 10:57 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Without it what is it you’re worried about saving? Just because it’s human? Although in the case of an embryo not a fully formed human indeed with no consciousness or what you would call a soul?
It will become fully human, as occurs naturally, providing it isn't ripped apart inside the womb. What isn't natural is it's own mother killing it before it's born. It is a life. Beyond all your words.... it alive and to murder it is wrong. Just because it has no voice or means to defend itself doesn't make the act of killing it any less evil.
Also, you don't know when it has a soul. Your a sick frick.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 10:59 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Its level of consciousness doesn't determine its humanity
I’d argue that it absolutely does. If you have a car wreck victim that’s brain dead should their body be required to be kept alive? It’s a human body, human dna. No consciousness but it’s alive so we shouldn’t be allowed to pull the plug yeah?
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:00 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I’d argue that it absolutely does.
What about autistic people who lack human emotion?
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:11 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:In the case of a braindead individual, the issue isn't conscious at all, but the ability of the brain to keep the rest of the body alive and functioning. That's different altogether. You can have someone in a coma that looks very similar to a braindead individual in terms of consciousness, but their bodies are still alive and functioning without the need for artificial life support.
I’d argue that it absolutely does. If you have a car wreck victim that’s brain dead should their body be required to be kept alive? It’s a human body, human dna. No consciousness but it’s alive so we shouldn’t be allowed to pull the plug yeah?
If you want to talk about level of dependency, then go that route, but don't conflate it with consciousness.
This post was edited on 5/1/23 at 11:25 am
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:14 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You can have someone in a coma that looks very similar to a braindead individual in terms of consciousness, but their bodies are still alive and functioning without the need for artificial life support.
Really. So someone in a coma can take a swig of water and feed themselves? Didn’t realize, but maybe my idea of a coma is different than yours.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:15 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
What about autistic people who lack human emotion?
What about them? They’re still conscious are they not?
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:15 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Really. So someone in a coma can take a swig of water and feed themselves?
Yep.
You don't know a lot of things apparently.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:16 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
What about them? They’re still conscious are they not?
They're blogs of flesh with no real emotion or human instinct.
I suspect youre pretty far down the spectrum.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:17 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Yep.
Ok
quote:
A coma is a state of unconsciousness where a person is unresponsive and cannot be woken. It can result from injury to the brain, such as a severe head injury or stroke. A coma can also be caused by severe alcohol poisoning or a brain infection (encephalitis).
Are they sleep walking then or what?
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:19 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They're blogs of flesh with no real emotion or human instinct.
Are they conscious?
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:28 am to FooManChoo
quote:Is it biologically human? Of course. That would be a really stupid argument.
Is it human? If not, what species is it? It's got human DNA.
Is it living? From conception, it is developing. Dead organisms don't develop, but living ones do.
So yes, it is a living human being from conception. Its level of consciousness doesn't determine its humanity, nor its status as "living".
But is it human PHILOSOPHICALLY? That very much depends upon one's philosophical definition. By my standard, an embryo is NOT philosophically human, because it cannot THINK. Philosophically, it is the ability to THINK ... to reason ... which makes us "human," IMO.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:31 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Are they conscious?
Most of you behave more like rocks than actual humans with feeling, emotion and drive.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:37 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:I think your need to be right is clouding your ability to think rationally here.
Really. So someone in a coma can take a swig of water and feed themselves? Didn’t realize, but maybe my idea of a coma is different than yours.
A person who is asleep typically will not take a swig of water or a bite of food (sleep walking aside, which is an atypical behavior), yet their bodies are still functioning normally otherwise, just as someone is a coma is.
The point I'm making is that the issue with braindeadness that separates a person experiencing it with someone who is in a coma is that a braindead person's body (organs and systems) will not function at all without direct artificial assistance ("life support"), while the bodily organs and systems of a person in a coma will be able to function normally, as it would if that person were merely asleep. The need for an IV for nutritional support is not due to a problem with the body, but a problem of the person not being awake to consume nutrients on their own. That's actually similar to the state of a child in the womb, where its organs and systems are developing and working normally for its stage of development, but it needs the mother for the nutrients to help it continue to grow because it cannot consume nutrients on its own otherwise.
So no, level of consciousness is not the defining factor of whether a human is a human, or whether a human is alive.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
But is it human PHILOSOPHICALLY? That very much depends upon one's philosophical definition. By my standard, an embryo is NOT philosophically human, because it cannot THINK. Philosophically, it is the ability to THINK ... to reason ... which makes us "human," IMO.
so someone's intelligence makes them more human than someone else?
This post was edited on 5/1/23 at 11:39 am
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:39 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Most of you behave more like rocks than actual humans with feeling, emotion and drive.
Not the ones I know. They're all over the place, some high functioning and others much farther down the spectrum. But anyways I don't care how they feel, I asked if they were conscious. If you are arguing to kill off people with autism that's you.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:41 am to AggieHank86
quote:
But is it human PHILOSOPHICALLY? That very much depends upon one's philosophical definition. By my standard, an embryo is NOT philosophically human, because it cannot THINK. Philosophically, it is the ability to THINK ... to reason ... which makes us "human," IMO.
How do you know? It probably "thinks" or "reasons" as it should at that stage of development. The bottom line is, unless illness or some other hindrance(such as being ripped apart inside the womb) it will continue to develop into a human being. Just like you or me. To kill that innocent life is simply murder. Your philosophy doesn't change the reality. Jabbering about ideas and the mothers rights, none of it changes the fact that abortion kills a baby and that is evil when done simply as a birth control measure.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:Yes, it would be a stupid argument. I agree.
Is it biologically human? Of course. That would be a really stupid argument.
I don't think people who are arguing that it isn't a human being ("it's just a clump of cells") are talking about it "philosophically", though. They are talking about it looking different from other human beings in their experience, which is why it's important to establish the fact that preborn human children are, in fact, biologically human, so that we stop making bad arguments in order to desensitize ourselves to what we're doing when we kill them.
quote:And this is the problem. If the definition is based on a philosophical definition rather than a biological one, then we can potentially have as many definitions of a human/person as there are people. This is the type of thinking that allowed for the chattel slavery of black people in England and America, where they simply didn't meet the definition of what a human was and so it was fine to treat them like animals.
But is it human PHILOSOPHICALLY? That very much depends upon one's philosophical definition.
quote:Other than the fact that this seems like an arbitrary standard, do you think a newborn child (or say, a 3 month old) is "philosophically human" in your perspective, because they have no idea what's going on around them and cannot think or be rational as a human adult can be?
By my standard, an embryo is NOT philosophically human, because it cannot THINK. Philosophically, it is the ability to THINK ... to reason ... which makes us "human," IMO.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:
But is it human PHILOSOPHICALLY? That very much depends upon one's philosophical definition. By my standard, an embryo is NOT philosophically human, because it cannot THINK. Philosophically, it is the ability to THINK ... to reason ... which makes us "human," IMO.
Mindblowing how nonchalantly you dismiss the murder of millions of babies from a made up flimsy definition.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 11:52 am to FooManChoo
there is a philosophical truth as well in terms of when human life begins. I believe it's at conception BTW. But the pro-choicers are using philosophy as a way to skirt around the question of killing what is clearly a human life.
Page 10 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News