₦airaland Forum

hahn:
These are all non living things

troll

johnydon22:
Actually, murder has one definition and that is "premeditated termination of a human life"

Ok

I am not talking about the legality behind abortion but the moral permissibility.

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

At a time, killing an apostate is a way of making heaven in Christian doctrine. They did not change the definition of murder, they simply changed the spiritual implication.

Such is the application with Islamic societies. Murder as a concept is absolute.

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

johnydon22:
troll

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

johnydon22:
Actually, this is simply showing the reduction ad absurdium of your argument as rebutted.

You said: When the brain is alive, when the entity is functioning as a complete human being.

And this was easily refuted by showing that doesn't determine what being alive means.

And i further asked what a "human being is"

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

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

Oh that is exactly what i want to do by asking you "What it means to be alive"

I just did.

If you are able to biologically determine what being alive means, it becomes obvious what is alive and what is not.

Please provide your references.

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

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.

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.

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

Seun, lalasticlala come and move this to the frontpage na

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.

johnydon22:
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 question was; What does it mean to be alive?

That definition describes every living organism

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


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.

We are talking about the characteristics of a human here.

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.

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/

johnydon22:
Legal and moral permissibility are not necessarily the same.

I addressed that above.

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.

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

Does a Muslim see killing homosexual murder?

johnydon22:
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.

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

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?

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

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.

johnydon22:
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

Ok, goodluck.

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

Of course but why is that the self defense favours the mother and not the child who is a human being and should enjoy the same right as every other person ?

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.

I'm saying its the same things as abortion,I'm only trying to show you that the life of a fetus does not have the same value as that of a full grown woman

Define murder.

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

My definition of murder is "taking human life without a justifiable reason"

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

Wrong.
Murder is based on the idea that human life is sacred and should not be taken[b]without a justifiable reason[/b]

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

The manner of taking the life does not contribute anything to the risk benefit ratio which is my basis of determining is something is moral or not,but I would suggest that if the life must be taken it should be done in the least provocative manner,but whichever manner its done what could be faulted as being wrong in the manner is that it causes provocation,which is harmful ,and since there are other ways of doing it without causing provocations ,such method should be adopted,I don't know of them but I am certain that medically you have such procedures,I'm not interested in knowing them since its not something I plan to do

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

Always keep in mind that intuitively speaking,I'm not a huge fan of abortion, but in the same way I dislike Chinese cuisine,it doesn't make either wrong

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.

of course it is logically permissible to kill an adult based on the circumstance,what was the first comment I made on this thread,I told you that it is the situation that determines what is right or wrong,you are allowing your sentiments come in the way of reason

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

that is not my point

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

Can't you connect that logic?

you still don't get my point,someone would bear a certain harm irrespective of the decision,either the child is aborted and the mother is satisfied,I the child is not aborted the mother suffers too,taking the life of a few weeks old fetus which can barely fit into a palm would not cause the same harm as allowing the woman have a child she is not ready to have and probably have her entire life ruined,especially when u consider that if the process is well carried out and no major organ is severed,the woman can always have as many children as possible when she is ready.

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

No its not,but if u insist it is then why would you have your 7months old baby aborted if it is the only way of saving your wife

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.

see my last comment above

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?

It is also possible that the child if not aborted would grow up to be a great assets to the society but this would be rare,I don't subscribe to the idea that people are predestined to be what they become,we are a product of our environment, there is a big chance that if a woman is forced to keep an unwanted child,the child would not be raised well,if the woman could do well to raise the child then the issue of abortion might not have come up at the first place,for that statement you made a reference to the child shares a similar problem with the fetus to be aborted in the respect of what they could become when they grow up but like the stakes are now higher cause the child is already born and has achieved some level of emotions and feelings,you can not take away its life for the same reason as a fetus,the value of their lives is different

Apply this logic to abortion and there you go

Okay I guess instead of maybe flushing the child with drugs,doctors should simply perform a surgical procedure,bring out the child from the womb and then set it free to live its life like the situation u cited,I hope that is not akin to abortion ?

johnydon22:
Actually No. we are talking about living things.

And then isolated characteristics doesn't define human.

Ok, destroying trees to make furnitures is murder.

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

Destroying trees is murder and not morally permissible.

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.

A brain is the central nervous system and a fetus has an equivalent system that becomes the brain.

So i ask again: What is human?

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

Let's establish when a fetus is alive.

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

johnydon22:
Well, murder defines "humans" specifically, so, No.

Define murder?

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

You are killing the poor living thing.

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

An early stage fetus doesn't have a brain or functioning brain so therefore not alive, so what's wrong terminating it when the carrier doesn't want it at that stage?

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

I just knew its a matter of time before darkchild64 falls on her sword and self destruct

johnydon22:
Not a human though. that is whole moral point of "murder'. Distinguishing killing a human from killing every other thing.

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

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.

How is it alive when the brain is not there?

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'

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

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

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

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

The same thing wrong in killing any human

MuttleyLaff:
I just knew its a matter of time before darkchild64 falls on her sword and self destruct

Darkchild is a she?

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.

Anas09:
Darkchild is a she?

Though I could have mistaken, I thought so

johnydon22:
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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

What claims?

Your claims, Duuh.

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.

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."

MuttleyLaff:
Though I could have mistaken, I thought so

Oh.

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

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