₦airaland Forum

CAPSLOCKED:
THIS MAN SHOULD BE RELEASED FROM POLICE CUSTODY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BECAUSE JUST LIKE FATHER ABRAHAM, SOMEONE WHO CONSIDERS KILLING HIS CHILD BECAUSE A CERTAIN VOICE TELLS HIM TO DO SO IS SOMEONE THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD ADMIRE AND FOLLOW.

I am not sure Father Abraham is an inspiration for our constitutional dictates, so the man is fucccked and rightly so.

LordReed:
Waiting, let's see how your position holds up to scrutiny.

No problem. though my arguments here pretty much tells anyone what they need to know about my position.

tintingz:
I've been asking same.

It will come, give it time. though my position is quite apparent going from my arguments here already.

tintingz:
So what state is the fetus when it has no brain nor consciousness?

It is alive. Just not conscious (in the sense of the brain) even though an argument can be made that it is in the sense that it possess a neural tube which eventually becomes the brain and spinal cord.

Death = Biological metabolism stops, Cellular degeneration and breakdown is in effect.

Fetus: metabolism in full swing, cellular generation in full effect.

These two stages are so different that it is mind buggling to not understand that.

(Stop conflating consciousness and life, hardly the same thing)

LordReed:
When are you going to provide your own position and justification? Or are you only interested in picking apart other peoples arguments?

I will eventually. But summary is; it is not morally permissible.

Give me time my boss.

Martinez19:
NB: read all my reply before replying.

There is no absurdity here. In the arguments below I am making use of my intended meaning of the word "human."

Ok. Let me let it pass because if i vex now, we die here today

My usage of the word "human" is not the strict scientific word and I made that clear when I said I wasn't using the biological classification of organisms(kingdom, phylum,..., genus & specie). The word human as I used it is just a point of development where termination of the life of an Homo Sapien is morally wrong. It that sense, a 26 year old is not more human than an embryo that has satisfied my condition.

Well, my argument was built on the premise of a scientific definition which i believe in an absolute. Homo = human.
And to get to the underlying premise on which murder is wrong, human must possess an objective definition or conceptually murder falls apart.

Didn't you see how i took Darkchild from saying it is morally ok to kill a fetus to saying it is morally ok to kill a new born, it is a logical loophole of arguing on a non absolute basis.

@ I agree and I said so.
@bold
On a closer look it is, my bad.

Well, ok then.

so if a soldier becomes a captain, he can become "more captain" because getting to being a captain is a stage? So if a chess player becomes a grandmaster, he can become "more grandmaster" because being a grandmaster follows a stage of elo rating? So if I become your president, I can become "more president" because being a president involved a process?

That line of thinking of your's is not always necessary for every classification. Look at my intended meaning of my word "human."

This is a blatant resort to false equivalence.

Army rank is a conceptual stage, in other words, it is abstract, doesn't exist - Imagined order or social myth if you will.

Using that to conjure up an analogy against a classification rooted in objective reality, is just

only if the embryo is that of Homo Sapien. Don't kill me with laughter. I made it clear, I think, that human embryo is what I considering. Your topic itself doesn't intuitively imply abortion of other animals

Exactly, what differentiates a human embryo from a pig's embryo is simply genetics, one is human, the other is not.

An adult pig and an adult human. See?

So, an embryo is not an isolated entity, you cannot say a human embryo is not human otherwise, you can tell us which specie it is.

Look at it like this; Human is a state of being (homo sapiens), embryo is a stage (out of many)

Human adult
human adolescent
human child
human baby
human fetus
human embryo

these are different stages but notice that only one thing remains constant? An adult is no more human than an adolescent, no stage is more human than the other, there are just different developmental stages of the same being

Do you understand that now?

once again, we are talking what stage a HUMAN embryo must get to before it is considered "human." Be sure to know my intended meaning of the word "human."

We need to understand that "human" as an objective reality connotes an absolute definition not subject to individual interpretations or it becomes arbitrary which it is not.

So, judge yourself

Okay I get. All cells are not equal and are technically alive but it's not immoral to burn a bunch of kidney cells and a bunch of brain cell, same for an embryo but when it satisfies my condition, it's still a cleavage of cells but it's now human and it's immoral to kill it. At any stage, a bunch of kidney or liver cells are not human so you can waste them when you want and the same for the embryo except when it has satisfied my condition. If it has not satisfied my condition, it's still remotely close to a kidney or liver cell.

NB: a Homo Sapien embryo is to be considered human(my intended meaning) once it has attained a heart that is pumping blood.

You are forgetting part where anybody who burns either you or i is burning a cluster of organs or cleavage of cells.

You are failing to understand that there is an inherent essence that distinguishes calling something a cleavage of cells or human.

tintingz:
What do we call a human with brain-dead? A living being?

