See? Your attitude is terrible. I have no rebuttal for you because I don't care to engage with you other than to say you need to work on your people skills. This is where you probably delete my post and ban me.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Alabama Supreme Court rules that IVF embryos may be considered unborn children
- Thread starter x65943
- Start date
- Views 7,856
- Replies 112
- Likes 3
Right, so let me get this straight. You post a fictional scenario that makes no sense and is based on a false premise, someone points that out to you, you throw a tantrum, I agree with the person who corrected you and provide a source and… I’m the one with the bad attitude. Okay. This is a the politics section, it’s where people debate things. If you don’t want to have your views challenged, that’s fine, but at least be a grown up about it. You don’t have to like my “attitude”, either something is true or it’s not. What you said isn’t true, and doubling down on it is a bad look. Your post is on topic, there’s no reason to delete it. Don’t concern yourself too much with how to do my job - that’s my job. Argue your point, or don’t - that’s what you’re here for. Nobody needs an invitation to comment on what you’ve said, you’re posting in public.
I dont know how else I can explain to you that what I originally said had a satirical element to it. It seemed pretty obvious to me. You used Wikipedia as a reference... Get off your soap box pretending you're all high and mighty for using Wikipedia as a reference. You want some sources?
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/fetal-development-your-babys-brain_20004924
https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-eve...entists will say it's,at best, only one adult.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/...or liver,grow; they would simply disintegrate.
If you're gonna "debate" then use actual references. Don't come at me with Wikipedia and call it a day.
You're supposed to represent this place, your attitude is important. Whether you agree with my point or not there is a decorum to debate and you are lacking.
Wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable source for an online debate, we’re not writing an academic paper. It’s richly annotated, so if you’re in a bind, you can scroll to the footnotes. None of the links you’ve presented say anything about sperm or eggs being separate organisms. They’re about brain development, a philosophical quandary regarding personhood and a third link about reproduction myths, which is best of all, because it’s a complete self-dunk. I quote:
The article goes further to debunk your theory.
This is a self-own of epic proportions because it’s perfectly opposed to what you said and perfectly aligned with what I said. Maybe my sources weren’t so bad, and maybe you should read your own. The author of the third article actually *challenges* the notion of “delayed personhood” and considers all of those bioethical arguments invalid. She believes it is a purely philosophical matter, not a scientific one. I stress the word “believes”, because it is in fact a philosophical question:
As far as personhood is concerned, we are in total agreement - an embryo is not (or rather, cannot be) a person the way we understand the term because it has no brain. We both disagree with the author of the third article to that extent (or at least I hope we do). She presents a textbook “pro life” position, but is honest enough to state that it is a philosophical belief. The personhood of fetuses is fiercely debated since at a certain point they *do* develop a brain, and an abortion should ideally take place before that point - that’s the general consensus, though you will hear voices saying that it should always, or never, be permitted. The truth is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, hence the variety of cut-off points around the world. All of that is purely philosophical, we simply agree on it, it “sounds right”. We’re dealing with a genetically complete human in all of those cases, simply one in a very early stage of development which we choose to interrupt.
With that being said, your own sources confirm unequivocally that:
- Sperm and eggs are not considered organisms, rather they are a part of an organism, more specifically the tools with which humans reproduce
- Human life (as in the life of an individual human being, not “life” in terms of a biological function) begins the moment an egg is fertilised, that’s when the material of the father and the mother is recombined into a new entity that is different from both of them
- The generally agreed upon point when personhood is formed aligns with the formation of the brain - we are our brain. We could probably narrow this down to the “human” section of the brain, but we’re getting off into the weeds
I think we then need to define what is meant by human. The definition that I presumed for this discussion is that a human is an individual member of the Homo sapiens species. This definition also presumes an agreed upon methodology for discerning species. It seems that we entered into this discussion without the same presuppositions because you presumed that a human is defined by personhood rather than biology. Your actual argument is that embryos lack personhood which is necessary for legal rights to apply to the individual in question. You have now expounded upon the definition of personhood as being acquired at the point that a "properly" developed brain is present. I now have two questions:
What is a properly developed brain? Why would this concept of personhood not apply to other species?
What he’s trying to say is that humans have a unique brain compared to animals because we have a neocortex and in our species it’s unusually oversized, comprising nearly 50% of our whole brain’s volume. That’s what makes us capable of rational thought and governs most things that make us human. It’s a pretty safe assumption to say that human personality is stored there, thus it’s also safe to assume that “human consciousness” doesn’t truly begin until the brain is sufficiently developed to have a functioning cerebral cortex at least. That’s *a* way to look at it, and that’s how I understand his point. It can easily be argued that the “human experience” doesn’t truly begin until one is cognisant of it.
