NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not talking about lexical definitions, but the legal definition. In this case the will of the dead is most certainly protected. It's clear.

Again, keep in mind that all persons who would recieve property has a lawyer in a dispute and the executer of the will acts on the behalf of the person who chose them.

wills can, and have, been broken by the courts as matters of public policy however

wills can, and have, been broken by the courts as matters of public policy however

He has already accepted that, he actually stated that.

But he hasn't addressed the fact that the distribution of a dead man's property is a matter of the rights and entitlements of the living, and not of the dead.

It requires both the action and the object, not just the object.

If it does not have both, the word does not apply.

I see you.

See is the transitive. You is the object, see is the action. If either you cease to exist or I cease to see, the statement is untrue.

However, you haven't ceased to have the effect, the alteration is still occuring. Just like when you affect an object (have an effect on the object). It doesn't stop just because the action stops. You're quite obviously denying the meaning and purpose of such a term

According to you if I alter something, then it stops being altered the moment I stop acting. However, alter carries a meaning that lasts longer than that. Alter, in fact, refers to the idea that the effect would be carried forward.

See is an amusing example, because when you stop seeing the object stops being seen. However, when you stop altering the object doesn't stop being altered. Again, the term clearly states that if something is made different by your action that alter applies.

Again, I'll offer. Prove that "alter" is a point of time verb. And, no, despite your limited understanding, not all verbs are point of time.

wills can, and have, been broken by the courts as matters of public policy however

Yes, and the same happens when people are living. These are exceptions not the rule. The rule is that if I present something that is legal in my will, that my rights are respected. It doesn't matter if I give it to be a being with no rights, like my cat.

He has already accepted that, he actually stated that.

But he hasn't addressed the fact that the distribution of a dead man's property is a matter of the rights and entitlements of the living, and not of the dead.

So if I give my estate to my cat, then is it the cat's rights that are being honored?

He has already accepted that, he actually stated that.

But he hasn't addressed the fact that the distribution of a dead man's property is a matter of the rights and entitlements of the living, and not of the dead.

it...depends on how you look at it. A will is a special legal entity, not really a contract (considerig there's a lack of...well...consideration).

It is perhaps more technically accurate that the distrubution of the dead man's property is neither the right of the dead, or the living, but the estate, which is a seperate legal entity of itself.

However, you haven't ceased to have the effect, the alteration is still occuring. Just like when you affect an object (have an effect on the object). It doesn't stop just because the action stops. You're quite obviously denying the meaning and purpose of such a term

According to you if I alter something, then it stops being altered the moment I stop acting. However, alter carries a meaning that lasts longer than that. Alter, in fact, refers to the idea that the effect would be carried forward.

See is an amusing example, because when you stop seeing the object stops being seen. However, when you stop altering the object doesn't stop being altered. Again, the term clearly states that if something is made different by your action that alter applies.

Again, I'll offer. Prove that "alter" is a point of time verb. And, no, despite your limited understanding, not all verbs are point of time.

I'm thinking 'alter' is like 'die'....

Just in case you didn't know, this relates to Jocabia's claim that a person's right extend infinitely into the past and into the future, extending the right of the child to not be altered into the past to cover it while it was a fetus.

It should be noted that I was the only individual who actually wanted to address the nature of rights and determine what is the justification for natural rights and their eternal extension, so his accusation that I ran away from this argument is untrue.

Is it time for quotes or would you care to stop lying? You asked me to prove that rights exist at all, while simultaneously arguing that rights exist and are defined in the specific way you define (one that is equal with the term ability and makes the term useless in your own words).

It doesn't cover the fetus or any other non-person. It covers the person and all things that are done that effect that person and the execution of their will in some way.

I'm not talking about lexical definitions, but the legal definition. In this case the will of the dead is most certainly protected. It's clear.So you are making a legal argument. *rolls up sleeves* That's all I was waiting for.

No, it's not clear, nor have you made it so. Simply reading the particular amendment in question does little to guide us. You have to reach out for sources of Constitutional intepretation, which will be expressed in cases on the point. I can understand your position, and I could debate it as an opinion, or even a legal interpretation with no standing...but you can not baldly claim it to be legal fact unless you can somehow back that up with actual case law.

Again, keep in mind that all persons who would recieve property has a lawyer in a dispute and the executer of the will acts on the behalf of the person who chose them.Constitutional law, and property law, while not wholly divorced from one another, are nonetheless quite different fields, and comparing them can be of only limited use. There are particular statutes and regulations governing property law which do not apply to Constitutional matters, so I'll thank you to eat that orange instead of comparing it to an apple :P

I'm thinking 'alter' is like 'die'....

