Subject:
|
Re: How to start a fire.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:55:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1986 times
|
| |
|
|
> > Once the cell mass has a heartbeat (which occurs after about 21 days) it is
> > distinctly human. Prior to that the cell mass could technically become
> > anything.
>
> So you're in favor of embryonic stem-cell research?
Yes. I also have no problem with someone taking the "after morning" pill within
the first 2 weeks. (If someone waits longer than that it is their choice and
they should deal with the consequeces of their choice.)
> That's a tangential point (purely for my own curiosity) but it meshes nicely >with your overall argument.
> Anyway, why is a heartbeat the deciding factor?
It is a trailing indicator that the embryo is now a fetus and therefore has
distinct human characteristics. (Mini biology lesson: All animal embryos are
virtually identical. Only when the embryo delvelopes into a fetus does it take
the characteristics of its parent speices. i.e. limb placement, organ placement,
etc.)
> What distinct difference exists between pre-heartbeat and post-heartbeat,
> other than the heartbeat itself? Is a heartbeat the primary determinor of
> human life? What if the heart stops afterwards--is the person no longer a
> person? What if the heart is only kept beating via external technological
> aid? I should admit for the sake of good humor that I kept typing
> "heartbeet," which sounds like somekind of NewAge vegetable.
Well chevy trucks are the "heartbeat of America" but I don't think those are New
Age or vegetables. :-)
>
> > Not if it is known that the person will recover, or as should be the in >>case of a child, that it will be born.
>
> Careful, that's a straw man, too. I've been using the term "fetus" to
> describe an as-yet-unborn individual.
"Fetus" is simply the scientific term for an unborn animal. (including humans)
> If you refer instead to a child
> as-yet-unborn, then that's not my argument, and I don't have to support it.
> Anyway, there is no certainty whatsoever that a viable birth will occur, >even with today's medicine.
The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it.
> If you're willing to accept the likelihood that the
> birth will occur, then you must accept the likelihood that a vegetative
> person will not recover, and therefore that the death of the vegetative person
> (a "former" person as much as an embryo is a "pre" person) is acceptable.
If there was anywhere near the chance of that of a child being born, that a
vegetative person would "wake up" I doubt anyone would pull the plug.
>
> > Beliving people must live with the consequences of thier own choices,
> > including the consequence of having sex, is a circular straw man?
>
> No. Calling the termination of an embryo "murder" is equivalent to
> assuming the conclusion of your argument. We are disputing whether an
> embryo/cell mass qualifies a person, and therefore whether the termination of
> that embryo/cell mass qualifies as murder.
No were debating whether killing a fetus is murder.
> Your claim of "Murder to avoid inconvenience..." simply assumes the conclusion
> without proving it. Therefore, the statement is circular.
> Besides which, I'm not making any claims of responsibility re: sex, so
> you're attacking a straw man by requiring me to argue that point as if it were
> mine.
But it is. You do not belive that a fetus is a child whereas I do. I think that
is the crux of the argument.
> I would instead say that people who choose to terminate an embryo have chosen
> to take responsibility for the consequences of having sex. The fact that
> their choice is unpalatable to you is not relevant.
Murder is not a legitimate choice for they have imposed their will on an
innocent life.
>
> Besides which, you have at least several times advocated murder to avoid
> inconvenience:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=15479
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17509
>
> Do you no longer advocate such murders of convenience?
Murder is defined as the killing of an innocent. Killing someone who is not
innocent (i.e. criminals) is not murder.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: How to start a fire.
|
| (...) So you're in favor of embryonic stem-cell research? That's a tangential point (purely for my own curiosity) but it meshes nicely with your overall argument. Anyway, why is a heartbeat the deciding factor? What distinct difference exists (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
