Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood

[_Droopy]

You are the one attempting to argue that moral respect for a being should be circumscribed by whether it has human DNA.

Nope. The core of my position is the fundamental moral problem associated with this kind of abortion culture, and is grounded in ethical, social, cultural, and ultimately, metaphysical concerns. I approached the DNA aspect because that's where you have staked your claim.

The problem is there is no essential boundary between human and non-human DNA.

Perhaps not - over millions of years, but the present boundaries between all forms of DNA and others (those that define presently existing Phyla, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species boundaries) is absolute and unbridgeable. Humans are humans and only humans, not dogs, cats, marsupials, or reptiles.

This led you to calling me a Nazi.

Nazis supported classifying certain groups of humans as non-humans and non-persons based upon ideological vision and political expediency. You and the rest of the secular humanist movement are doing nothing different, save applying a different gloss to the philosophical contortions necessary to get you where you desire to be.

I haven't argued my views on personhood in this thread at all, so it's hard to see how I'm grounding my entire argument in biology when I haven't made an argument.

Yes, I've been asking you for quite a while for a clear and detailed definition of "personhood," which you seem dedicated to avoiding, thus far.

My views on personhood are based in my metaethical views, as it happens.

Which are?

My interaction with you in this thread is limited to your flipping out on me for using the term personhood and clarifying your assertions.

I've never "flipped out" (funny how leftists tend to see righteous indignation at their own creepy moral coldness as a sign of being unhinged).

You, on the other hand, have limited your argument to biology.

Only because that's were you funneled your own defense in the beginning.

You seem to take your criteria for personhood for granted, as you assert it as though it were self-evident.

And what is that criteria?

You haven't made any effort in the voluminous posts you've written to justify this viewpoint nor have you indicated you even know how you would go about justifying it. You bleat and insult, but you haven't even begun explain why anyone should agree with you.

About what?

You obviously didn't read the John Hawk research I pointed to. Not only because you wrote a long post before you would have time to read it, but because the type of genetic changes that have been happening in human populations are in domains that could lead to a speciation event.

Pure, pure, pure hypothetical conjecture. Again, empirical science meets vast theoretical conjecture and is presented as a real possibility with an air of certainty (and a similar air of certainty and expertise in another contentious area claimed to rest on "the science" makes me pause as to your credibility within your own discipline so long as you are defending a personal ideological vision associated with it). I understand the basics of evolution, and I'm not saying I disagree with all of it as to its fundamental mechanics.

Nothing Hawk spoke about there rises above the level of trivial microevolutionary phenomena, and in any case, the time frame for such a speciation event (if such is even plausible in the human case at this juncture) is utterly vast.

The genetic distance between us and early homo sapiens already is such that it wouldn't be surprising if their were ethological barriers to reproduction if the populations existed side by side. The point of it is that human populations are not in evolutionary stasis.

More logical gaming. Its like a mantra. I keep posting long, detailed, and clear elucidations of my position, and you keep repeating the same monologue. I'm not arguing that evolution has totally ceased among humans. I'm arguing that, as to present and any foreseeable cultural/social future, evolution has no moral or ethical relation to the abortion question as it does not impinge on the time and cultural horizons of any foreseeable human type that may ever have to deal with it.

The broader philosophical and metaphysical objections to unrestricted abortion on demand are beyond the scope of biological science and anything it can bring to that table, and you have been reticent about going into those areas up to this point.

[_Droopy]

Oh, and I also want to make it clear that when my avatar is Pinkie Pie, that isn't just me being silly for its own sake. No, it has to be some deep, unresolved emotional issue that my apostasy has exacerbated or something.

Somehow, Johnnie, I don't think apostatizing from the church exacerbated your generally obnoxious, boorish, and juvenile characterological attributes.

I've a strong feeling that apostasy was only a symptom of those already deeply internalized characteristics, not a cause.

[_EAllusion]

Nazis supported classifying certain groups of humans as non-humans and non-persons based upon ideological vision and political expediency.

Nazis supported breathing air and dressing snazy. Be careful.

