What you call "the soul" seems to be the mind. If such is the case, then we know exactly where in the body "the soul" is - the cortex of the brain. You could cut off my arm and that isn't me, or my legs and that isn't me, you could cut off my heart (or replace it with a machine) and it isnt me, but destroy the brain, and the body becomes just an empty shell. That IS me. Read on a bit.
I guess if your life is so inconsequential that you leave no descendants, make absolutely no mental impression or make absolutely no contribution to humanity then, that would be true. Not many folks can claim such total anonymity. Congratulations...
Of course they would. Since actions are what define us to most people the consequence of those actions will live on along with your genes (if you procreate). What's more, you are connected genetically to every other human being on the face of the Earth. You came into this world as a unique entity made up of many other unique entities. We all did. What we do here will depend on how our memory, spirit and soul live on after we shed our mortal parts.
It can be described as other things as well. Sry been doing a lot of work this week (moving friend into other house, fixing rental house ect.) So I was very tired the consequence of which is sad debating .I am to stubborn to back down though, and last time I did that, the person just told me I had lost and was cowering. So I staid awake late and made bad posts at day . Now to answer your questions and statements. According to one of your statements you define a human or consciousness as having "brain waves" arguing this case on substance such as DNA, brain waves, and certain cells cannot make progress. Since we cannot make a basis of life on the material. You want to base life on brain waves or heart beats ect. The problem is that those things important as they are do not define life. Here is an example while you could cut off my arm that isn't ,me cut of my legs that isn't me eventually you'll get me. Nevertheless my body is just the house I live in. What makes my body run? My brain? Well then what runs that? The problem is that eventually there has to be an infinity somewhere. That is where I would put the soul which never dies. I believe that the soul is what gives personality, emotion (influenced by the state of the body), ect. what I was discussing earlier was the consciousness of man. His self awareness. Locke wrote about this, that it was added to the commonly thought of body and soul. He thought that the soul was only what allowed the body its life, that indeed if my soul were in your body you would have your memories still. If my consciousness were in your body you would indeed have my memories and be me. I do not entirely agree putting consciousness in with a part of the soul. All together this is a very complicated topic. The end result comes down to beliefs instead of facts , infinity and the finite. Things which can never be proven only believed.
No We do not need specific lines because we know what the founders meant because we know where their thinking came from and what they were trying to do. One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to create freedoms that a mass of religious zeolots could not randomly take away by citing religion. The inquisition and all its trappings had ended not to long ago so the crackpot thinking that led to such atrocities was foremost on the minds of the founders. It is not losing cells .. the entire blastocyst never becomes part of the human. It is a hollow sphere inside of which the embroblast will form. It is the cells of the embryoblast which compose the structure of the born human. The point here is that up until these embryoblast cells start to form .. not a single cell of the born human exists. The cells of the embryoblast are different from the blastocyst cells in that they are differentiated (heart skin liver and so forth) / not totipotent. The totipotent blastocyst cells can produce any type of cell .. or an entire human. There are few things that we are 99.999 percent sure of but laws are made anyway. The argument is not that a woman's rights should take priority over "another". The argument here is that "there is no another". Society does not function on the basis of "unsure truths". I could list off 10 "unsure truths" .. things that can not be proven wrong 100% "Killing is good, unclean races pollute the species", and so on. Prove it wrong ( I could probably come up with better arguments, and many have, to support those rediculous statements that can be given for the personhood of a zygote ) It would be absurd to make laws on the basis of "it might be so". It might be so .. that men are inferior to women such that they should not be allowed to vote or run for political office. The whole debate centers around whether or not the zygote is a person so to claim the zygote "is" a person is fallacy. There is no valid proof that that the statement "a zygote is a person" is correct.
Well I think you have given an interesting argument here. Hard one to solve to. Your entire argument hangs on the basis that you do not want to take a woman's rights from her. Very understandable. That is the very point of this argument. Other wise you have no need for an abortion. The reason an abortion is an option because it is inconvenient (this can mean any number of things) so the objective on my part is to prove that her rights are none existent, or that her rights are not as important as the other persons which I believe exists at that time of abortion. She has no more rights after she chose to have sex. In the case of rape it is the fault of the rapist and he should be rightfully punished for having taken her rights away. I believe a life exists at the time. I can not prove this to be correct other than the fact that the zygote does indeed "grow" and make actions. I can't be proven wrong either. There may in fact be no human at these points of time. Killing is wrong. Simple statement, simple logic. Now there are those people who oh you know... Finally you have so far made no statements or arguments on how an abortion (the topic at hand) would occur at the times listed. Abortions don't occur at these times of pregnancy anyway. P.S. Gosh I have gone back over this debate and really wondered where my brain is. <-- at myself I feel like I have been doing this for a week. I have been clueless many times as to how I got myself looped around in circles. (yes this is a complement)
The primary purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government over The People. With that comes freedom of religion which is only free because of the prohibition of a State Church. Yet without that process a human will not be created. Abortion kills that life process. Saying it's not a human being, not a human life or that no cell in it will be part of a human being is a cop out. Another cop out. No other what? There certainly is genetic material not unique to the woman but to the 'other' that inseminated her. Strawman The debate SHOULD be "Is killing a developing human life moral?"
