Troll a sincere prolifer.

Ben Kenobi · April 29, 2003, 17:14

Spiffor suggested that the discussion in the protest thread be moved to here.

The protest thread:
http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...threadid=84626

Quote:

What about killing germs? I mean, who knows we aren't wiping out a future evolutionary chain of intelligent, sentient beings.

-Sava

Quote:

Sperm and zygotes are "potential persons" in my eyes.

- Asher

That might work, except for the fact that I am arguing zygotes are not potential persons, but actual persons.
Asher, what justification do you have for classifying zygotes as potential persons? What makes them different from us?

Asher · April 29, 2003, 17:18

You are first considered a person when you're born, which is why we celebrate your birthdate and not your date of conception. IMHO, anyway.

I consider the zygotes and sperm as "potential persons" because they're both not persons yet. Sperm must be with an egg, and the fetus must be with the womb.

loinburger · April 29, 2003, 17:22

Those aren't very good trolls. Let me give it a shot...

"So, Obiwan, why do you hate women so much?

"

orange · April 29, 2003, 17:23

A Zygote can't live on its own without the host. Without this link, it cannot grow. Therefore, it is not living.

Spiffor · April 29, 2003, 17:23

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger
"So, Obiwan, why do you hate women so much?

"

Asher · April 29, 2003, 17:26

In the future can you hyphenate pro-life please? I keep reading it was "profiler"...

Az · April 29, 2003, 17:29

actually, in the life/choice arguement, I have lots of doubts.

For example, how do fetae (sp?) differ from people in coma on life support?

Quote:

In the future can you hyphenate pro-life please? I keep reading it was "profiler

I read it as a something that means that lately, there have been to many trolls on apolyton. The "pro-liferation" of trolls.

Hot Mustard · April 29, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
You are first considered a person when you're born, which is why we celebrate your birthdate and not your date of conception.

That seems rather arbitrary...

But wait, any point chosen is arbitrary, and usually only serves to aid the arguments of whomever chose it.

Question: Does not every person have free will? And hence a consequent ability to have opinions and make choices that may sometimes differ from your own?

If you accept that statement, then you should accept it always, regardless of context, and no matter what your own free will allowed your opinions and choices to be.

rah · April 29, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
In the future can you hyphenate pro-life please? I keep reading it was "profiler"...

Hmm, I did too.

Japher · April 29, 2003, 17:30

Quote:

In the future can you hyphenate pro-life please? I keep reading it was "profiler"...

me too, and I thought this thread would be interesting.

Az · April 29, 2003, 17:32

This IS an interesting thread.

Ben Kenobi · April 29, 2003, 17:32

loinburger:

Women are evil creatures created to tempt men into fallenness. Just ask Laz.

Quote:

In the future can you hyphenate pro-life please? I keep reading it was "profiler"...

Asher:

Duly noted.

Quote:

You are first considered a person when you're born, which is why we celebrate your birthdate and not your date of conception.

AFAIK the Chinese start from the date of conception. This is a societal quirk of the west.

Quote:

I consider the zygotes and sperm as "potential persons" because they're both not persons yet. Sperm must be with an egg, and the fetus must be with the womb.

Dependency is a poor criterion for personhood, since we are all, in some degree, dependent upon one another for survival.

Jules · April 29, 2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
A Zygote can't live on its own without the host. Without this link, it cannot grow. Therefore, it is not living.

Human beings cannot live on their own without the Biosphere. Without this link, they cannot grow. Therefore, they are not living.

Asher · April 29, 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by dejon
That seems rather arbitrary...

But wait, any point chosen is arbitrary, and usually only serves to aid the arguments of whomever chose it.

Question: Does not every person have free will? And hence a consequent ability to have opinions and make choices that may sometimes differ from your own?

A person does, a fetus/zygote doesn't. That's why there's a distinction.

Az · April 29, 2003, 17:34

Too much of a strech. Take my Coma example to suit your pov.

Btw, I am really undecided on this one.

Japher · April 29, 2003, 17:37

too tough of a question

I can't take it seriously

so, for now I will not post.

oops

Asher · April 29, 2003, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Dependency is a poor criterion for personhood, since we are all, in some degree, dependent upon one another for survival.

If you want to look at it like that, but it's different.

All I'm pointing out to you is that most pro-lifers have arbitarily chosen a zygote and classified it as a person, although the very same logic can classify sperm as a person as well.