Nope. A dead human.

And a fetus is not dead. You are conflating causality with correlation. It is a common mistake.

tintingz:
And how does this connect the dots?

There is no evidence yet Wether a fetus is alive or not but we know for sure a fetus at early stage of gestation has no brain or consciousness.

1. You still cannot define what a living thing is.

2. A fetus posses what we call a neural tube which is the motherbox for neuro development.

3. Brain or consciousness does not translate to "living thing" as we have seen above. Does not classify human or any animal.

This is still not helping your argument

MrPresident1:
It is equal to criminality. Its younger brother is called intellectual dishonesty.

The spirituality of a people is their highest point of mental evolution or civilization. When you willfully and deliberately pooh-pooh the spirituality of a people (especially when you understand nothing of the underpinning knowledge), you demean that people and compare them to animals.

Anyone who does this, with glee and disdain, is nothing but a criminal.

You don't agree?

Let's play your little game.

Define Criminal?

MrPresident1:
Tell me, have you heard of the Higgs boson? What do you know about the higgs

Well, I know something of a certain. It is not what you think

coolestchris:
what is your proof apart from bible

Is there really God?

Or maybe at least a God who would have a heaven and a hell?

MrPresident1:
At this point in the evolution of knowledge, you atheists are just criminals.

If you fail to see the symbolism but continue to make jest and mockery of what should be understood symbolically, you are just nothing but a criminal.

So, failure to see the symbolism in otherwise a supposedly "historical record" of a culture, people and religion is tantamount to criminality.

Well, that's just lazy writing

tintingz:
Ofcos there is.

La voila

tintingz:
It can be awake from unconsciousness, oblivion, dead etc.

The point is the fetus is unconscious, therefore no pain, nothing.

If the woman said she doesn't want the child, why can't she just terminate it at very early stage of gestation to relieve the unwanted suffering not the one we later find the baby in the gutter along the road.

https://www.nairaland.com/4465853/new-born-baby-found-dead

The question is: Can something not be awake but still be alive?

hahn:
Which of the gods?

begone troll

UncleSnr:
See all of them, HEATHENS!, you are all going to hell.
Believe in God, come to heaven and enjoy.

---

PS: Don't ask me which of the God's.

Father Abraham

tintingz:
It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake."

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

awake haaaaa!!! there you go. I hope this clarifies your confusion.

So, can something not be awake but still be alive?

Don't disappoint

tintingz:
I said the discussion here is about humans and the fetus without brain is not alive, then you came up with amoebe, trees, animals and all other living things which is not part of the discussion.

No. you don't know how things work, it's almost too hard having to keep up trying to get you up to it.

Humans are living things, living thing has an objective definition and this definition encompasses every biological living thing.

Murder is an abstract concept, a human idea based on the notion that human life in particular is sacred.

Jesus! How is it hard for someone to understand the conceptual difference between defining what a living thing is and defining what murder is.

Since trees are part of living things then destroying them is immoral just like terminating a fetus is immoral to you.

Again; living things means every living organism

Murder is derived on the subject of the "homo sapiens" species not killing each other.

Dude dude, the fetus being alive can be found from which source?

From the definition of living things which in fact define if you are alive or not.

Science doesn't know yet whether the embryo is alive or not, when exactly it started living.

Actually science does. and an embryo is so much alive and human.

The argument you posted its link was arguing on a presumed quality that ascribes value to human life which in fact is arbitrary at best. You don't even understand arguments made by links you post.

An ethical argument on value !!!!!!!! kai

Your claims, Duuh.

Which one?

The article clearly said "A functioning brain emerges at about 8 weeks' gestation, and the fetus could be considered a living human being starting then."

Oh God!!!

"This paper argues in support of this position, not on empirical grounds, but because of what it reflects of what is valuable about the term 'life'. It is pointed out that 'life' is an ambiguous concept as it is used in English, obscuring the differences between being alive and having a life, a crucial distinction for bioethical questions."

This paper in no way argues a fetus is not alive, it wasn't even a biological argument but based on ethos ascribing value to human characteristics which it distinguished with the language of being alive which translates to having a conscious mind[/b] and having a life which implies biological life independent of the later. just like Coolusername citing consciousness.

Please, understand the arguments of the links you post for God sake.

And again, somehow you think that posting a link of an argument by someone else in anyway serves as an authority. Lol. awfully naive.

the worse part is, the argument doesn't even support your argument or you simply don't understand it

LOL. This your sand sculpture has got bootty though

tintingz:
But you said you're talking about living things in general.

Oh Christ! When we talk about "life" "living thing" it is a general definition.

When we talk about "murder" it is contingent on "human life"

This elementary for God sake

How is it alive when the brain is not there?