Morality has always been what ever helps the tribe to survive. When abortion was passed by the supreme court America was still 75% white. It's about white genocide. The tribe says it's own genocide is immoral. "BOB'S MANTRA "Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries." "The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them." "Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites." "What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?" "How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?" "And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?" "But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews." "They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white." "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white." Bob Whitaker
The O.P. has advocated POST BIRTH ABORTION. Is there really any chance of logical, meaningful debate? No, there is not.....
Got an ego, don't you little buddy? You aren't going to settle anything..this is way above your ability.. Have a good day..
I agree with you that abortion terminates/kills a life process that is necessary for the creation of a human being. How does a process that is creating a human being = a human being. Giving valid evidence to support my claim is not a cop out. The cop out here is claiming that a process of creation = a human and providing no support. The claim was that a womans rights should not trump the rights of another person. In the case of the zygote it can not be shown that another person exists so there is no other person. If you are going to claim strawman then state why. It is unclear what that statement means so I think it is a terrible way to phrase the debate. What is meant by "a developing human life" ? Every human cell is "developing human life" and none of these are considered human beings. The word human is not even the noun in that phrase .. it is an adjective that is describing the type of life that is developing. What does "developing" have to do with whether or not something is a human being ?
Is killing a human cell moral ? I supposed one could claim that killing a human heart cell was not moral ... after all it is "a developing human life". Many claim that killing any life is not moral. None of this addresses the issue at hand - which is coming up with some valid support for the claim that a zygote is a human being.
It WILL equal a human being if not killed and it is human life. Why is it morally OK to kill it? Moreover, do you think it's morally OK to engage in a sexual activity specifically designed to create human life and then kill it before it has a chance to develop? What kind of thinking is that? How is it that you are not sure that conception starts the development of a unique human being and that ripping an embryo from the womb effectively kills that unique human life? I never posted about 'women's rights' that's nothing more than a mantra used by feminazis to somehow rationalize the killing of developing human life. A zygote isn't available for abortion anyway until it attaches to the endometrium as a blastocyst which is several developmental stages PAST a zygote. Pro-aborters like to use 'zygote' or 'zef' because the word downplays the development therefore makes it easier for the mind-numbed brainwashed to accept the killing of it. Because there is no such thing as an 'unsure truth' that is oxymoronic at best and a pro-aborter lie at worst. The debate is about ABORTION which is the KILLING of a DEVELOPING HUMAN LIFE. How is that not clear to you? In the context of this discussion (which is about abortion, sexual reproduction etc.) why would you bring 'every human cell' into it if not to downplay the act of killing a developing human embryo? Well it's not going to develop into a DOG is it? Straw man. I am addressing the morality of killing an 'unwanted' embryo for convenience sake AFTER having non committed procreational sex. BTW if an embryo had no chance of becoming a human being, then what is the need for an abortion in the first place?
The zygote "might" create something that equal's a human being so long nothing happens along the way but, the zygote is not a human being and nor does it equal one. A heart cell "might" create a heart heart in the future but a heart cell is not a heart. A zygote will "never" equal a human being. It is the creation of the zygote that will equal a human being. I never said this. Exactly .. this is why it is not a true statement to say that the zygote is a human being. You are confused as to who is the liar. This is the "anti-aborter lie. I gave you the reasons why this statment is obfuscative but regardless. "A developing human life" is not a human. The zygote is a human cell and you are trying to equate a human cell to a human. So far you have not validated this claim. No one said a zygote would develop into a dog ? The adjective "human" applies to all kinds of things that are not human beings. Clearly you are do not understand what a "straw man" is. Your claim above "well its not a Dog" is a straw man because it does not address or refute my argument. Who cares if the zygote is not a Dog ? The claim is that you have not supported your claim that a zygote is a human being. The support you give is that " its a developing human life". I claim that being a developing human life does not equal a human because of 1) all human life forms are not human beings 2) all human life forms that are developing are not human beings. 1 and 2 are not "straw men" because both directly address your claim and your support to that claim. Saying "its not a Dog" does in any way shape or form address my refutation to your claim and therefor constitutes a straw man. 1) we are discussing the zygote 2) a zygote does not have a chance at becomming a human being. There is only the potential for the zygote to create a human being. 3) The purpose of abortion is to stop the process of creation to prevent the creation of a human being.