No, can't be. Don't you know that all verbs are point in time verbs. Otherwise, he'd have to, you know, offer proof and he's clearly not willing to do that.

However, you haven't ceased to have the effect, the alteration is still occuring. Just like when you affect an object (have an effect on the object). It doesn't stop just because the action stops. You're quite obviously denying the meaning and purpose of such a term

According to you if I alter something, then it stops being altered the moment I stop acting. However, alter carries a meaning that lasts longer than that. Alter, in fact, refers to the idea that the effect would be carried forward.

See is an amusing example, because when you stop seeing the object stops being seen. However, when you stop altering the object doesn't stop being altered. Again, the term clearly states that if something is made different by your action that alter applies.

Again, I'll offer. Prove that "alter" is a point of time verb. And, no, despite your limited understanding, not all verbs are point of time.

Find a dictionary that defines alter as "to have an effect on" and I will concede this argument to you.

Until then, I will consider that altering only occurs while someone is taking action.

So you are making a legal argument. *rolls up sleeves* That's all I was waiting for.

No, it's not clear, nor have you made it so. Simply reading the particular amendment in question does little to guide us. You have to reach out for sources of Constitutional intepretation, which will be expressed in cases on the point. I can understand your position, and I could debate it as an opinion, or even a legal interpretation with no standing...but you can not baldly claim it to be legal fact unless you can somehow back that up with actual case law.
I already told you, I'm working on it. Was I unclear or did you miss it?

Constitutional law, and property law, while not wholly divorced from one another, are nonetheless quite different fields, and comparing them can be of only limited use. There are particular statutes and regulations governing property law which do not apply to Constitutional matters, so I'll thank you to eat that orange instead of comparing it to an apple :P
The point is that we recognize that a person has a will that extends into both the past and the future with regards to rights. Property rights is a limited example, but one can clearly see that we recognize lots of rights that are expressed by a will.

For example, I have a right to be buried as I like (provided I can afford it and doesn't create a risk to others) as a part of my freedom of religion, even if there is no family or anyone else that is effected. In the event, that I have no will and no family, my wishes are still respected as much as we can possibly know them (so if I was known to be Christian I would be given a Christian funeral).

So if I give my estate to my cat, then is it the cat's rights that are being honored?

No that is an expression of your last will while living.

Find a dictionary that defines alter as "to have an effect on" and I will concede this argument to you.

Until then, I will consider that altering only occurs while someone is taking action.

Amusing. Another fallacy. It's not either or. Alter as defined has the same meaning as "to have an effect on". Again. Prove it doesn't. You've made the positive claim that alter only applies at a point of time. I've denied this. The burden of proof is on you. I'll wait.

No that is an expression of your last will while living.

But according to you, that will cannot have an effect on the past or the future, but only the moment. Is this an admission that my will extends past my corporeal form? Whoops. See that whooshing around the room making raspberry noises? That's your argument after you've poked a hole in it yourself.

I already told you, I'm working on it. Was I unclear or did you miss it? Working on it, and continuing to discuss it without evidence is...not something I think you'd approve of :P
So, perhaps until this argument can be furthered by some proof, it should be hung up somewhere?

it...depends on how you look at it. A will is a special legal entity, not really a contract (considerig there's a lack of...well...consideration).

It is perhaps more technically accurate that the distrubution of the dead man's property is neither the right of the dead, or the living, but the estate, which is a seperate legal entity of itself.

I think the assumption is that we cannot know when exactly we are going to die, and therefore cannot actually make an attempt to give everything we own away at the point of death. Furthermore we would not want to give away everything before we die.

Therefore we establish a last will and testament to establish what our last will would be were we able to express it. Therefore, a will is the gifting of property at the moment before death.

I already told you, I'm working on it. Was I unclear or did you miss it?


The point is that we recognize that a person has a will that extends into both the past and the future with regards to rights. Property rights is a limited example, but one can clearly see that we recognize lots of rights that are expressed by a will.

For example, I have a right to be buried as I like (provided I can afford it and doesn't create a risk to others) as a part of my freedom of religion, even if there is no family or anyone else that is effected. In the event, that I have no will and no family, my wishes are still respected as much as we can possibly know them (so if I was known to be Christian I would be given a Christian funeral).

I question whether one has such a right. I can't say for sure, but I'm not sure of any case law that saysone has the right to be buried in accordance with religious beliefs, other than insofar one has entered a contractual relaionship with an undertaker to perform a specific burial.

