Name something good religion has caused

I then went even further and stated how they are used in the fallacy that a cancer is just as "human" as the entire organism of a fetus. One is 'a human life' the other just has an origin that is human but could never be described as 'a human'.

Then all he is doing is using the term human to mean a human being, and claiming that because something is human (of human) and living, it must be a human being.

This is circumventing the entire argument by simply stating that a living human IS a human being, when the term human being is used to define something more than simply something 'of human' and living.

You define a fetus as being an 'entire organism', yet it could be argued that the fetus isn't entire or complete. It's attachment to it's host could be described in a similar way to a toenail to its host.
 
No. anyone who denies what words mean, or invents new and fraudulent concepts on the fly in childish and stupid. Follow along.

Well that makes most of the philosophers throughout history childish and stupid. For example, Kant invented many new concepts and terms. Was Kant childish and stupid?

And again, you act as if definitions are fixed, not by mutual agreement, and that definitions of a word can change according to context?

By the way, I have invented no new concepts here....
 
AnyOldIron said:
I then went even further and stated how they are used in the fallacy that a cancer is just as "human" as the entire organism of a fetus. One is 'a human life' the other just has an origin that is human but could never be described as 'a human'.

Then all he is doing is using the term human to mean a human being, and claiming that because something is human (of human) and living, it must be a human being.

This is circumventing the entire argument by simply stating that a living human IS a human being, when the term human being is used to define something more than simply something 'of human' and living.

You define a fetus as being an 'entire organism', yet it could be argued that the fetus isn't entire or complete. It's attachment to it's host could be described in a similar way to a toenail to its host.
Click to expand...
No, it couldn't. The toenail does not have its own DNA distinction, no heart, no brain, it is not an organism, and is in fact dead tissue.

While it is human in origin it is not an organism at all, not even living.

Much like a fertilized egg could not survive without the chicken who laid it before we were able to create incubators for them, the fact that the fetus is in need of a more complex incubator doesn't change that it is a separate organism from the "host". Internal incubation doesn't change that it is one step in the development of an entirely separate organism.

It isn't an extension of the human who is incubating the organism, it is just reliant on them for sustenance, just as it will be after birth.
 
AnyOldIron said:
I then went even further and stated how they are used in the fallacy that a cancer is just as "human" as the entire organism of a fetus. One is 'a human life' the other just has an origin that is human but could never be described as 'a human'.

Then all he is doing is using the term human to mean a human being, and claiming that because something is human (of human) and living, it must be a human being.

This is circumventing the entire argument by simply stating that a living human IS a human being, when the term human being is used to define something more than simply something 'of human' and living.

You define a fetus as being an 'entire organism', yet it could be argued that the fetus isn't entire or complete. It's attachment to it's host could be described in a similar way to a toenail to its host.
Click to expand...

A human (noun) is a human being. You're using the adjectival form to describe a body part, and saying that's the same as the nounal form. It's not. The nounal form is synonymous with human being. You're a retard.
 
So your definition of what makes a human being is its own distinct DNA and organs?

Much like a fertilized egg could not survive without the chicken who laid it before we were able to create incubators for them, the fact that the fetus is in need of a more complex incubator doesn't change that it is a separate organism from the "host". Internal incubation doesn't change that it is one step in the development of that organism.

Is a fertilized egg, a chicken?

And how can something be described as a seperate organism when it is physically attached to, and cannot survive without, its host? It isn't seperate, it is attached.
 
AnyOldIron said:
So your definition of what makes a human being is its own distinct DNA and organs?

Much like a fertilized egg could not survive without the chicken who laid it before we were able to create incubators for them, the fact that the fetus is in need of a more complex incubator doesn't change that it is a separate organism from the "host". Internal incubation doesn't change that it is one step in the development of that organism.

Is a fertilized egg, a chicken?

And how can something be described as a seperate organism when it is physically attached to, and cannot survive without, its host? It isn't seperate, it is attached.
Click to expand...


Have you ever heard of a parasite? they're attached, yet considered separate organisms. You suck at science.
 
AnyOldIron said:
So your definition of what makes a human being is its own distinct DNA and organs?

Much like a fertilized egg could not survive without the chicken who laid it before we were able to create incubators for them, the fact that the fetus is in need of a more complex incubator doesn't change that it is a separate organism from the "host". Internal incubation doesn't change that it is one step in the development of that organism.

Is a fertilized egg, a chicken?

And how can something be described as a seperate organism when it is physically attached to, and cannot survive without, its host? It isn't seperate, it is attached.
Click to expand...
It is one of the stages of the life of a Chicken. It is no other form of organism.

