Thread: Fetuses Feel No Pain Before 24 Weeks

Originally Posted by 9aces

My wife's been pregnant 4 times. I'm pretty darn sure I know more about that than you do.

You haven't shown you really know anything about the subject at all. Other than a willingness to murder children without qualm.

My ex-wife has been pregnant 5 times. I've shown I can think past your Appeals to Emotion.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Now that's funny. And I'm sure your next logical progression in order to kill others who are inconvenient.

If Human beings could not reproduce, you wouldn't be here. In your desperation to try and prove your wacko analogy, you try and dismiss the entire species on the basis of an individual who had a vasectomy.

AND through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. That doesn't refer to the individual, but the species.

Let me break it down for you. You listed a set of requirements:

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations

and stated that for a thing to be considered alive it must have all of them:

But do not have all of them, thus they fail the test of being "alive".

In other words, anything that fails even one of those tests is not alive.

Here is the list you provided:

1. undergo metabolism
2. maintain homeostasis
3. possess a capacity to grow
4. respond to stimuli
5. reproduce
6. through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations

I didn't say anything about number 6 which you seem to focus on. I brought up number 5.

Since the operating word here is "and" and not "or," each and every single one of those requirements would have to be met because if even one is not met the thing would not be considered alive. Now, #6 is a requirement that is separate from #5. It (#5) is not met by a sterile man and thus one would be led to believe that the man is not alive.

As to the species point, sperm are human. They are part of the species. So if, species-wide, we are always alive because the species still exists, then sperm is alive, too.

"Alive" is the determination if that organism's biological functions are active. Reproduction not being a necessary ability for an organism to be "alive".

Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say that living organisms that are active must be able to reproduce to be considered alive, and now you're saying that reproduction is not a necessary ability for an organism to be alive.


In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations

Sperm cells and egg cells have some of those capabilities. But do not have all of them, thus they fail the test of being "alive".



You go from X can't reproduce, and thus is not alive, to X may not be able to reproduce, but reproduction is not necessary for X to be alive.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Human Reproduction and Biology classes are too, you should take some, and come back in a couple years when you have a clue what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No. Rights are a matter of metaphysics not legality.

Ok, then. You said before that :

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Is it right? That is not a political question but a moral one. No, I do not think it is right. There is a popular saying just because you have the right does not make it right.

So....you claim abortion is not murder solely because the child has no rights (metaphysically). It has no rights(m) because it cannot make "moral choices".

And yet you also say killing those without "moral choice making" (abortion, infants) is not metaphysically right.

Contradicted yourself again.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis

Link

Above Link : Post #726 has been ignored again, Locke.
9Aces : I suggest that you concentrate on the issues raised in post #726 as they are the most crushing to Locke.

John Locke :

Do you think saying 'metaphysical' all the time makes you look like a good pretend philosopher? It is not an answer to anything, you know.

When consciousness is not on, it is off. ITS NOT AVAILABLE FOR USE. Call it what you will. The so-called "conscious but switched off" patient (happy?) is NOT a "moral choice maker" when it is "off" unless you count it's future potential. A womb-trapped child has no consciousness. The patient has none via being unconscious. BOTH have not got the current attribute of being a moral choice maker, self-awareness, reason, dreams and all your criteria.

The point of consciousness was clear : Being able to be a "moral choice maker". We never said consciousness - but "moral choice maker" and the ability to think, reason and so on. That is the only issue at hand with consciousness - what it can do. And the patient cannot do these things.

Your "consciousness but off" BS is just a denial that there is no consciousness at that point in time. You know u are wrong. Otherwise why make up that garbage about attorneys a few pages ago? Because you thought that your "off switch" argument failed and you tried to find a new one.

John Locke : "How can a anesthetic patient be a moral choice maker while under anesthetic when he cannot think, experience, be self-aware, feel, reason .... and make choices of ANY kind? He can't. You are obviously wrong.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis

Your "consciousness but off" BS is just a denial that there is no consciousness at that point in time.

Existence is metaphysically different than non-existence no matter how many word games you want to play with yourself.

When I tell my gf to call me when she gets home, she alerts my temporarily off conscious. This is metaphysically different than something that does not exist.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis

So....you claim abortion is not murder solely because the child has no rights (metaphysically). It has no rights(m) because it cannot make "moral choices".

And yet you also say killing those without "moral choice making" (abortion, infants) is not metaphysically right.

Contradicted yourself again.

It is not morally right is my point here, not metaphysically right.

I am not contradicting myself. Politically, things are allowed that are not morally right. This is based on the principle of individual liberty where every immoral thing is not outlawed. It is called freedom.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Existence is metaphysically different than non-existence no matter how many word games you want to play with yourself.

That was never disputed. What is disputed : How can a person WHILE under anesthetic be a "moral choice maker" since they cannot make choices WHILE under anesthetic? Nor can they think, understand, feel, experience or dream while under. (And no, they are not asleep - they are unconscious).

They cannot. Thats why you never answer the question.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It is not morally right is my point here, not metaphysically right.

BS. You are making a 3rd distinction.

You admit it was not a legal argument. You admitted it was a moral argument.

Again you argue dishonestly. So here it is again :

----
Originally Posted by JohnLocke
Is it right? That is not a political question but a moral one. No, I do not think it is right. There is a popular saying just because you have the right does not make it right.
----

So....you claim abortion is not murder solely because the child has no rights (morally). It has no rights(morally) because it cannot make "moral choices".

And yet you also say killing those without "moral choice making" (abortion, infants) is not morally right.

Satisfied? There is no difference to the point.

Contradicted yourself again.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Existence is metaphysically different than non-existence no matter how many word games you want to play with yourself.