The creation of a human being is a process. No one claimed that a zygote was a process. Your usage of the term "being" can be applied to any human life form such as a heart cell, liver cell or zygote cell and none of these are human beings.
A human zygote is specifically designed to create a HUMAN BEING through the process of mitosis. Will you please stop with the 'human being' BS? How many times do I have to educate you? A zygote is a DEVELOPING human life. A heart cell is not a zygote, the thread is not about hearts. I swear..can you just cease and desist with trying to change the discussion? OK so you agree that killing an embryo is killing a developing human life. Please provide a quote from me where I EVER said a zygote is a human being. Stop lying. Well....YOU are the one that tried to float the 'unsure truth' oxymoron. Now I must surely castigate you for your apparent lack of attention, respect and comprehension of this discussion. How many times are you going to lie about what I wrote? Gee EXCUSE ME for trying to 'equate a human cell to a human'....We are MADE UP of human cells. Besides, I never said a human cell was a human being that is YOU lying once again about what I wrote. Why should I validate a claim I NEVER MADE!!!! I 'aborted' the rest of your post because I grow weary of constantly correcting you and having to drag the discussion back to reality. I guess your guilt is such that you cannot bring yourself to say a zygote is a developing human life. So be it. Just stop lying about what others write will ya?
You are the one that keeps using the term "developing human life". If this thread not about "all developing human life" then quit using the term and refer specifically to what you are talking about. The fact that a zygote is developing human life no more meaningful than the fact that a heart cell is developing human life. As such saying "zygote is developing human life" is not support for the claim that a zygote should have rights. If this was true then we should give heart cells rights as well. There is more to your argument however, The zygote is not only "developing human life" .. it is specifically designed to create a human. OK .. I agree. A zygote is designed to create a human. Now this is a more interesting argument. It can not be said that a heart cell is designed to create a whole human .. it is only designed to create part of a human. Please note that I did not make the stupid argument (a heart cell creates human life) which is akin to many similarly flawed anti abort arguments that use the term "human" as an adjective. So .. I agree that you have come up with an interesting argument but this argument is not complete. It is just a statement of fact. How does something (designed to create a human) = a human How is being designed to create a human a sufficient condition such that rights, including the right to life, should be granted.
Your problem is with false terminology either knowingly and deviously used by you or ignorantly used by you. A zygote is not available for abortion in the first place. Calling abortion the removal of a zygote or 'zef' (whatever that means) is misleading and meant to minimize the impact of an abortion. You are either purposely misleading or have bought the pro-aborter propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Balderdash .. what terminology have I used that is false. It is you that uses obfuscative terminology as I pointed out numerous times. Quit accusing me of that which you are doing .. especially when you provide no evidence for your claim. What false terminology have I used ? The status of the zef is where the abortion debate begins .. Period. If you are willing to cede that the Zef is not a human being and therfor does not have the right to life of a human being then we can move on in the debate. So far you have ceded that the zef is not a human being but you still claim it has rights on the basis of "Potential". What difference does it make if we are discussing the potential of the zef .. or the potential of that which comes after ??. You still have to figure out a way to put a value on that potential in order to make your cast that indeed potential does have value such that rights should be accorded on the basis of this potential.
Apparently you also have trouble comprehending the written word. Did you even read my post? As I already told you and have said many times in these abortion discussions which you have parcipated in, 'zef' or 'zygote' is not AVAILABLE for an abortion procedure. BTW a 'zef' is a gentle gust of wind and has absolutely nothing to do with the human reproductive system except to be used by fanatic pro-aborters in order to minimize the horrendous procedure of abortion. Again you are off track, I have ceded nothing. A zygote is not available for abortion (as I again remind you) so your whole premise is moot. So there is no value in an embryo? Apparently women disagree with your POV. "LIFE asked 96 women in a follow-up survey whether they would have gone through with the abortion had they known the medical and emotional problems abortions can cause. Sixty-four of the women answered no and most very emphatically. Virtually all of the women said that women considering abortions should be given more information on potential problems." http://www.lifenews.com/2006/09/12/nat-2579/ How about you ask these folks?
