₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
awake haaaaa!!! there you go. I hope this clarifies your confusion.

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

Don't disappoint

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

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?

johnydon22:
The question is: Can something not be awake but still be alive?

Ofcos there is.

@johnydon22

What is your position? Is abortion morally permissible? Justify your answer.

In my own opinion, Having children should be a privilege and not a right. Future generations deserve to be born to parents who want their children and have the skills to raise their children. Ethically and morally, I believe future generations deserve the right to a healthy upbringing instead of adults having the right to have babies. People that want to have children and are pregnant should have to obtain a license in parenting.. no license no child.. there are so many people in this world that are begging to adopt a child and the process is so long.. this system will help them out.. people who take parenting seriously..

By this understanding, abortion should be permissible if the society presume unhealthy future for the baby or the mother. An unwanted child is not diffrence from an unwanted grass.

tintingz:
Ofcos there is.

La voila

johnydon22:
La voila

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.

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

johnydon22:
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

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

johnydon22:
Oh i am not. I am just pointing out the reduction to absurdity of that argument.

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."

If a heart is the necessary condition to be human, it makes anyone without a heart less human. [/b] Be sure that when I say a heart, I mean the organ that pumps blood. I only gave a condition for an human embryo to be considered human. After this stage, there is not hierarchy or system of classification that makes one more human. An embryo that just passed the stage of the full development of the heart is not less human than a 26 year old man, it's just an issue of growth. "isn't the cleavage of cells an early stage of growth?" well the crux is when is it morally permissible to commit abortion? and when is it human? once it human, it should not be killed and it's not less human than it's elders. Anyways, it's black and white here and there are no continuum. It's either an organism is human or not. When an EMBRYO gets to the stage of full development of the heart, it's human as much as it's elders. The question after it's if it's dead or alive.

[quote]What you are saying is; there is a stage when a homo sapien is not homo sapien then suddenly becomes a homo sapien or more homo sapient.

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.

I believe that apparently biologically nonsensical.

But tell us; What specie will a homo sapien be at this stage that it is not a homo sapien?
(No organism is without species)

@ I agree and I said so.

Actually it is the implication of your own assertion.

You said: If it reaches the stage of developing a heart then it is human?

which then begs the question: What is human?

Is human a stage when something develops a heart or a state of being?

So, don't misunderstand the implications of your own argument.

@bold
On a closer look it is, my bad.

How exactly does something go from "not being human" to "human?"

keeping in mind my intended meaning of the word "human," biology can answer that.

What is human?

just explained.

The implication of this argument that something was not human then suddenly gets to stage and becomes human leads to a hierarchical order of being human since it is contingent on developmental stage. Your argument is; An embryo that doesn't have a heart is not human, then it develops a heart it becomes human, should this consequentially lead to it becoming more human at the progression of its development? Or do you wish to cut off the consequence of your own argument?

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."

And then my own question: When a pig's embryo develops a heart, does it become human?
p.s; Once an embryo is at the stage of the development of the heart it becomes human

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

Doesn't every other animal satisfy that condition?

given the definition of my word "human" and the embryo I and your topic are talking about, NO.

Actually it is not clear.

You are yet to define what a human is which is necessary for the premise of this argument.

What you are doing is; instead of saying what a human is which is a biological classification; You pick out isolated features like (heart) you think makes something human, the problem is, other species develop heart, so there is nothing that can be demonstrably shown in this your (heart) criteria that changes the essence of something into what we know as "human" it is just like Coolusername setting his own criteria as physiological and neurological.

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."

So, what is human?

It is not that i don't get what you mean as human, i am saying that it is vague and arbitrary and doesn't hold up.

Oh yes, a kidney is not human, a kidney is not remotely close to an embryo.

Do you want to commit the fallacy of false equivalence?

Technically, you are also just a cleavage of cells.

So, i ask again; Define human?

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.

tintingz:
Dude just provide your source that talked about fetus being alive.

