4 ms·

Let's see: - There is an organism that is alive. - The organism belongs to the human species (as per DNA). - The organism is separate from the parents (diffe

Let's see: - There is an organism that is alive. - The organism belongs to the human species (as per DNA). - The organism is separate from the parents (different DNA). - It's an intervention that results in loss of life. - It's premeditated (regardless of justification). Those are all irrefutable facts. The gestation phase doesn't change the facts above. What do we call a premeditated intervention that results in the loss of life by forced means of an alive member of the human species? Use any word you want. These semantics will remain the same regardless of which word you use. (edit) I also do not care about what specific word you use, I care about the implications above.

lupire 4y ago
You don't appear to know what a womb is.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  1) Take a DNA sample from a human in gestation, regardless of gestation phase. Compare it with the parents DNA. The DNA will belong to the human species, and will be different to that of the parents. 2) Measure the vital signs of the organism. You will confirm that it is alive. 3) Try the same with other mammals. Please go ahead and try to falsify this. Have fun.
  - timbit42 4y ago
    I get a kick out of Evangelicals trying to determine when life begins. The entire process is life. If any part of procreation wasn't life, then it would fail. For an atheist, it's all life so ending the process at any point is technically death. Every sperm is sacred, so to speak. For a Jew or Christian though, the Bible doesn't consider the unborn to be human until they are birthed. Instead they are considered potentially human. Since it is not human, killing it isn't considered murder. Evangelicals wrongly believe their Bible considers the unborn to be human, thus their anti-abortion stance. If you look back to the 1960's, Evangelicals were not anti-abortion. That changed in the 1970's and here we are today.
    - 29athrowaway 4y ago
      What marks the beginning of the individual organism is the fertilization of the egg, forming the zygote. Before that you have separate gametes.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > the Bible doesn't consider the unborn to be human until they are birthed. This isn't true.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Premise rejected. DNA is not the yardstick here. Human DNA tells you nothing about the level of development or self-sustainability. Your fingernail clippings contain your DNA; by your logic, clipping your fingernails is a form of suicide. A fetus in the early stages of development is not alive in the regular sense because it is incapable of independent survival and lacks the requisite organs to sustain itself, experience pain etc.
    - 29athrowaway 4y ago
      Many neonates are not self-sustainable after birth. Some will never become self-sustainable and will depend on machines and medications to survive for the rest of their life. Most elderly people including yourself some years from now will not be "self-sustainable". You will need help to move around, you will need medications to survive and all sorts of help. There is a congenital disorder which makes you insensitive to pain. Does that make you not human? It is a rather dumb argument.
nullish_signal 4y ago
[flagged]
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  That's unrelated to what I said and I won't take your bait.
  - nullish_signal 4y ago
    [flagged]
- timbit42 4y ago
  My country is trying to keep the population growing via payments to parents and immigration. Parents get enough money here to make having a child a non-issue financially. Even if the parent is on welfare, they can afford to have a child.
woodruffw 4y ago
I’m not particularly interested in debating this. This goes to my point about rhetoricity.
jancsika 4y ago
> Use any word you want. The semantics are the same. They aren't. The word murder commonly describes an unjustified killing. That makes it incompatible with your specification as written. So you'd have to use a different word here.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  Let's agree on some definitions: 1) intervention or event + loss of life = killing 2) killing (1) + of a human + by a human = homicide 3) homicide (2) + premeditation + malice = murder In the abortion case: - an intervention takes place resulting in loss of life = an organism is killed (1) - the organism being killed is human. the intervention is done by a human = a homicide (2) Now, is it murder? it's as homicide (human killed by human) and it's premeditated. But is there malice? It depends. Sometimes loss of life is inevitable. Sometimes it is done as a form of euthanasia or eugenics. Sometimes the pregnancy was accidental or involuntary. Sometimes it's due to economic reasons. Sometimes it's simply due to personal preferences or a state of mind... etc. You can analyze the situation to establish whether the abortion (i.e.: homicide with premeditation) has malice or not, and whether you want to call it "murder" from a moral standpoint. But it remains a homicide with premeditation and should not be taken lightly. For example, if the reason behind an abortion is solely to kill someone with Down syndrome, I would say there's malice there (eugenics is wrong). A person with Down syndrome is as worthy of life as everyone else, yet they are a frequent target of abortions. Likewise, in some cultures, male offspring is associated with prosperity and are preferred over females, even resulting in abortions based solely on sex. That's also another form of malice. But if you want to feel happy with yourself and engage into "terminology gerrymandering" (e.g.: it's not alive, it's not a human, it's not a separate organism) or "terminology laundering" (e.g.: it's too small to be a homicide = structuring/smurfing), you'll be only playing yourself. The earlier in life you accept that reality is messed up, and that unfortunate things happen, while valuing human life, the better. If you want to mix politics, religion, society, medicine, economics, etc. into a big ball of spaghetti resulting in endless arguing in a limbo of unhappy yelling people, you can also do that, but beware that many clever people will take advantage of you in the process. Ultimately, it's your life and you can spend your days as you see fit.

lupire 4y ago

You don't appear to know what a womb is.

