I'm not sure what point you think you're making with the DNA argument. I just referenced it in terms of the general human genome; most you talk to think having human DNA makes you inherently special, and I disagree with the idea of inherent worth.
Yes, I am aware of full term abortions. Honestly, I don't know why they bother at that point; just take the baby out and shoot it or something, if you're so intent on killing it no matter what. The whole process as it stands just sounds like a massive waste of time and resources.
As far as the laws, I fully support them standing. I don't believe it is moral to compel people to provide services they do not wish to provide. Besides, give me an actual number for how often those even come into play. People who become doctors and nurses tend to have some specific mindsets about helping people and caring for them. What's the actual number of times this needs to happen?
And further, what are the circumstances? If they just need to wait for the baby to "stop crying", then you're describing a situation where a mortal wound has already been inflicted, and death is the awaited outcome. These laws would, in such circumstances, merely prevent hostile rent-seeking lawsuits demanding to know why the 80% aborted baby wasn't magically brought back to perfect health after it was discharged from the mother.
Having human DNA makes you, you know, human. A chimp has "similar" DNA but it isn't 100% the same & therefor a chimp is not a human. Or a person either.
DNA is the only thing that scientifically measures if you are a human or not. An opera singer or a person in a coma are both humans even if one of them can't move or speak. They both have human DNA. Different of course, but within the boundaries of what a human has.
As I said. Performing an abortion, the baby pops out still alive. You are allowed, in some Democrat states, to kill it even after birth. If it can cry it is fully developed, ok? "Mortal wound"? You DO know what babies do, yes? They cry.
You seem either unwilling or unable to understand that the basic quality of "being a human" is not what is dissgreed upon here. We have accepted "these fetuses and babies are human" as a foundation of our debate.
The disagreement stems from whether or not being human entitles something to inherent worth. Your camp appears to say yes, because it makes you feel good. I say no, and draw the distinction between "merely human", those who share the human genome, and "human person", those who bother share the human genome and have a mind beyond the pure meat of their biology. I posit that only the second group has value, and only because they demonstrate that value through accomplishment.
And crying is no evidence by itself of a viable baby. It is evidence of functioning vocal cords, inflating lungs, and just enough brain activity to use these two things to make noise. A severely mentally retarded adult human can cry as well, but you wouldn't say he or she is a functioning person, would you?
If you can leave a baby to lie on the floor and cry briefly before it dies, that baby has a mortal wound (perhaps from a botched brain extraction or the like). A normal, healthy baby will not die if you leave it lying on the ground for a while; it will, generally, tire itself out a d go to sleep.
You need to actually think about things before you say them.
No, in fact, a normal baby WILL die rather quickly after birth if not cared for. Starvation or hypothermia are swift killers for tiny infants. It will "go to sleep" and never wake up, eh?
So your foundation is that YOU (or any authority) get to decide who is a person or not. Based on arbitrary "rules" that can change like the wind. That's not science. Based on DNA is science.
"Value" is the ultimate arbitrary measure! Utterly unscientific. Just FYI. Just like "beauty" or "usefulness" or "scary" & etc.
No, in fact, a normal baby WILL die rather quickly after birth if not cared for. Starvation or hypothermia are swift killers for tiny infants. It will "go to sleep" and never wake up, eh?
It's always fascinating to behold when someone is so confidently wrong. Sir, you are aware that infants are not birthed starving, correct? That they inherit a store of calories from the mother? Further, are you aware that we generally don't have mothers give birth outdoors, but rather in climate-controlled indoor spaces? And that, since again infants inherit a store of calories from their mother, they don't suddenly die of exposure from a slight breeze?
Evolution made us hardier than that, if only because the weaker ones died.
So your foundation is that YOU (or any authority) get to decide who is a person or not. Based on arbitrary "rules" that can change like the wind. That's not science. Based on DNA is science.
Sir, I'm going to have to insist you put those goal posts back where you found them. We are in disagreement over morals here - show me the morals gene or the ethics protein structure, and we'll talk on that. As far as morality works, it is and has always been a metaphysical concept that exists only within the self - there is no objectively observable metric of morality like there is for anything material, and so the ultimate arbitrator of my moral code will always be me, and the ultimate arbitrator of your code will be you, and so on.
"Value" is the ultimate arbitrary measure! Utterly unscientific. Just FYI. Just like "beauty" or "usefulness" or "scary" & etc.
Didn't you just get done telling me elsewhere that you believe in objective values inherent to all humans? It's quite absurd for you, of all people, to suddenly decide you need to lean on the scientific method for support.
So why should I, or anyone here, even listen to you? You haven't demonstrated any worth that I've seen.