Is there any state in the United States that considers the brain-dead as legal persons? Embryos? Omg!, we're no different than the Nazis. It does not follow from the fact that people have made bad choices about what sorts of beings are deserving of moral respect that all such choices are bad. You, after all, have your own demarcation criteria that precludes beings others think are deserving of respect. You, say, failing to be a vegan doesn't mean you are treading the same path as the Nazis. It means you have a more restrictive criteria for personhood than some. You assert that peronhood should be defined by whether a being is a human. That's all fine and dandy. You can't explain why someone should hold this view, which isn't too helpful. You probably recognize that this view is a bit radical. That doesn't mean it is wrong, of course. But in its defense the best you can muster is hyperbolic insults and comparisons to the Nazis.

[_Kishkumen]

Droopy, I chose Molok as my username because as a proud member of the Regressive Party I am strictly against abortion, but wholly supportive of murdering children. Seemed appropriate.

That so rules.

[_Molok]

Droopy, I chose Molok as my username because as a proud member of the Regressive Party I am strictly against abortion, but wholly supportive of murdering children. Seemed appropriate.

That so rules.

I'm glad you enjoyed it Kish. The "Civil disobedience is still disobedience" sign makes me laugh every time.

[_Droopy]

The problem, Droopy, is that you said biology is a philosophy.

And you are now exposed (once again) as a bald liar.

CFR

[_Darth J]

The problem, Droopy, is that you said biology is a philosophy.

And you are now exposed (once again) as a bald liar.

CFR

We're now on the second time I have quoted this.

But of course, by attempting to ground your entire argument in biology, you have abandoned the field of ethics and morality altogether at the outset, which does not surprise me given the complete moral relativism, at the epistemological, metaphysical and ontological level, that is at the foundation of all secular humanistic philosophies that must rely on present or theoretically modeled sociocultural fashions and trends (especially among the reigning bohemian intelligentsia that is at the core of all such modernist movements) as a basis of moral discrimination.

I have already explained this. I guess you were too busy with your Sean Hannity blow-up doll to notice.

[_Darth J]

Oh, and I also want to make it clear that when my avatar is Pinkie Pie, that isn't just me being silly for its own sake. No, it has to be some deep, unresolved emotional issue that my apostasy has exacerbated or something.

Somehow, Johnnie, I don't think apostatizing from the church exacerbated your generally obnoxious, boorish, and juvenile characterological attributes.

I can see your point that one would expect such qualities to be fully developed from being an active, believing Mormon.

I've a strong feeling that apostasy was only a symptom of those already deeply internalized characteristics, not a cause.

I don't know how anyone could possibly determine that. That sounds a lot like psychology, but from what I hear, psychology is not a science.

Oh, by the way, I want you to know that I am very impressed by your masterful prose, what with using words like "characterological." Not to change the subject, but you said this to EAllusion:

And what is that criteria?

The word "criteria" is plural. I guess it will remain one of life's mysteries why the Bard of this board did not phrase the question as, "And what are those criteria?"

[_Fionn]

Could someone define what we mean by "convenience abortion"?

How do we measure convenience?

[_EAllusion]

Perhaps not - over millions of years, but the present boundaries between all forms of DNA and others (those that define presently existing Phyla, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species boundaries) is absolute and unbridgeable. Humans are humans and only humans, not dogs, cats, marsupials, or reptiles.

Speciation can occur much more rapidly than over millions of years. To wit, we've witnessed it numerous times. Populations with additive genetic variation that correlates with fitness will change rapidly under selection such as humans with massive population growth finding themselves in radically new environmental pressures. But beyond that, you have supplied no reason to think there is some absolute and unbridgeable boundary between human populations and non-human populations. It contradicts basic molecular genetics to think there is. What is the limit on genetic variation? Why? There are creationist arguments to his effect, and I'm shocked you haven't parroted one yet. But they have the disadvantage of being wrong and you'd inherent that disadvantage.

It doesn't matter if no such examples of quasi-humans that are quasi enough for you exist right now. We know it did historically and it has the potential to in the future. For that matter, why are Neanderthals not counted? This is a constraint on your theory of personhood that you have to account for. How does it apply to these situations, even if hypothetical? You are unable to even approach such a question precisely because you don't know how to metaethically justify your view, not even approximately. So you instead opt for mean-spirited attacks and bluster.

But this is all totally unnecessary. I said "sufficiently human-like" to side-step this problem.

Nothing Hawk spoke about there rises above the level of trivial microevolutionary phenomena

You mean like when he argues that modern humans are more different than humans living a few thousand years ago than those humans were different from Neandartals?