That's just a philosophical point - "personhood" will have different meanings to different people meaning that it appears at different stages in development, meaning that what some may consider a "person" is just a lump of meat to the other person
Post automatically merged:
Anyway, both of those development stages are humans.
Whether you think one of them looks disgusting and the other doesn's is just your personal preference and has no bearing on biology...which I know Logiko is not familiar with
It's honestly disgusting how far some people will deny an unborn baby in it's early stages of development, But then they'll completely be sympathetic towards the crazy mental cases who think their another sex altogether. Just more Double standards and hypocrisy.
Deny Biological Nature for Social Bullshit.
Funny, I'm the only poster here who is quoting science papers. Don't try to lecture me on that, you risk ridiculizing yourself here. You guys are really not example of scientific vertue, in fact for the most part, you are anti science
Not yet, its just a prenatal stage of human. I'm sure you don't call a bunch of thousand brick a building until its finish, right ? So why are you doing it for humans ?
A foetus WILL developp and become human (between week 15 and week 20), but its not a human yet.
For my part, I'm not denying the existence of unborn baby. What I'm explaining is this inexistence of sentience/conscience characteristics and cerebral activities in a early stage foetus. Those are the reasons why we are human in the first place, without it, we are just like plants, but a little bit more gross. We are building blocs.
If you want to use pro life argument, go ahead, but those won't be helped by science.
It's honestly disgusting how far some people will deny an unborn baby in it's early stages of development, But then they'll completely be sympathetic towards the crazy mental cases who think their another sex altogether. Just more Double standards and hypocrisy.
Deny Biological Nature for Social Bullshit.
I watched like 17 episodes of LOST in these couple of days.There are way better things to do then spend your vacation shit posting about politics.These guys are wasting their spare time a way.Too bad for them.
Yeah no and i dont care about the philosophical personhood shit when im strictly talking about the biological perspective. Its a living human being in the earliest developmental stages. That is based in the relevant science.
Nop. Still nop. I'm in fact very cartesian and close to pure scientific process here. I don't make a statement about individuality in early stages, I only make it when science says to us that its fair to make it: at the appearance of consciousness.
On the contrary, what you are doing is creating a narrative. A narrative where individuality can come depite the non existence of consciousness. Which is quite problematic on a scientific level and political level when we talk about the right of abortion.
Science doesnt dictate when personhood begins. Thats entirely philosophical and you dont know what you are talking about.
Science can tell us when consciousness begins, sure, but it is you who says that dictates the beginning of personhood.
And you really arent reading my posts. When i say biologically a zygote is a living human being, that doesnt have anything to do with abortion rights and im still N O T pro-life lmfao.
No im not. Im just saying biologically it is a member of the species homo sapiens, which it is. That isnt about any characteristics you use to evaluate personhood at all
Not really, the fact of saying that individuality appears at the emergence of consciousness is not a "subjective" statement, its the best description of a biological process we have yet. Its therefore an objective scientific observation.
I called subjective at what point one should assign value to the new human life that emerged. You think the value comes with consciousness, whereas pro-life people say it comes with being human, even in the developmental stages before consciousness.
Can you like actually read my posts instead of just going back to your script?
You are not, you are naming a zygot a human. Its not scientific, its ideologic. A zygot is the prenatal, preembryon stage of a human, its NOT a human yet, it only has its blueprint. Those are not the same things.
Technically yes it does. Since we know identity begins with conscisousness and we know that consciousness begins between the 15 and 20 th week of the development, then when can they that the prestage of the identity and therefore the personnality of a human starts developping between the 15 and 20 th week of the development in the womb.
FIrst define what you mean by personhood then we will speak, second, there is no need to state where personhood (if that's really a real word) begins, we only need to know where consciousness begins.
And you really arent reading my posts. When i say biologically a zygote is a living human being, that doesnt have anything to do with abortion rights and im still N O T pro-life lmfao.
What I means is that you are giving arguments to pro life propagandist here by trying to place a narrative on identity on science.
The only thing we kneed to know is where consciousness begins as it is what differenciate us from plants. From there we can act.