I remember an issue with the US miltary quite recently when families of dead pagan soldiers have been requesting a five pointed star be on their headstone.

Again you have the right to contract for a burial of your chosing, I'm unsure if one has the right to a good christian burial courtesy of the state, however.

it...depends on how you look at it. A will is a special legal entity, not really a contract (considerig there's a lack of...well...consideration).

It is perhaps more technically accurate that the distrubution of the dead man's property is neither the right of the dead, or the living, but the estate, which is a seperate legal entity of itself.

The will of the dead is a part of the estate. The creation of an estate is simply recognition of the inability of the dead to act. However, all of their contracts, debts, and holdings are a part of it. It's just a legal term for what is left when I die. It is directly related to me and my will.

I'm thinking 'alter' is like 'die'....

Am I right in thinking that there was an ulterior motive in choosing the word die?

Therefore we establish a last will and testament to establish what our last will would be were we able to express it. Therefore, a will is the gifting of property at the moment before death.

*bangs head against desk*
Do you really want to get into this as legal arguments? Because I promise you...it's not nearly as cut and dry as you'd like, and you're going to leave it feeling somewhat violated. Better done in other ways...

I question whether one has such a right. I can't say for sure, but I'm not sure of any case law that saysone has the right to be buried in accordance with religious beliefs, other than insofar one has entered a contractual relaionship with an undertaker to perform a specific burial.

I remember an issue with the US miltary quite recently when families of dead pagan soldiers have been requesting a five pointed star be on their headstone.

Again you have the right to contract for a burial of your chosing, I'm unsure if one has the right to a good christian burial courtesy of the state, however.

You certainly do. If I put in my will that I wish for a Christian burial, would it be a violation of my rights to bury me as if I were Pagan?

I think the assumption is that we cannot know when exactly we are going to die, and therefore cannot actually make an attempt to give everything we own away at the point of death. Furthermore we would not want to give away everything before we die.

Therefore we establish a last will and testament to establish what our last will would be were we able to express it. Therefore, a will is the gifting of property at the moment before death.

there is a point to this, it can be said that a will is, literally, the last will of the dead, the final giving of his property before death. But since you don't know when you're going to die, you write it down, to say "in my last instant before death, I do thus".

But according to you, that will cannot have an effect on the past or the future, but only the moment. Is this an admission that my will extends past my corporeal form? Whoops. See that whooshing around the room making raspberry noises? That's your argument after you've poked a hole in it yourself.

There is a great deal of legal work that must be undertaken after a will has been expressed. The resolution of the will is the necessary legal work to express that last will while living.

And I certainly wouldn't argue that your decisions now cannot still be binding after you are dead. There is a great deal of contract law that states otherwise. But those can also be considered the entitlements of the living.

*bangs head against desk*
Do you really want to get into these legal arguments? Because I promise you...it's not nearly as cut and dry as you'd like, and you're going to leave it feeling somewhat violated.

My thoughts exactly. I realize it's complicated, but it's undeniable that a will can effect no one with rights save the deceased. Obviously, a will could only address the method of burial. It could address donating the body to science. It could address the writing on the headstone. It could address taking something and destroying it (like asking that you be buried with it). It could address a number of things that have no other person involved other than the deceased.

It is clear that personhood does not end in death.

You certainly do. If I put in my will that I wish for a Christian burial, would it be a violation of my rights to bury me as if I were Pagan?

It wouldn't be your rights being violated. The body, and all of its wordly posessions, would become property of the estate. It is the job of the estate to exact the wil of the deceased prior to his or her death.

The estate thus has the right to carry out the will of the dead while he lived. The body becoming its property is its to dispose of, in any manner legally consistant. However, the estate being bound to the will of the now dead, has aquired the property on condition it deal with it in a specific way.

Thus burying it as a pagan could arguably be counter to the rights of the estate. Not the dead.

*bangs head against desk*
Do you really want to get into this as legal arguments? Because I promise you...it's not nearly as cut and dry as you'd like, and you're going to leave it feeling somewhat violated. Better done in other ways...

It is hard not to address rights without having legal undertones.

I do not wish to say that this is how the law works, but merely a reason we might have made the law look like this.

There is a great deal of legal work that must be undertaken after a will has been expressed. The resolution of the will is the necessary legal work to express that last will while living.

And I certainly wouldn't argue that your decisions now cannot still be binding after you are dead. There is a great deal of contract law that states otherwise. But those can also be considered the entitlements of the living.

