Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Brent:
You think that at conception a baby is two cells and it does not have everything any other human being has. My assertion is correct unless you have another source for everything the baby will have other than those two cells (plus time and nutrition).
You think some cells separating off to become the placenta is not "just growth". I wonder how you figure that. Do you think the placenta is not something those two cells produced?
You think that:
The fertilised egg is not a baby. It is two cells.
The fertilised egg is alive.
The fertilised egg is human.
However, the fertilised egg is not a human being.I'm happy to see that acceptance of my statements of fact is starting to shine through, yet you have no support for these additions to the facts except for issues related to size and your inability to recognise things.
You think that if a baby at conception is a human then a hair on your head is a human. Why would you think that? How are you able to tell the difference between humans and something with human tissue at any stage of a person's life?
-
It seems I have to once again explain that my use of the term, "baby" is not what you guys need to argue against. I know you do not like my terminology. The facts I refer to are that the baby (translate the word in your mind if you must) is alive and human. Those facts are indisputable and nobody is prepared to put their money on the line in order to dispute them. Russel and Linger, I am utterly correct in my usage of alive and human. If you wish to argue against what I hold as indisputable fact then you have to argue against life and humanity. I haven't supported my opinion that at conception we have a baby so, even though you do not like my opinion, arguing that it is not supported is not something I am going to defend myself against here. So are you going to debate what I have said or are you going to debate what you wish I had said?
-
Linger, do you have to let it? :chuckle:
No.
Which question was that an answer to? :)
Actually, I would like to suggest that your use of the terms "human", "alive", "baby", and (in other posts) "person" and the personal pronoun "he" is unhelpful for any debate because such a framing already assumes your particular opinion is true. (Use of "he" makes other unwarranted assumptions as well, but let's ignore that.)
I know. I believe what I say to be true. If you had good reasons why what I say is not true then I might consider rephrasing. Let's see what you've got .. :)
Your questions above seem irrelevant to the argument because (i) "a baby" does not exist in any actual sense, but only in potentiality, at conception (for many reasons that have already been pointed out by others here).
"Many reasons"? The reasons I've had given boil down to issues of size, appearance and location. Do not believe that I did not understand the responses I have gotten.
Did you have any relevant reasons?
The fact is that at conception there is a baby present. The fact is that baby is too small to be see and too well protected to be easily studied. The fact is that baby is alive. The fact is that baby is human. If your answer above, "No", was in response to those questions of life and humanity then you are seriously misguided!
(ii) in any case, "human" or "alive" do not mean the same as "a person" or "an individual" -- which is surely what should count more when we have to start comparing competing rights of individuals.
That's an interesting position to hold! I believe that the terms human being, person, human and individual can all refer to the same entities (namely, you and me). I also understand that sometimes those terms can be used to refer to things that aren't human.
But for the record I haven't claimed that because a baby is alive and human that he is a person. I do believe that to be so, but I haven't yet discussed the notion given how very stickly and prickly people are being in response to the very simple and obviously true statement that at conception a baby is alive and human.
And in response to your view on what are human rights - I do not believe that any human has rights that compete with another's. I understand that at times people are asked to surrender their rights and that sometimes people oppress others, but at no stage do rights have to "compete".
Human beings have the right to life. No human being has the right to unjustifiably end another human life.
There are very different emphases involved here.
"Human" could be merely genetic or biological. If you want to take that definition, then, OK, the cell resulting from conception is genetically human.WHAAAAAAIIIIT a minute! AGREEMENT!
I'd hug you if I had hands! :)
I'll settle for a glass of something. Thanks. You've made my day :)
But then, so is a corpse; so that doesn't win the argument. (Which puts the focus back on defining "alive" -- for which, see others' previous posts on viruses.)
Sure. I'm not arguing the argument that says corpses are alive and human or viruses are alive and human though. So I'm on fairly safe ground, right?
The conceptus is only potentially a human (note the article, it makes a huge difference) in any other meaningful sense.
Aw :( That didn't last long.
Potentially human? What does that mean? What is a baby before he is human?
As others have mentioned, it is still only *potentially* a single individual (as it can split into twins). (You responded by claiming these were "humans that could clone themselves"; but it would be just as easy to conclude that "humans cannot clone themselves, therefore this entity is not human".)
Well, sure. You could conclude that. But you'd be ignoring the fact that at conception a baby is alive and human...
"Person" or "individual" implies some capacity for conscious thought or decision-making; "personhood" also implies some self-awareness.
Sure. We all have that, don't we?
These qualities are difficult to quantify, and their development is (as many others here have pointed out) a long and gradual process. It seems certain, though, that these qualities are not present, at all, at conception. This is why it is possible to claim that "human life" -- in the sense that we experience it -- does not begin at this point.
OK. I think I understand your position. You have an understanding that not all things are quantifiable and measurable. I agree. It is impossible to determine by the use of science what is self aware and where the consciousness is seated. But I think you have jumped onto the wrong side of the balance when you insist this means babies at conception do not have the capacity for self awareness or consciousness.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe, as I have guessed, that awareness and consciousness are the products of the immaterial (a "soul" to speak in the vernacular) or do you believe all those things to be the product of solely material things?
And let me mark this question (point, whatever)...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...as the place where this discussion has advanced from questions over the life and humanity of a baby at conception to questions over the nature of that life and humanity.
I'm just going to hold onto that moment back there when we were in agreement and extend the sense of comradeship to any who will accept it :)
Unfortunately, the concept of "rights of all individual people" is in practice often labelled as "human rights"; this is regrettably misleading, and a large part of the reason that even open, rational people tend to talk past each other is the difference in emphasis between those terms.
And, unfortunately, I don't know what you're talking about here :)
I believe all humans have the right to life.
What other rights do you recognise as being for all individuals?
-
Davida. Yes, I have considered, many times in fact, that the majority might be right and I wrong. What's your point?
-
B Jones from Wellington! Why would you expect me to be against choice? The very reason that I share is based on the chance that people might be persuaded to choose right over wrong.
-
Islander. I've been called a lot of things, but I've never been called "__inorganic toxic sludge__" before. Congratulations on being the first :)
-
Grant There's a simple way to solve this. How do you feel about Democracy? If there was a referendum held tomorrow in which Kiwis were asked if they preferred to maintain the status quo on the availability of abortions or if they should be much harder to obtain which way do you think the outcome would go? Would you have a problem with that?
What a bizarre sense of solution you have! Democracy has already decided that babies can be terminated and I have a problem with that. Shouldn't it be obvious what my response will be?
Do you agree or remain silent about every decision that gets made?
-
Oh.
Russel. I have been nothing but perfectly reasonable and nothing I have said might possibly be construed as any form of attack on another person. I'm sorry you don't like what I have to say. I think it's really sad that you would delete posts and be vulgar in response to me. But, as you rightly suggest, it is 'your house'. I'll not deny your right to delete as you see fit.
-
Just to make my position perfectly clear (and in response to Matty Poole) I am stubborn on what I believe to be indisputable fact. I'd love it if people would find it in themselves to agree with the truth of the matter. The facts are that at conception a baby is alive and human.
I am trying to give up my trolling ways :)
-
There is no difference between a human and a person!