Active biological metabolisms:

responsiveness to the environment;
growth and change;
ability to reproduce;
have a metabolism and breathe;
maintain homeostasis;
being made of cells; and.
passing traits onto offspring

Ive said it in my previous posts that science don't know yet if the fetus is alive or not.

Actually science knows when something is alive. Science literally has a definition for living things.

You're yet to provide any references to back up your claims.

What claims?

Whatever it's, the article gave a logical reason why a fetus is not alive at a stage.

Actually No. it seems you didn't read your own article. that is typical.

Article was on an arbitrary assumption of value ascribed to human life which it links with possession of brain.

Read your own damn article man

Uhuh.

Emusan:
Atheist delusion!

But did Abraham eventually kill his son?

"The thought I have for you is the thought of good and not evil to give you an expected end" look for it in your Bible

Intent is the key.

He intended to. The only difference here is; God didn't stop our Nigerian Abraham

tintingz:
Wether it's term murder or not, destroying trees is not morally permissible.

You are killing the poor living thing.

Not a human though. that is whole moral point of "murder'. Distinguishing killing a human from killing every other thing.

An early stage fetus doesn't have a brain or functioning brain so therefore not alive,

Actually it is alive. A fetus is undergoing an active biological metabolism, development and growth and is in fact a member of the homo sapien specie.

If you read the post you copied hastily further, you would have seen this;
"This paper argues in support of this position, not on empirical grounds, but because of what it reflects of what is valuable about the term 'life'

Your link did not argue that a fetus is not alive, it agrees to this, it rather argues on the basis of an arbitrary criteria for value it assumes for human life just like Martininez saying "a heart" is the ultimate value for him while coolusername hints of physiological and neurological intricacy

so what's wrong terminating it when the carrier doesn't want it at that stage?

The same thing wrong in killing any human

tintingz:
Ok, destroying trees to make furnitures is murder.

Well, murder defines "humans" specifically, so, No.

Destroying trees is murder and not morally permissible.

Define murder?

When a brain is dead do we call such human alive?

A fetus brain isn't dead innit? its nervous system is active and developing.

a dead human's nervous system is disintegrating.

two different things.

If you read the post you copied hastily further, you would have seen this;
"This paper argues in support of this position, not on empirical grounds, but because of what it reflects of what is valuable about the term 'life'

Your link did not argue that a fetus is not alive, it agrees to this, it rather argues on the basis of an arbitrary criteria for value it assumes for human life just like Martininez saying "a heart" is the ultimate value for him while coolusername hints of physiological and neurological intricacy

AryEmber:
Hmm! Baba Socrates! Owo meji fun enikan! I like your line of reasoning on this matter, keep up the good battle!

I am actually not fighting o. I am rather trying to have fun.

tintingz:
Legal can be moral permissible and as well cannot.

Saudi Arabia use the sharia as bases for thier morality and as well the country law.

Does a Muslim see killing homosexual murder?

This is a question for a muslim to answer of which if "No" is subject to argument. I can then engage such a person and demonstrate why it is murder while they show why it is not

tintingz:
We are talking about the characteristics of a human here.

Actually No. we are talking about living things.

And then isolated characteristics doesn't define human.

If amoebe doesn't need brain to be term alive then that's it nature, we don't know yet if the fetus is alive or not and when exactly it becomes alive because science doesn't know yet.

Actually No. Every living thing shows the characteristics of biological metabolisms on a cellular level.

It has since been suggested that "brain life," the emergence of a functioning brain, would be a logical time to demarcate the beginning of life in the same way that brain death has been accepted as a reasonable point to fix the time of death. A functioning brain emerges at about 8 weeks' gestation, and the fetus could be considered a living human being starting then.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6708064/

1. A fetus has its biological metabolism active which is the fundamental requirement of being alive.

2. A brain dead human is still a human just a dead human. and the difference between this two is that, a dead human begins to go through cellular disintegration and ceased metabolisms.

These two are hardly the same.

Isn't remarkable how you left out this part of the post you copied
"This paper argues in support of this position, not on empirical grounds, but because of what it reflects of what is valuable about the term 'life'

Your link did not argue that a fetus is not alive, it agrees to this, it rather argues on the basis of an arbitrary criteria for value it assumes for human life just like Martininez saying "a heart" is the ultimate value for him while coolusername hints of physiological and neurological intricacy

So i ask again: What is human?

AryEmber:
My goodness! Did you study philosophy and logic?

Hahahaha the style of argument i am employing here is called the socratic method.

A method of argument that uses questions implied by a subsequent reply to bring up loopholes in the logic of the other to ultimately make them understand the flaws in their argument.