Nope. According to you, rights cannot be applied before birth or after death.

See, what I've been saying all along is that the will of the living can act on events after their death or before their birth. The will or probable will of a living person is respected both before birth and after death. According to you, that was not so. Now you've contradicted yourself, AGAIN. Quick catch your argument, it's running out of air.

It wouldn't be your rights being violated. The body, and all of its wordly posessions, would become property of the estate. It is the job of the estate to exact the wil of the deceased prior to his or her death.

The estate thus has the right to carry out the will of the dead while he lived. The body becoming its property is its to dispose of, in any manner legally consistant. However, the estate being bound to the will of the now dead, has aquired the property on condition it deal with it in a specific way.

Thus burying it as a pagan could arguably be counter to the rights of the estate. Not the dead.

Yes, but the creation of the estate and the recognition of the rights of the estate are a recognition of the rights of the deceased. You cannot deny that they are intrinsicly linked.

there is a point to this, it can be said that a will is, literally, the last will of the dead, the final giving of his property before death. But since you don't know when you're going to die, you write it down, to say "in my last instant before death, I do thus".

It is logically consistent to, as it provides a justification for inheritance under a capitalist system. Since we are dealing with property rights, this is very important, with establishing consent and all.

Yes, but the creation of the estate and the recognition of the rights of the estate are a recognition of the rights of the deceased. You cannot deny that they are intrinsicly linked.

rights of the deceased WHILE HE LIVED.

The living has the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit.

Likewise the living has the right to set up an institution to dispose of this property once he is no longer capable of doing so himself.

The estate is a proactive granting of rights, the estate only has the rights it is given while the deceased still LIVED. It can not overstep those bounds. The estate is the recognition of the rihts of th deceased when he was still living.

it's really simple.

The will is the expression of the deceased at the instant before his death.

The estate is the legal entity created to cary out the expression made while the deceased still lived.

Nope. According to you, rights cannot be applied before birth or after death.

And I am sticking to that. Unfortunately rights require a great deal of legal work to protect and resolve, so the protection of rights during life can easily run over into death, even if the rights don't.

That is why you "can provide many cases of first amendment cases continuing after the complaintant died", but are having difficulty finding any cases where the actual rights continued after death.

Working on it, and continuing to discuss it without evidence is...not something I think you'd approve of :P
So, perhaps until this argument can be furthered by some proof, it should be hung up somewhere?

Fine. Let's just establish some preliminary proof.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html

Again, he is acting as the executor of the estate, but it's important to note, that the estate is a recognition of the will of the deceased.

Fine. Let's just establish some preliminary proof.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html

Again, he is acting as the executor of the estate, but it's important to note, that the estate is a recognition of the will of the deceased.

no. The estate is a recongition of the intent of the living. It is bringing out the literal WILL of the living. The deceased, at the moment it becomes deceased, has no will.

It was the will of the living while he lived. The executor of the estate is tasked with bringing about the will of the living. Not the dead, the dead have no will. A will is a statement of the living.

Dead men, as they say, tell no tales.

And I am sticking to that. Unfortunately rights require a great deal of legal work to protect and resolve, so the protection of rights during life can easily run over into death, even if the rights don't.

That is why you "can provide many cases of first amendment cases continuing after the complaintant died", but are having difficulty finding any cases where the actual rights continued after death.

Amusing. You've just said that the will of the person is respected after death. I know you don't see the flaw in this, but trust me, it's obvious and it destroys your argument.

No, the cases running after they died are recognition of their rights after death. Again, can I be found guilty of a crime after my death without trial? The answer is no. I still have a right to trial.

You'll also notice that we allow for a posthumous pardon, which is also a respect for your rights.

Jocabia, the only thing that is going to back you up, is some crazy, landmark decision that actually states what you are stating...that a dead person is the one still invested with rights, and that the estate itself is not a separate legal entity, but rather the incorporeal form of the deceased that will continue to live on, and retain the rights (much as a living person) until such time as the estate expires. Do you have any idea the legal can of worms such a pronouncement would open? In any case, harping on estates is not backing up your Constitutional argument.

what you need to understand is that an estate is a legal entity that is granted, by extention, the same legal rights the deceased had WHEN HE WAS LIVING.

It is not expresing the rights of the dead. It is carrying out the execution of the rights of the living.

See that whooshing around the room making raspberry noises? That's your argument after you've poked a hole in it yourself.

Now you've contradicted yourself, AGAIN. Quick catch your argument, it's running out of air.

