Abortion: Why is a lump of flesh worth more than another lump of flesh

So to not derail the abortion thread, I want to get back to the core issue behind it:
* We disagree over where life starts

• We disagree what life is
• And we all know another cult would not be taken seriously compared to Christianity.
  Ignore the last one, it is a flamebait.
  
  So my questions are:
  1. Where does life start?
  2. Where does the human life start`?
  3. Does a thing that can not feel, nor have developed a brain manage to snatch a soul?
  4. Why is it fair to utterly restrict the rights of 1 gender for something that does not server its purpose?
  5. What does make a lump of cells different from cancer cells? They share more or less all qualities, until one of them gets sentinence.
  
  Item number 4 will most likely be heading towards off-topic, but it must be asked. For if we do not ask it, we can not have moralists come in with unrelated arguments.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

Item 3 is subjective - depends on when you consider the soul - or if you even believe in the concept of a soul - to have entered the body. I've heard it said that it happens at about 49 days or so.

Item 5: I'd answer it in terms of potential. A cancerous lump has the potential to kill you much more than a fetus does, or perhaps if you're lucky, simply sit there and stay a lump, if it's benign. A fetus has the potential to become the next Enstein, or at the very least, another fully-developed human being, if all goes well during teh pregnancy.

edited 13th May '11 1:21:39 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

1. Where does life start?

Before conception with the eggs and sperm.

2. Where does the human life start`?

Same as above.

3. Does a thing that can not feel, nor have developed a brain manage to snatch a soul?

If it can't feel, no need to bother worrying about killing the unfeeling lump of cells

4. Why is it fair to utterly restrict the rights of 1 gender for something that does not server its purpose?

It isn't, assuming you are talking about banning abortion.

5. What does make a lump of cells different from cancer cells? They share more or less all qualities, until one of them gets sentinence.

True.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

1: Life starts at retirement.
2: When it's able to survive outside the womb.
3: I don't really believe in souls.
4: It's not. It's a pretty common gag that if men were the ones giving birth, abortion would have been legalized for decades now.
5: Biology. Embryonic cells have the potential (if provided with optimal conditions and a whole bunch of resources) to become a human. Cancer cells only have the potential to become more of the same.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

It seems to me — but feel free to correct me if I am wrong — that the disagreement is not precisely about when "life" starts, but rather, on what is the motive why humans are supposed to have an intrinsic dignity and certain rights, such as for example the right to live, which cannot be violated without extremely good reason.

If the motive for why grown up human beings have this dignity and these rights is because they are complex beings, capable of feats of intelligence, of emotions and of sensations, then the case is open and shut — a single-cellular human embryo is not anything like that.

If the motive is another one — for example, because these qualities are intrinsic in the very nature of Homo Sapiens specimen, or (but this is just one possible case) on their potential for feats of intelligence, emotion and sensation, then again the case is open and shut — a single-cellular human embryo is still an individual specimen of Homo Sapiens, even though a very undeveloped one.

As I suppose everyone here knows already, I favor the second interpretation; but in any case, "where life starts" does not seem to me to be the problem, and certainly not the crux of the issue. After all, as you mention, a lump of cancerous cells is technically alive too.

edited 13th May '11 2:20:45 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

In any case, here are my answers:

1. Where does life start? At conception — that's when you get something that can be described as a new individual belonging to the same species of its parents.

2. Where does the human life start`? Same answer. Humans are just animals like the others from this point of view, so no difference here.

3. Does a thing that can not feel, nor have developed a brain manage to snatch a soul? Why shouldn't it? A heavily brain-damaged person, or an acephalic one, also has a soul. Souls, even human souls,*

have little to do with intelligence — although I would say that a potential for intelligence is a necessary for a human soul. But I should reread Aquinas on that.

4. Why is it fair to utterly restrict the rights of 1 gender for something that does not server its purpose? Because not doing so would violate the rights of another human being, and in a much graver way. The right to live trumps basically every other right in all but the strictest circumstances, I think.

5. What does make a lump of cells different from cancer cells? They share more or less all qualities, until one of them gets sentinence The potential for sentience, for example, is something that a lump of cancer cells definitely does not have and an embryo — no matter how primitive — does.

EDIT:

Eh, you don't debate about this kind of topic on the Internet to try to convince anyone of your position anyway — that's just about impossible, as you point out. You debate to read their attacks to your position, try to understand them, and develop answers to them.

Sort of like a memetic vaccine inoculation

edited 13th May '11 1:41:34 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Now answer...

1. Conception
2. See above. It's just very underdeveloped human life before birth. It's still very underdeveloped after birth. GROWTH.
3. Possibly
4. I don't know? I want it legalized because if it's not then there will be more shady backstreet abortions which are no good, but eh...? Fuck it I am skipping this one
5. The fancy embryonic cells can become fancier bigger shit with sentience and stuff

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

@Aondeug: just out of curiosity — does your school of Buddhism have this as an "official" position? Or is it "just" your personal belief on this topic?

edited 13th May '11 1:45:10 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

If it's the potential you are worried about, every gamete should be given human rights. Every single one should be harvested and used.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

My answers more or less align with Aondeug (crap, ninjas). Only sticky point is with 4, and I acknowledge that it's a very complicated problem.

I'm not too hopeful that we'll ever reach a national consensus on the matter, ever.

edited 13th May '11 1:46:22 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

1. The same time it ends.
2. After it ends.
3. Everything is born with a little net that looks like a butterfly net but is actually made for souls. When an unwitting soul gets caught in the net, that becomes the lump of cell's soul.
4. Because the server has no port or socket listeners to allow it to receive information.
5. Because the last time we let superpower, sentient cancer mutants on the loose, we had to go get Superman to solve the problem.

Now, if you don't mind talking like an investor, the little batch of cancer is currently worthless but has the potential to have a great amount of return value. If the stock is currently junk, I'll invest it in hopes that it improves and I can get more money back from it, except instead of money, I figure I'll get some else, perhaps pride, joy, and happiness or something more physical, like a lawyer in the family. The returns can be highly variable, but it's important to realize that what I can have that lump of cancer become in a few years makes it's just as capable of being a human as I am.

edited 13th May '11 1:49:45 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

^^ O_o

edited 13th May '11 1:49:14 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.