It is separate in placement as well as defined by the DNA. One could remove that fetus from the mother and place it in another "host" and it could survive. And once we have the know-how, we will be able to remove it and incubate it separately without a "host".

It doesn't grow "from" the mother as a toenail does, or cancer would, it grows "within" the mother separately attached solely by a feeding tube.

It would be like defining somebody, who otherwise was still functioning, as part of the machine that kept them alive. Dialysis would suddenly define that person as different than "human" because they had the need of that machine to survive. Or somebody in need of a feeding tube, let's say for a broken jaw, would be that feeding machine because they needed that machine to live.
 
It is one of the stages of the life of a Chicken. It is no other form of organism.

And a fetus is one of the stages of the life of a human being. But just as an egg is not a chicken, a fetus isn't a human being. It is a human symbiant....
 
AnyOldIron said:
It is one of the stages of the life of a Chicken. It is no other form of organism.

And a fetus is one of the stages of the life of a human being. But just as an egg is not a chicken, a fetus isn't a human being. It is a human symbiant....
Click to expand...
I believe you are speaking of a zygote, not a fetus. The fetus has developed organs, brain, etc. The zygote is also one stage of a human's life.

Saying that stages define the organism is foolish. This would be like saying when one is a tweener, because it is a stage of life, they are not human. Humans would never become 'human' using this criteria, as each stage of life is named.

The egg is not the chicken, the organism inside it is. Just as the mother is not the fetus, or in later times, the fetus incubating inside a machine is not the machine. In each case, they are incubated inside a machine, one just happens to have meat wrappings and be in a different stage of human development.
 
This is basically an argument about what defines a human being.

You define it as an entity with its own human DNA, yet I would describe this as simply human. The capabilities that define a human being, IMO, are a little more complex, and as for the notion of rights, this is even more complex...

Finished for today, getting late, will pick this up monday Damo...
 
AnyOldIron said:
This is basically an argument about what defines a human being.

You define it as an entity with its own human DNA, yet I would describe this as simply human. The capabilities that define a human being, IMO, are a little more complex, and as for the notion of rights, this is even more complex...

Finished for today, getting late, will pick this up monday Damo...
Click to expand...
That's cool.
 
AnyOldIron said:
This is basically an argument about what defines a human being.

You define it as an entity with its own human DNA, yet I would describe this as simply human. The capabilities that define a human being, IMO, are a little more complex, and as for the notion of rights, this is even more complex...

Finished for today, getting late, will pick this up monday Damo...
Click to expand...
Have a great weekend. I assume you're already counting down the days to the post-Poodle era. :)

I absolutely refuse to get sucked into another abortion debate . . . BUT I have to add that AOI's once again gotten it exactly right. This is yet another disingenuous use of the ambiguities of natural language. "Human being" is a phrase with multiple meanings. A better choice for this debate would be "person."
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Have a great weekend. I assume you're already counting down the days to the post-Poodle era. :)

I absolutely refuse to get sucked into another abortion debate . . . BUT I have to add that AOI's once again gotten it exactly right. This is yet another disingenuous use of the ambiguities of natural language. "Human being" is a phrase with multiple meanings. A better choice for this debate would be "person."
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I was going to go into a long-winded description of what I perceive as a difference between 'a human life' and 'a human being'. I believe that there is a distinction between those. 'Person' would be another way I would define 'a human being' while 'a human life' can be at a stage where it has yet to be a 'person' or 'a human being'. But I felt I would wait for AOI's return rather than write it all now.
 
Damocles said:
It depends on your context. If you are brain dead must we be forced to keep your body alive on the pretext that it is human?
Click to expand...

But in the case of a fetus developing normally, can it be killed because someone determines it's brain waves make it a human and not a person? though it's nearly 100% likely it's brainwaves WILL be sufficient at a later date to elevate it to PERSON status, can you kill it because you're calling it a human and not a person? These artificially constructed terms are being invented to justify murder.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But in the case of a fetus developing normally, can it be killed because someone determines it's brain waves make it a human and not a person? though it's nearly 100% likely it's brainwaves WILL be sufficient at a later date to elevate it to PERSON status, can you kill it because you're calling it a human and not a person? These artificially constructed terms are being invented to justify murder.
Click to expand...
Now we are speaking to potential as well. If one becomes brain dead there is no chance of return. In the case of the fetus the death of innocent potential is, IMO, a travesty or a tragedy. In every one of our cases we were at that point, given a chance to thrive so too would that human life exceed all current limitations.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
That's because you're a bigot and chauvinist. To say nothing of being closed-minded.

:gives:
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself, you anti-human monster who can't argue his way out of a sack.

If open minded means, "forgetting what words mean when I don't want to admit an obviously correct conclusion, even though I use that definition in other situations" I want to stay close minded.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top