I told you guys a year or more ago Roe was doomed!

Ah so somehow your idea of morality trumps basic science when it comes to who is a human being?!?!!

this is the same sort of “ morality” that allowed legalized slavery!

 

Science is a method by which hypotheses are tested to hone our understanding of things. It does not state when it becomes a human being, or what we should value morally. Logic does help with morality, though. Life is continuous. Sperm are alive. Eggs are alive. Zygotes are alive. Cancers are alive. The morally important distinction occurs when a new mind exists. There is no other logical standard.

 

Incorrectamundo!

Science has clearly proven that a human being’s existence begins at conception.

What you call science is actually political posturing!

 

I don't think you understand science in general or specifically in this scenario. Science never proves anything - only supports one hypothesis or model or not. Assigning when personhood begins is not a scientific concept, but a logical and moral one. At conception, the main thing that changes is that the unique genetic code comes together in a package the mother's body can eventually make one or more new humans (e.g. monozygotic twins) with. But given that cloning exists, we know that unique genetic code means basically nothing. If we clone somebody, or if they have an "identical twin," both clones/twins are still persons despite not having as unique of DNA as most people. They are persons based upon having minds.

 

I think you miss the point completely that “personhood” is a political theory not a scientific one.
When we are talking about a threshold for recognizing the right to life of a human being, we need something quantifiable and definitive!

The political “ personhood” threshold is neither. There is no specific point in the development of a child that science can support stating specifically at that moment all children become self aware. It is obviously just a means to back into denying the right to life of certain human beings based on little more than a notion.

you can squawk on and on about how you disagree, but this is the actual truth!

 

I am completely sure I am right, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

 

I said it's not scientific. I said it was a logical and moral question. I suppose politics are ideally about that, but not always.

I don't see why it must be quantifiable at all. And not definitive is better than morally irrelevant. Definitive and irrelevant is inferior to not definitive and relevant. To account for the ambiguity, you choose the earliest date that makes sense, which is 20 weeks gestation based upon current knowledge of neural development. Further knowledge could put it out further, but would not make it lower. It's definitive in the sense that you know there cannot be a mind at that point.

Self-awareness is not the same as having a mind. Self awareness requires far more than having a mind.

No it's answering a moral question with logic. Morality is based upon harm to others. Things with no mind cannot suffer and are not others as they have no mental existence. Things without minds do not need rights. This is why it's not controversial that we don't give couches or tumors rights, but there is a controversy for non-human animals. Why is it still controversial for fetuses? Because people get confused by morally irrelevant facts such as that it looks like a baby, has human DNA, has a heartbeat, etc.

At what point would it become a moral issue to destroy robots is an illustrative example. If there was some question as to whether they had minds, were able to feel and suffer in some way, then it would become controversial. But for now, since there is no serious question as to whether any robot actually feels, the destruction of a robot is only an issue of property to the owner of the robot, not rights of the robot.

I find it hard to believe you've really thought about it in part because your posts are mostly just saying "I'm right" without explanation.

 

Your first sentence is the mistake you made that is causing the second! .

 

You seem to have reading comprehension issues.I explained my position thoroughly. There is an obvious natural threshold, so there is no need to create some contrived one in order to back in to justifying homicide.

 

You seem immune to any information that challenges your preconceived ideas. You didn't explain anything. I at least provided information on why I hold my position. You just said "it's natural and logical so it's right." No, it's not logical. And natural is irrelevant.

 

Once again, reading comprehension. Get some!
You are backing into a position to support YOUR pre conceived notion. Have a nice life, my work here is done.