29athrowaway 4y ago
1) Take a DNA sample from a human in gestation, regardless of gestation phase. Compare it with the parents DNA. The DNA will belong to the human species, and will be different to that of the parents. 2) Measure the vital signs of the organism. You will confirm that it is alive. 3) Try the same with other mammals. Please go ahead and try to falsify this. Have fun.
- timbit42 4y ago
  I get a kick out of Evangelicals trying to determine when life begins. The entire process is life. If any part of procreation wasn't life, then it would fail. For an atheist, it's all life so ending the process at any point is technically death. Every sperm is sacred, so to speak. For a Jew or Christian though, the Bible doesn't consider the unborn to be human until they are birthed. Instead they are considered potentially human. Since it is not human, killing it isn't considered murder. Evangelicals wrongly believe their Bible considers the unborn to be human, thus their anti-abortion stance. If you look back to the 1960's, Evangelicals were not anti-abortion. That changed in the 1970's and here we are today.
  - 29athrowaway 4y ago
    What marks the beginning of the individual organism is the fertilization of the egg, forming the zygote. Before that you have separate gametes.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > the Bible doesn't consider the unborn to be human until they are birthed. This isn't true.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Premise rejected. DNA is not the yardstick here. Human DNA tells you nothing about the level of development or self-sustainability. Your fingernail clippings contain your DNA; by your logic, clipping your fingernails is a form of suicide. A fetus in the early stages of development is not alive in the regular sense because it is incapable of independent survival and lacks the requisite organs to sustain itself, experience pain etc.
  - 29athrowaway 4y ago
    Many neonates are not self-sustainable after birth. Some will never become self-sustainable and will depend on machines and medications to survive for the rest of their life. Most elderly people including yourself some years from now will not be "self-sustainable". You will need help to move around, you will need medications to survive and all sorts of help. There is a congenital disorder which makes you insensitive to pain. Does that make you not human? It is a rather dumb argument.

nullish_signal 4y ago

[flagged]

29athrowaway 4y ago
That's unrelated to what I said and I won't take your bait.
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  [flagged]
timbit42 4y ago
My country is trying to keep the population growing via payments to parents and immigration. Parents get enough money here to make having a child a non-issue financially. Even if the parent is on welfare, they can afford to have a child.

woodruffw 4y ago

I’m not particularly interested in debating this. This goes to my point about rhetoricity.

jancsika 4y ago

> Use any word you want. The semantics are the same. They aren't. The word murder commonly describes an unjustified killing. That makes it incompatible with your specification as written. So you'd have to use a different word here.

29athrowaway 4y ago
Let's agree on some definitions: 1) intervention or event + loss of life = killing 2) killing (1) + of a human + by a human = homicide 3) homicide (2) + premeditation + malice = murder In the abortion case: - an intervention takes place resulting in loss of life = an organism is killed (1) - the organism being killed is human. the intervention is done by a human = a homicide (2) Now, is it murder? it's as homicide (human killed by human) and it's premeditated. But is there malice? It depends. Sometimes loss of life is inevitable. Sometimes it is done as a form of euthanasia or eugenics. Sometimes the pregnancy was accidental or involuntary. Sometimes it's due to economic reasons. Sometimes it's simply due to personal preferences or a state of mind... etc. You can analyze the situation to establish whether the abortion (i.e.: homicide with premeditation) has malice or not, and whether you want to call it "murder" from a moral standpoint. But it remains a homicide with premeditation and should not be taken lightly. For example, if the reason behind an abortion is solely to kill someone with Down syndrome, I would say there's malice there (eugenics is wrong). A person with Down syndrome is as worthy of life as everyone else, yet they are a frequent target of abortions. Likewise, in some cultures, male offspring is associated with prosperity and are preferred over females, even resulting in abortions based solely on sex. That's also another form of malice. But if you want to feel happy with yourself and engage into "terminology gerrymandering" (e.g.: it's not alive, it's not a human, it's not a separate organism) or "terminology laundering" (e.g.: it's too small to be a homicide = structuring/smurfing), you'll be only playing yourself. The earlier in life you accept that reality is messed up, and that unfortunate things happen, while valuing human life, the better. If you want to mix politics, religion, society, medicine, economics, etc. into a big ball of spaghetti resulting in endless arguing in a limbo of unhappy yelling people, you can also do that, but beware that many clever people will take advantage of you in the process. Ultimately, it's your life and you can spend your days as you see fit.