"The brain hasn't turned on yet, so it's okay to kill"

so if I need your kidney or I will die, should the government be able to force you to give it to me, or should they let you kill me?

 

nope, you would still be the one doing it, but be neat if you could

 

I'm tired of you repeatedly bringing up things like that we've already extensively discussed numerous times in other threads. You keep doing this again and again.

I'll give you a cut & paste response from another thread:

It would be like if that person had caused a terrible automotive accident, and now their victims needed a life-sustaining blood transplant to remain alive.
That person caused the situation.
It's not like a random person being forced to donate.
Not only that, but pregnancy is 100% natural and a bone marrow transplant isn't.
Pregnancy (usually) doesn't require any surgical procedures. The woman is not giving up a permanent part of her body, just a few nutrients.
​

FreshAir, if you want to talk about other things, START another thread.
You're welcome to link to it here, if you want.

 

Legal death is when brain wave activity ceases.

 

Okay, so it's not okay to kill your body if your soul has temporarily left your body and is going to be going back in your body at some point in the future.

Do I understand you correctly?

 

If only pro-choicers would use that same metric when it came to abortion...


Fetal EEGs: Signals from the Dawn of Life - Charlotte Lozier Institute

 

That had been one of the criteria. Which is why 12 weeks was one of the standards.
A brain, turned off(your words) has no brain wave activity.

 

Well, there are possible different metrics of what constitutes "on".

A few different levels.

Obviously very young fetuses have electrical activity in their brains. That may not be enough for pro-choicers to constitute their brains having been "turned on" yet.

I'm assuming that the argument is that certain critical parts of their brain have not been "turned on" yet; or that even if the brain structures are there, a few connections haven't been formed yet that would be needed for these structures to fully work.

 

Yeah, let's ignore rape which is very relevant to the topic of abortion and instead focus on what really matters such as "souls" and "astral projection".

 

Yeah but this thread isn't about "abortion in general".

Nice try at continued deflection. Do you want to talk about fetal brains now?

That is sort of on topic to this thread. More on topic than talking about rape.

The specific issue I was trying to point out with that was one of potentiality. You can talk about the brain not having been turned on yet, or the soul not having entered the body yet, but those two are sort of two sides to the same coin, philosophically speaking.
(The arguments are pretty similar, even if we are talking about two different things)

 

"Preborn babies" (lmao) have no rights until they are "post-born".

Very easy.

 

Sure. What happens in those instances where a fetus' brain starts developing outside its body?

 

What percent of abortions does that happen in?

 

Alright, that's it. If "souls" and friggen "astral projection" is more relevant to a discussion about the legality of abortion than is rape there is really no reason at all to engage in conversation with you.

I can see you have taken up reading ever since I tried teaching you the difference between the potential and actual, but your learning is not going very well at all.

 

I explained to you how it sort of is.
I mean it's at least a little bit analogous to brain function, in terms of how the issue of potentiality is understood.
A fetus whose brain has not yet been turned on could sort of be seen a little bit the same way as a fetus whose soul has not yet entered its body. The specific argument I was focusing on could similarly apply to both.

I wasn't originally the one who brought up the comparison to soul & spirit. Another pro-choice member, FreshAir, was the one who did that. If you are complaining about the discussion in this thread drifting off topic, talk to her.

 

Look it up if it interests you so much.


I am not interested in such nu,bers, I am interested to hear your answer to the question I asked.

 

No, it is not even "sort of" relevant because souls definitely do not exist. Rape, however, is a real thing that actually exists.

In what way?

Souls do not exist!

Btw, isn't the Christian belief that the soul comes about at the moment of fertilisation?

 

I wasn't trying to convince those who do not believe in the existence of souls with that argument. If you don't believe there is such a thing as a soul, then just ignore it.

You don't seem to be able to realize that that post was made specifically in response to FreshAir, and possibly any other pro-choicers who might believe in the existence of souls.

I don't know why you Atheists suddenly freak out as much as you do at the slightest talk of souls. It was only one single post that was made in direct response to someone else's comment.

 

You don't seem to be able to have a very good understanding of what being on topic means.

If you'd like to talk about the type of issues brought up in the opening post, I'm happy to discuss them.

I suspect this thread is not going to go anywhere, because none of you want to talk about the type of issues in the opening post.

 

the whole abortion debate is tiring, but here we are again, people on the right trying to take away a woman's right to choose

 

it's not ok for you to remove someone soul and destroy their body... that was your example

 

That's because it means nothing...

If "brain function" started at conception it would be OK to kill the fetus....

If brain function is so important to you then have ZEFs taken out the second there's is "brain function" and let them grow on their own....afterall, if it can think it can take care of itself and develop on it's own..

 

I meant for example if your soul voluntarily left its body (astral projection, for example) but was planning to imminently return back into its body, and then someone else killed your body while your soul was on a little furlough somewhere else.

The question is: Do you have a right to your body even when your soul does not inhabit it yet?

I think the answer to that is an obvious yes, but you don't seem to like the implications of that answer.

 

Not even a baby or toddler can take care of itself and develop on it's own.

You do realize those are two different separate arguments, don't you?

We'll be focusing on the brain argument here in this thread, if you please.

 

Translation: "I know that abortion might be morally/ethically wrong but I don't really want to look at that because those mean old Righties will try to use that little fact to take away women's rights"