For that matter, why should you have the right to speak at all? Or to not be enslaved? Or to not be killed by the government and your organs auctioned to billionaires?
All of those rights derive from the (Christian) concept of inherent worth that you casually discard. You are using those rights to argue against themselves so your words are less than useless.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making with the DNA argument. I just referenced it in terms of the general human genome; most you talk to think having human DNA makes you inherently special, and I disagree with the idea of inherent worth.
Yes, I am aware of full term abortions. Honestly, I don't know why they bother at that point; just take the baby out and shoot it or something, if you're so intent on killing it no matter what. The whole process as it stands just sounds like a massive waste of time and resources.
As far as the laws, I fully support them standing. I don't believe it is moral to compel people to provide services they do not wish to provide. Besides, give me an actual number for how often those even come into play. People who become doctors and nurses tend to have some specific mindsets about helping people and caring for them. What's the actual number of times this needs to happen?
And further, what are the circumstances? If they just need to wait for the baby to "stop crying", then you're describing a situation where a mortal wound has already been inflicted, and death is the awaited outcome. These laws would, in such circumstances, merely prevent hostile rent-seeking lawsuits demanding to know why the 80% aborted baby wasn't magically brought back to perfect health after it was discharged from the mother.
Having human DNA makes you, you know, human. A chimp has "similar" DNA but it isn't 100% the same & therefor a chimp is not a human. Or a person either.
DNA is the only thing that scientifically measures if you are a human or not. An opera singer or a person in a coma are both humans even if one of them can't move or speak. They both have human DNA. Different of course, but within the boundaries of what a human has.
This mindset?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
As I said. Performing an abortion, the baby pops out still alive. You are allowed, in some Democrat states, to kill it even after birth. If it can cry it is fully developed, ok? "Mortal wound"? You DO know what babies do, yes? They cry.
You seem either unwilling or unable to understand that the basic quality of "being a human" is not what is dissgreed upon here. We have accepted "these fetuses and babies are human" as a foundation of our debate.
The disagreement stems from whether or not being human entitles something to inherent worth. Your camp appears to say yes, because it makes you feel good. I say no, and draw the distinction between "merely human", those who share the human genome, and "human person", those who bother share the human genome and have a mind beyond the pure meat of their biology. I posit that only the second group has value, and only because they demonstrate that value through accomplishment.
And crying is no evidence by itself of a viable baby. It is evidence of functioning vocal cords, inflating lungs, and just enough brain activity to use these two things to make noise. A severely mentally retarded adult human can cry as well, but you wouldn't say he or she is a functioning person, would you?
If you can leave a baby to lie on the floor and cry briefly before it dies, that baby has a mortal wound (perhaps from a botched brain extraction or the like). A normal, healthy baby will not die if you leave it lying on the ground for a while; it will, generally, tire itself out a d go to sleep.
You need to actually think about things before you say them.
No, in fact, a normal baby WILL die rather quickly after birth if not cared for. Starvation or hypothermia are swift killers for tiny infants. It will "go to sleep" and never wake up, eh?
So your foundation is that YOU (or any authority) get to decide who is a person or not. Based on arbitrary "rules" that can change like the wind. That's not science. Based on DNA is science.
"Value" is the ultimate arbitrary measure! Utterly unscientific. Just FYI. Just like "beauty" or "usefulness" or "scary" & etc.
It's always fascinating to behold when someone is so confidently wrong. Sir, you are aware that infants are not birthed starving, correct? That they inherit a store of calories from the mother? Further, are you aware that we generally don't have mothers give birth outdoors, but rather in climate-controlled indoor spaces? And that, since again infants inherit a store of calories from their mother, they don't suddenly die of exposure from a slight breeze?
Evolution made us hardier than that, if only because the weaker ones died.
Sir, I'm going to have to insist you put those goal posts back where you found them. We are in disagreement over morals here - show me the morals gene or the ethics protein structure, and we'll talk on that. As far as morality works, it is and has always been a metaphysical concept that exists only within the self - there is no objectively observable metric of morality like there is for anything material, and so the ultimate arbitrator of my moral code will always be me, and the ultimate arbitrator of your code will be you, and so on.
Didn't you just get done telling me elsewhere that you believe in objective values inherent to all humans? It's quite absurd for you, of all people, to suddenly decide you need to lean on the scientific method for support.
So why should I, or anyone here, even listen to you? You haven't demonstrated any worth that I've seen.
For that matter, why should you have the right to speak at all? Or to not be enslaved? Or to not be killed by the government and your organs auctioned to billionaires?
All of those rights derive from the (Christian) concept of inherent worth that you casually discard. You are using those rights to argue against themselves so your words are less than useless.