The point is even a robber knows stealing from him is wrong, we don't know the conscious state of a fetus, the suffering of a rape victim is unwanted if she doesn't want to carry it.

What action? That a fetus is not wanted?

Dude, just tell us how a fetus is alive, a personhood with sources.

Actually, I side with johnydon22 here. A foetus is alive. That's a scientific fact the question that the Don is asking is if abortion is morally permissible. Is amoeba not alive?

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.

johnydon22:
Nope. A dead human.

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

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

Martinez19:
Actually, I side with johnydon22 here. A foetus is alive. That's a scientific fact the question that the Don is asking is if abortion is morally permissible. Is amoeba not alive?

Actually science don't know Wether a fetus is alive or not, it's still a debate.

Amoeba doesn't need a brain to be term alive, a tree doesn't need a brain to be term alive because that's their nature, now for humans the brain is very important to term a human a living being, since fetus or embryo doesn't have that (the brain) in thier early gestation, then is that human embryo alive or living?

Ok, so let's agree a fetus is alive for assumption sake, does a fetus without no brain feel pains or anything? What state is the fetus? a fetus feeling no pain and a woman suffering in carrying an unwanted baby, is it not OK to just terminate the pregnancy instead finding the little human in the gutter?

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.

johnydon22:
Nope. A dead human.

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

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

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.

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've been asking same.

tintingz:
I've been asking same.

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

johnydon22:
I will eventually. But summary is; it is not morally permissible.

Give me time my boss.

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

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.

johnydon22:
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.

I get you now. My intending meaning of the word human is not a scientific definition. My definition is subjective and arbitrary based on my limited knowledge of embryology.

Any body who burns us is burning a cluster of cells but, unlike the kidney cells, we are "human" (my intended meaning applied), so it's wrong.

johnydon22:
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: Cellular generation, 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)

A human needs the brain to be term "alive".

tintingz:
A human needs the brain to be term "alive".

Nope. not necessarily. to be conscious more like it.

Martinez19:
I get you now. My intending meaning of the word human is not a scientific definition. My definition is subjective and arbitrary based on my limited knowledge of embryology.

Any body who burns us is burning a cluster of cells but, unlike the kidney cells, we are "human" (my intended meaning applied), so it's wrong.

I trust you do. Being human is not contingent on features we possess but a kind of inherent essence in our DNA.

For instance; If you lose both your arms, both your legs, ears, 1 of your kidney, eyes, parts of your brain, replace your heart with an improvised machine.

Are you still human?

Yes.

Because you are not human because of these features, you are human simply because you are a 'homo sapien'.

johnydon22:
I trust you do. Being human is not contingent on features we possess but a kind of inherent essence in our DNA.

For instance; If you lose both your arms, both your legs, ears, 1 of your kidney, eyes, parts of your brain, replace your heart with an improvised machine.

Are you still human?

Yes.

Because you are not human because of these features, you are human simply because you are a 'homo sapien'.

According to my definition of human, yes. You don't have to retain the heart or other parts of your body as long as my condition has been satisfied. A man with an artificial heart has already satisfied my condition while he was still an embryo. The main question after my condition is if the human is dead or alive.

johnydon22:
No problem. though my arguments here pretty much tells anyone what they need to know about my position.

Yeah but you've not stated it clearly, you've been arguing with others about their positions not about yours.

johnydon22:
I could have sworn that "Human" is a state of being "a member of them homo sapien specie"

Please, could you briefly explain what you mean by "being a member" of Homo sapiens.
The argument is seemingly anchored on who a human is.

DeSepiero:
Please, could you briefly explain what you mean by "being a member" of Homo sapiens.
The argument is seemingly anchored on who a human is.

That line is self explanatory.

LordReed:
Yeah but you've not stated it clearly, you've been arguing with others about their positions not about yours.

That is the whole point of the thread

johnydon22:
That is the whole point of the thread

Then you should give us the opportunity to see what's great or otherwise about your position.