Seun, lalasticlala come and move this to the frontpage na

hahn:
Why have you turned into an enemy of progress? That is how you did on FB too

Don't come and be trolling tintinz when i am having a discussion with him. He cannot provide a definition of living things that defines every living thing

Begone. You unrepentant troll

tintingz:
The nature of some species doesn't require brain to be alive or term living, you're still attacking fallacy.

Actually No. Alive is a general term. Every living thing shows a similar set of characteristics that distinguishes them from non-living thing.

And this characteristics are fundamentally the same not subjective. So i ask again.

What does it mean to be alive?

The discussion here is about the nature of humans not some other living things.

The question was; What does it mean to be alive?

That definition describes every living organism

I just did.

If you believe that is the definition of being alive then we have a problem, a huge one.

Please provide your references.

We really need to establish what being "alive" means, that is the only way for me to make it as elementary as possible for even a 6 year old to understand.

tintingz:
Ok

The country legalized a practice therefore the country agree it's morally good or permissible.

Legal and moral permissibility are not necessarily the same.

I addressed that above.

The concept of murder is universal, the applications surrounding it are different in each society.

Social or religious excuses do not alter this meaning which is absolute.

darkchild64:
If your 7month pregnant wife suffers complications and Doctors reveal that only one of them would make it,won't you choose your wife,to me the life and feelings of a grown woman is more important than that of a fetus,we should not let intuition get in the way of our reasoning

Now, this is a different thing all together because this can be likened to self defense.

This is a false equivalence on the case of premeditated termination of a human being based on inconveniences and premeditated termination of a human based on self defense.

Did I say that killing a day old child is murder in all cases,of course if the same criteria as with abortion is met then it is not murder,if a mother gives birth to a child that is severely deformed I believe it is morally permissible to terminate the life of such child as it would be of more benefit to those involved than harm

Define murder.

Let us see if it falls within that definition or not.

Like you said above; It is not about "what you feel" (intuition) it is about reason and logic.

So, to appeal to reason and logic; Define murder?

Like I just said,I think the lives of new born babies could be terminated in certain circumstances but the manner is also important,throwing babies out in toilets and trashbins is very disrespectful to the sanctity of life

Murder is based on the idea that human life is sacred and should not be taken.

In what way is taken a life a less graver moral scandal than throwing a dead body out in a trashbin?

Hahn, come, Darkchild thinks you are morally permitted to do the needful to your baby.

so unless u we feel human life should not be respected then any manner of termination is accepted,in this case what I am faulting is not the reason for the killing but the manner,the reason is what justifies it as right or wrong,the manner doesn't really matter,we only emphasize it in order to accord respect,it doesn't change the fact that the child dies irrepcetive of how it is killed,so the manner make the act right or wrong if sentiments get to decide what we see as right or wrong,again that is morality based on intuition,I conform to morality based on reason,maybe there could be some space for intuition,I still have to figure that out

As i have shown, your moral determinants leads to a slippery slope. I took you from agreeing that it is morally permissible to kill an unborn baby, and made you agree that it is morally permissible to kill a new born, i can also based on this logical loophole of your reason make you agree it is logically permissible to kill an adult.

That is the problem.

Murder doesn't become less because i am inconvenienced by the victim.

The harm it causes is that the child dies which I described as the "ultimate" harm

Isn't this ultimate harm the same an unborn child is subjected to when aborted?

Can't you connect that logic?

The benefit the only parents the parents isthat they are relieved of their pain and suffering in bringing up the child,the parents also suffer harm

Is this not actually the same as when aborting a child?

In your own words if the pregnancy is kept against the mothers wish,the mother suffers, the fetus if eventually born would suffer as well and if not raised well as is most likely the case for unwanted pregnancies might end up becoming a vice to the society, so in terms of risk benefit ratio,abortion has more benefits

I need you to go up and read my last reply again and your reply to that last reply then go through this reply again.

if we are to be practical but let me overlook that and adhere strictly to the scenario u painted
The effect on the society is paradoxical,the child may end up being a liability if s/he is not well raised by the parents or might turn out to be an asset

In your own words if the pregnancy is kept against the mothers wish,the mother suffers, the fetus if eventually born would suffer as well and if not raised well as is most likely the case for unwanted pregnancies might end up becoming a vice to the society, so in terms of risk benefit ratio,abortion has more benefits

Why is that one not so called paradoxical?

Haven't you seen how you moved from this; So what u are basically saying is that if in these circumstances you cited,there is more benefit in killing the child,well I disagree with you,it would cause more harm to the child than the benefit the parents get

Disagreeing on the moral permissibility of a parent to kill their new born child to agreeing.

From my assessment,the parents can achieve their benefit without causing the child ultimate harm by simply sending the child away,if they do so I think it is morally permissible,but taking the child's life when there is an alternative that causes less harm is wrong,so based on this I think the parents would be wrong to cause the child ultimate harm when there is a better alternative

Apply this logic to abortion and there you go