A properly developed brain is when the brain is no longer just essentially a tube of forebrain, midbrain and hindbrain. When it develops into something more complex (cerebelum, thalamus, hypothalamus, etc). You can apply personhood to anything else if you choose to but it would be a false equivalency, a supreme court isn't making rulings on gorilla embryos. This is where things stop becoming biological factors and start falling into philosophy and psychology. Ethics and morals is the difficult side of science because then we end up questioning if an embryo has more right to personhood than an adult who is severely brain damaged.
I agree. A human can only be a person if they are sentient. Of course we have to avoid the trap of “are human beings sentient when they’re unconscious?”, but I believe even that question can be answered by science. After all, humans are capable of dreaming - higher brain function doesn’t cease when we’re asleep, or even in many patients in a coma (depends on the cause of the coma and the nature of the damage, if any is present), and that is both observable and measurable. Once brain function ceases, the “person” no longer exists. I personally like the comparison of a meat machine piloted by the human part of the brain - if the pilot is missing, all that’s left is an unoccupied meat machine, be it alive or dead.
I concede. If it is presumed to be a false equivalency to apply definitions beyond the scope of this supreme court decision, then I cannot add anything further of value to the discussion.
Exactly, my mother's best friend got into a car crash and was in a coma. She wasn't brain dead but she was so severely brain damaged that she wouldn't really have any self awareness anymore, she would need a feeding tube, she wouldn't be able to speak or understand speech, she would basically be a shell. Her parents turned off her life support and let her go in the end but where is the cutoff point for personhood? I have a good understanding of biology and brain development but my subject is psychology so ethics and morals are my tea.
Post automatically merged:
The subject specifically is the supreme court ruling yes but the overall question remains outside of that judgement. Where is the point that cells become human and what rights should they be afforded dependent on where they are in development?
In the case above you have a moral quandary that goes beyond the realm of personhood. Leaving the issue of whether your mother’s best friend was “still there” in whatever battered state she might’ve woken up in aside, it’s worth asking the question if this was a life she’d want to live. There’s something to be said about protecting human life, but if this life would’ve had no value to her, why should you value it more? To cause her more pain and suffering? That doesn’t seem like something a friend would do.
Since we’re being honest (yay!) and telling stories, we all have experiences of grief. I recently lost my fiancée’s father, and it was not an easy departure by any means. He had diabetes and advanced leukaemia, he also suffered multiple brain bleeds over the course of several months. We watched the man turn from his usual self into somebody else, a more spiteful, resentful and aggressive person. Eventually he became unmanageable and we had no choice but to have him taken to the hospital as neither her nor I had the time to keep him under constant supervision. We have our own home, our own jobs and our own lives, we couldn’t be there all day, every day. The progressively worsening brain damage he suffered affected his ability to function and multiple brain surgeries only preserved his life, really. He became unsteady and would fall frequently, becoming a danger to himself - in hospital someone could at least keep an eye on him at all times. The stay, while safer, only accelerated his decline, but we tried to be there for him the best we could when we received the call that “it will be any day now”. We had to set our differences aside and hold a vigil for him because, no matter how much bad blood was between us at that point, nobody should be alone on their death bed. He wasn’t himself anymore - he became a shell of a human, to the point that he didn’t recognise my better half most of the time. Every couple of hours, for a minute or two, something clicked in his brain and he was “there”, however briefly, and we knew he was afraid. She kept telling him that she loved him, hoping that he’d understand and remember, but his dementia was really advanced at that stage. One day we came in to see him and the nurse took us to a separate room. I knew what it meant, she didn’t. I was, sadly, correct.
Sappy, I know, but the story has a point. Throughout his life her father had always said that if he is ever in a state like this, he just wants to be kept comfortable. He saw his relatives pass after trials and tribulations and chose a dignified end rather than fighting at a point when all hope is lost. Those are the wishes we relayed to the staff and that’s what was administered, to the best of their abilities. As difficult as those conversations can be, I strongly suggest that everyone has them with their loved ones, so there’s no question on what to do when the time comes. He was an inconsiderate ass most of his life, but in that one regard, he wanted to spare everyone a heartbreak. That was nice of him - I don’t think she’d be able to bear it much longer.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
-
- Poll
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
Is it safe to update a modded ps3?
Can I play online in pirated games? (with ps3hen either enabled or not) -
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@salazarcosplay, I used apollo save tool to activate my ps3 offline so i could play a game that wasnt working
-
S @ salazarcosplay:from what I understood. you load up the piratged game. you the clear the syscalls, then you play
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