Such concept as "personhood" are irrelevant and human are don't start becoming human predevelopment, they can only become human AFTER they gets the basic animal characteristic that is consciousness. Before that, we are just building blocs in development. Not finished constructions
Nah you just arent getting it and you are not able to distinguish between the biology and the philosophy.
Im gonna repeat for the 5th time or something: im talking about a zygote biologically being human, ad evident by the unique full human genome. That has nothing to do with whether we ascribe value of personhood or abortion or anything.
One can accept the biology and accept that it is a living human being while still also saying that it doesnt have the value of personhood and is therefore fine to be terminated for whatever reason the mother has to terminate it.
This is a very bad comparison, we are talking here about a life form that is taking the life ressources of another body without consent. We are not talking here about organ transplant.
The new body also didnt consent to start existing. Thats the fault of the mother who engaged in sexual activities. Pro life people then talk about the inherent responsibility that comes with that and are against terminating a new human life for the convenience of the mother, even if it is lowkey a parasite.
Yeah i dont think you listened to alot of pro life voices lmao. Its about the value of human life, often religiously motivated, which i mentioned earlier as well
Technically adults are also just a lump of cells, just organized in a different way. Thats why i never got this point of the prochoice crowd, its kinda retarded
It's honestly disgusting how far some people will deny an unborn baby in it's early stages of development, But then they'll completely be sympathetic towards the crazy mental cases who think their another sex altogether. Just more Double standards and hypocrisy.
Deny Biological Nature for Social Bullshit.
No im not. Im just saying biologically it is a member of the species homo sapiens, which it is. That isnt about any characteristics you use to evaluate personhood at all
No its not. It is the Zygot or the embryon or the foetus OF a member of the homo sapiens sapiens specie. Like I said previously, its not finished until its finished.
You can't call an individual the building blocs of an individual, its illogical.
I only follow the scientific datas and the definition of consciousness. Its not the individual I'm interested in in that context, its the consciousness. That's what separate us from plants, its therefore what should matter objectively to say if we should or should not stop the development of a foetus.
I read them, the problem is that, just like pro life, you are calling a member/human/individual what is in fact just a building bloc for a future individual. You are therefore naming a human a potential for humanity, not a human. That's why I say that you give arguments to pro life propagandist by saying this.
Again, the one using philosophy (and not biology) is you. I'm not the one naming a zygot or a foetus or a embryon a "human/individual/member" of a specie, you are. Again, because you are confusing the building blocs with the ending of the construction. That's why I use the metaphor of the building.
Sadly, it didn't make you tick, which is unfortunate.
No, if you accept biology, you accept the biological term and you don't change them. A individual/unite (animal/human) is NOT a zygot or an embryon or a foetus. Its a finished (in the post natal sence) and developped individual.
There is no "consent" if there is no sentience. When you move a plant into your room, do you say that the plant didn't "consent" to be moved ? No. That's why we can move around or kill plants without being afraid for them.
Unless there is a miracle conception that allows a embryon to get consciousness on day 1, there is not "consent" involve. What you are talking about is a baby, therefore a lifeform in the womb that developped consciousness, and in the case of a baby, there is no debate about the right of abortion, its prohibited (and its logical). But what we are talking about is not a conscious lifeform, but a lifeform that can be removed without repercussion on someones consciousness and therefore harm them. That's why the women's choices must be prioritized.
And let's not start tthe sexism by blaming things on women who have sex (while ignoring the fact that men are responsible beings also) or this will get ugly real fast.
Yeah i dont think you listened to alot of pro life voices lmao. Its about the value of human life, often religiously motivated, which i mentioned earlier as well
Brain dead people are technically dead by the standards of our actual knowledge. So yes, they are not human anymore, they are human's corpses with remaining nerve activities.
Not saying that the body don't deserves respect (after all, we are social specie, it would be harsh to throw away the body even if technically, its nothing but an empty shell), but that's now up to the family or the one who made a will for his remainings in the first place.
Maybe we will find a way to resurrect dead corpse in the future to make them human again, but we are not there yet.
You are not, you are naming a zygot a human. Its not scientific, its ideologic. A zygot is the prenatal, preembryon stage of a human, its NOT a human yet, it only has its blueprint. Those are not the same things.