Sperm is biologically dependant on the egg, a zygote is biologically dependent on its host, but an infant is not biologically dependent specifically on its mother. As long as its fed, etc. it'll be fine.

Az · April 29, 2003, 17:39

Pro-choicers have aribtrarily classified a person in a coma on life support being a person as well.

Ramo · April 29, 2003, 17:39

Well, you have to ask yourself, what is it about a person that warrants legal protection. I would argue that the qualifying property is sentience; that is, the complexity of their neural and nervous systems make legal protection warranted.

The idea that zygotes may become persons in the future, conditional upon many things, is not relevant to legal protection just as the idea that sperm or eggs may become persons in the future is not relevant to legal protection. Neither zygotes, nor sperm and ova have the neural and nervous sytems to warrant legal protection.

Elok · April 29, 2003, 17:40

If my parents kept track of my date of conception and celebrated it instead of my birthday, I would be VERY disturbed. ("We had some real good sex that night, son! Be proud!")
With that said, by dejon's argument I should be allowed to kick him in the crotch, steal his stuff, and rape his mother, all because, dang it all, I have free will. Honestly, that argument makes very little sense.
My argument always has been and always will be, "if it ain't a person now, it will be eventually, and you're killing the same thing either way." Pro-life. Yay.

Asher · April 29, 2003, 17:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Pro-choicers have aribtrarily classified a person in a coma on life support being a person as well.

A person in a coma is a person.

Ben Kenobi · April 29, 2003, 17:40

Quote:

For example, how do fetae (sp?) differ from people in coma on life support?

Azazel,

"unborn children."

I would argue that there are no significant differences between a person in a coma and an unborn child, with respect to personhood.

And I love your proliferation pun.

dejon:

Quote:

But wait, any point chosen is arbitrary, and usually only serves to aid the arguments of whomever chose it.

Not necessarily. Conception is rather special in that the union of a sperm and egg create a human being with all the genetic material that they need to live and grow.

Quote:

Question: Does not every person have free will? And hence a consequent ability to have opinions and make choices that may sometimes differ from your own?

All persons have the intrinsic capacity for free will. They may not currently be exercising their free will, but this does not disqualify them from personhood.

Quote:

If you accept that statement, then you should accept it always, regardless of context, and no matter what your own free will allowed your opinions and choices to be.

One person's rights end where another's begin. If the unborn child is a person, then we have a duty to respect the life, even if it means sacrifices by the society to do so.

Az · April 29, 2003, 17:41

EDIT: X-post.

Asher: a person with minimal neural activity is still a person? how so? he/she doesn't think, you know. And if we pull the plug on them, they'll die. What's the difference?

yavoon · April 29, 2003, 17:41

why not start at when the fetus gains sentience?

Ramo · April 29, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Pro-choicers have aribtrarily classified a person in a coma on life support being a person as well.

A comatose person has a functioning brain and nervous system. If you go to sleep, your brain doesn't shut off.

Asher · April 29, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
So, could anyone please reply to my coma example?

I don't see how it's at all relevant.
1) People can come out of comas
2) People in comas are not specifically biologically dependent on a host/another organism
3) People in comas have been shown to be able to hear and be aware of their surroundings at least some of the time
4) People in comas are already people, they're just sick
5) People in comas already have developed a brain and sentience, etc

Japher · April 29, 2003, 17:45

Quote:

If my parents kept track of my date of conception and celebrated it instead of my birthday, I would be VERY disturbed. ("We had some real good sex that night, son! Be proud!")

It would be worse if they dreaded that day!

Asher · April 29, 2003, 17:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
EDIT: X-post.

Asher: a person with minimal neural activity is still a person? how so? he/she doesn't think, you know. And if we pull the plug on them, they'll die. What's the difference?

I'm confused: You just said a person with minimal neural activity is still a person?

You just said he's a person and he's not a person.

And I'm also really unsure why you think they can't think -- haven't you heard of the cases where people in comas can hear and understand what goes on around them?

People are in comas because their body/brain is trying to heal itself. They are people, they're just sick people.

Az · April 29, 2003, 17:46

"Coma" was the wrong word. I mean the condition when people that have no neural activity, but that are not vegetable.

Asher · April 29, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
"Coma" was the wrong word. I mean the condition when people that have no neural activity, but that are not vegetable.

"Brain-dead" for lack of a better word?

Well that's an iffy situation, I really don't know enough about it to have an answer for you.