When I tell my gf to call me when she gets home, she alerts my temporarily off conscious. This is metaphysically different than something that does not exist.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis

That was never disputed. What is disputed : How can a person WHILE under anesthetic be a "moral choice maker" since they cannot make choices, think, understand?

They cannot. Thats why you never answer the question.

You've asked this dozens of times and I've answered it dozens of times. You say you do not deny existence and nonexistence are different but in practice you treat them as the same.

While under anesthesia a person still has an existing consciousness - it is just in "off" mode. He can choose to delegate moral choice making before to another while under anesthesia - or choose not to. This is metaphysically different than something where consciousness is not a part of its nature. This is what you obviously do not grasp: an engine that is off (a consciousness) does as much work as nothing but an engine that is off is different than nothing.

While you say you do not deny existence and nonexistence are different in practice you treat them as the same.

Originally Posted by Slon

Let me break it down for you. You listed a set of requirements:

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations

and stated that for a thing to be considered alive it must have all of them:

But do not have all of them, thus they fail the test of being "alive".

In other words, anything that fails even one of those tests is not alive.

Here is the list you provided:

1. undergo metabolism
2. maintain homeostasis
3. possess a capacity to grow
4. respond to stimuli
5. reproduce
6. through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations

I didn't say anything about number 6 which you seem to focus on. I brought up number 5.

Since the operating word here is "and" and not "or," each and every single one of those requirements would have to be met because if even one is not met the thing would not be considered alive. Now, #6 is a requirement that is separate from #5. It (#5) is not met by a sterile man and thus one would be led to believe that the man is not alive.

As to the species point, sperm are human. They are part of the species. So if, species-wide, we are always alive because the species still exists, then sperm is alive, too.Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say that living organisms that are active must be able to reproduce to be considered alive, and now you're saying that reproduction is not a necessary ability for an organism to be alive.


In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations

Sperm cells and egg cells have some of those capabilities. But do not have all of them, thus they fail the test of being "alive".



You go from X can't reproduce, and thus is not alive, to X may not be able to reproduce, but reproduction is not necessary for X to be alive.

That's because you simply do not understand what you speak of. A sperm does not meet the criteria, and is not a species unto itself. It cannot propagate itself, and it has no successive generations, nor the potential to achieve that end.

An individual in a species may not be able to reproduce, that does not invalidate the definitions of the species. Which is the study of life.

Despite your continued idiocy, a sperm can never, ever become anything other than what it is alone. Not only that, it will cease to exist rather quickly.

Try this on for size, it'll do for a start till you get enrolled in a class somewhere.
Discovery Health "How Sex Works"

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

My ex-wife has been pregnant 5 times. I've shown I can think past your Appeals to Emotion.

No, you've shown you can't think at all.

Just make the statement, it's easy.

Abortion results in the death of a human being who's only crime is to exist.

That's an undeniable fact.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It is not morally right is my point here, not metaphysically right.

I am not contradicting myself. Politically, things are allowed that are not morally right. This is based on the principle of individual liberty where every immoral thing is not outlawed. It is called freedom.

Except the principle here isn't about individual liberty.

Individual liberty is based upon the rights of the individual, that DO NOT violate the rights of other individuals.

Abortion violates the rights of one individual in the most emphatic means possible. It terminates their right...to live.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

While under anesthesia a person still has an existing consciousness - it is just in "off" mode.

Then thats unconscious mode. He has lost consciousness. Call it "consciousness off" mode if you want. He cannot make choices, so he is not a "moral choice maker".

He can choose to delegate moral choice making before to another while under anesthesia - or choose not to.

That's right - before! Then you finally admit (albeit unwittingly) that he cannot make moral choices during the period he is under anesthesia. Thus he is not a moral choice maker during the period of anesthesia, he WAS a moral choice maker. Just as a dead person WAS a moral choice maker.

THEREFORE - While under anesthesia he HIMSELF is not a moral choice maker. His lawyer (why would he have one?) might act on his behalf, but then it is the lawyer who is the moral choice maker, not the patient. The patient does not meet the criteria you set out during the operation, only before. But before is no good, else a dead person would be a human being with rights! And that last conclusion clearly is wrong. He only potentially has moral choice making in the future - if he survives that is.

or choose not to

And if he did not choose to delegate moral choice making beforehand?
THEN - The patient does not have moral choice making or anyone on his behalf making moral choices.

This happens in all cases (who hires a lawyer for moral choices during an operation??) and could happen if one was abducted etc. So anyone under anesthetic is not a human being and loses the right not to be murdered under your ridiculous criteria.


Give it up, Locke.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Is it right? That is not a political question but a moral one. No, I do not think it is right.

So you think abortion and newborns being killed is not right.

Yet you also say that abortion is not murder because it is not immoral.

How is something that is not right also not immoral when the question is a moral one? It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by 9aces

That's because you simply do not understand what you speak of. A sperm does not meet the criteria, and is not a species unto itself. It cannot propagate itself, and it has no successive generations, nor the potential to achieve that end.

Neither does a sterile man.

An individual in a species may not be able to reproduce, that does not invalidate the definitions of the species. Which is the study of life.

I didn't say it invalidated the definitions of the species. I said the organism in question (sterile man) did not meet your criteria and thus would not be considered a living organism.

Despite your continued idiocy, a sperm can never, ever become anything other than what it is alone. Not only that, it will cease to exist rather quickly.

Try this on for size, it'll do for a start till you get enrolled in a class somewhere.
Discovery Health "How Sex Works"

They're the definitions you provided. It specifically refers to "organisms," not species. The sixth point does have the "successive generations" modifier, but this only modifies the sixth point, not the fifth one (reproduction). If those are the bare requirements for life, then sterile men are not living organisms.

Maybe you should come up with a real source instead of making shit up.