Technically yes it does. Since we know identity begins with conscisousness and we know that consciousness begins between the 15 and 20 th week of the development, then when can they that the prestage of the identity and therefore the personnality of a human starts developping between the 15 and 20 th week of the development in the womb.
FIrst define what you mean by personhood then we will speak, second, there is no need to state where personhood (if that's really a real word) begins, we only need to know where consciousness begins.
Science doesnt tell us that personhood starts with consciousness. I dont care to define personhood. Why arent you getting it lmao. Im speaking on the biological aspect. Personhood is the philosophical aspect. People have varying views on when personhood starts. You think its with consciousness, prolife people may think its when life starts.
No its not. It is the Zygot or the embryon or the foetus OF a member of the homo sapiens sapiens specie. Like I said previously, its not finished until its finished.
You can't call an individual the building blocs of an individual, its illogical.
Doesnt matter whether its "finished". If we go by that its not finished until late teens when reproduction is a viable option. And if we go even further the body still grows and changes after that.
You are forcing your philosophical/ideological views on the biological perspective.
only follow the scientific datas and the definition of consciousness. Its not the individual I'm interested in in that context, its the consciousness. That's what separate us from plants, its therefore what should matter objectively to say if we should or should not stop the development of a foetus.
Ye and im not interested in the consciousness, neither are prolife people. Which you would know if you would actually read my posts. And thats not objective at all. Pro life peeps think human life is intrinsically valuable and even a zygote is a valuable human life because it has the potential of acquiring consciousness if you dont kill it off.
read them, the problem is that, just like pro life, you are calling a member/human/individual what is in fact just a building bloc for a future individual. You are therefore naming a human a potential for humanity, not a human. That's why I say that you give arguments to pro life propagandist by saying this.
No, if you accept biology, you accept the biological term and you don't change them. A individual/unite (animal/human) is NOT a zygot or an embryon or a foetus. Its a finished (in the post natal sence) and developped individual.
An human adult is human, sure. A human fetus is also human, just a different developmental stage. Your individuality nonsense is irrelevant for biology, thats philosophy. Im well aware the abortion debate also incorporates philosophy, but i wasnt necessarily talking about abortion, i was talking about biological life. We already settled life starting at conception. The conversation should have ended then if not for your inability to view the biology disconnected from the abortion debate
And let's not start tthe sexism by blaming things on women who have sex (while ignoring the fact that men are responsible beings also) or this will get ugly real fast.
Yeah doesnt sound like it at all lmao. You arent even getting the basic premise of pro life that its about human life. Or have you seen pro life peeps being pro vegan or anything?
Brain dead people are technically dead by the standards of our actual knowledge. So yes, they are not human anymore, they are human's corpses with remaining nerve activities.
Not saying that the body don't deserves respect (after all, we are social specie, it would be harsh to throw away the body even if technically, its nothing but an empty shell), but that's now up to the family or the one who made a will for his remainings in the first place.
Maybe we will find a way to resurrect dead corpse in the future to make them human again, but we are not there yet
The system is all the institution that are above the gov (laws/constitutions/system of power/chambers/wealth status co in the country/situation of minorities in the country etc..)
THe problem is that both paper don't take into consideration the point of views of socialist, communist and leftist. If they would, you would see that there is a bigger difference between the visions of a leftist and a liberal that between the vision and values of a liberal and conservatist.
Brain death implies the lost of consciousness and the impossibility of recovering. What you are talking about are the same reflexes the body of a cutted head chicken has.
Brain dead people are technically dead by the standards of our actual knowledge. So yes, they are not human anymore, they are human's corpses with remaining nerve activities.
When animals get butchered, you check reflexes like of the eye lids to make sure its dead. And then the muscle movement i talked earlier about still happened.
It was bled out and lacked the head already at that point. Not exactly sure what causes the movement, but its creepy af
Post automatically merged:
Fair enough i guess
Post automatically merged:
Reflexes are different though
When animals get butchered, you check reflexes like of the eye lids to make sure its dead. And then the muscle movement i talked earlier about still happened.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