After every reply you make to me, you feel compelled to say something obnoxious like this, even when others actually agree with ME.

It was only through force of will that I lasted through all your shit when no one agreed with me, now I at least get the gratitude of knowing that you are making an ass out of yourself in front of others.

Amusing. You've just said that the will of the person is respected after death. I know you don't see the flaw in this, but trust me, it's obvious and it destroys your argument.

No, the cases running after they died are recognition of their rights after death. Again, can I be found guilty of a crime after my death without trial? The answer is no. I still have a right to trial.

You'll also notice that we allow for a posthumous pardon, which is also a respect for your rights.

Or it could be our respect for the rights of the living.

Amusing. You've just said that the will of the person is respected after death. I know you don't see the flaw in this, but trust me, it's obvious and it destroys your argument.

No, the cases running after they died are recognition of their rights after death. Again, can I be found guilty of a crime after my death without trial? The answer is no. I still have a right to trial.

You'll also notice that we allow for a posthumous pardon, which is also a respect for your rights.

crimes that were comitted during your lifetime. The right to trial likewise can be seen as a mater of law where no verdict can be legally given without a trial or confession.

In other words,the courts, based on their limited powers, can not pronounce judgement without a trial (abscent a confession). In this instance it is less the power of the living as it is the limitations of the courts to pronounce verdict without trial

no. The estate is a recongition of the intent of the living. It is bringing out the literal WILL of the living. The deceased, at the moment it becomes deceased, has no will.

Undeniable. The dead have no will. However, it is recognition that the will of a person is not limited by their corporeal existence, which it the point of this line.

It was the will of the living while he lived. The executor of the estate is tasked with bringing about the will of the living. Not the dead, the dead have no will. A will is a statement of the living.

Dead men, as they say, tell no tales.

Yes, and the point is that the will of the living exists past the boundaries of birth and death. That's the point. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

no. The estate is a recongition of the intent of the living. It is bringing out the literal WILL of the living. The deceased, at the moment it becomes deceased, has no will.

Undeniable. The dead have no will. However, it is recognition that the will of a person is not limited by their corporeal existence, which it the point of this line.

It was the will of the living while he lived. The executor of the estate is tasked with bringing about the will of the living. Not the dead, the dead have no will. A will is a statement of the living.

Dead men, as they say, tell no tales.

Yes, and the point is that the will of the living exists past the boundaries of birth and death. That's the point. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

I have one quick question for you...can the dead vote?

If your theory is correct, tat rights are eternal and the estate executes those rights...can I put in my will that I, as an american, wishes to vote in the next presidential election, and should I die before hand I wish to task my estate to exercise my eternal right, and vote democrat?

In fact, since it is eternal and extends after death, I wish my estate to vote for me, exercising my ETERNAL right to vote, in EVERY election, from now until forever.

Of course...where does the dead live for purposes of voting in a district? Where they used to, or where they were buried?

Undeniable. The dead have no will. However, it is recognition that the will of a person is not limited by their corporeal existence, which it the point of this line.

Yes, and the point is that the will of the living exists past the boundaries of birth and death. That's the point. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

You are taking what is a completely flawed argument, ignoring those flaws, and then holding up counter-arguments as support for your position? Wait...that sounds like something you accused others of doing...can't put my finger on it...

Or it could be our respect for the rights of the living.

Okay, we're done here. This is and always was the pont. The will of the living is not limited by when they are alive. It extends passed the limits of their corporeal form. You've now admitted it.

So now that we recognize that person does not have to be living for their will or probable will (as it would be expressed while they are living) to be respected then we won't hear any more arguments that the will of the living only applies when they are living. Glad to hear it.

Okay, we're done here. This is and always was the pont. The will of the living is not limited by when they are alive. It extends passed the limits of their corporeal form. You've now admitted it.

So now that we recognize that person does not have to be living for their will or probable will (as it would be expressed while they are living) to be respected then we won't hear any more arguments that the will of the living only applies when they are living. Glad to hear it.
Unilaterally declaring victory does not change the fact that as a matter of law, you are in fact incorrect. We will not be done here, until you can either prove your flawed legal interpretations, or drop them as untenable.

Yes, and the point is that the will of the living exists past the boundaries of birth and death. That's the point. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

Nope, the will of the living extends only to the period in which they are living. The job of the estate is to exercise that will, made while one was alive, once the maker of the will is no longer able to himself.

Ones will does not extend beyond death. However one can task another legal entity to bring about that will. If the will of the living extends beyond death then why cant I vote in the 2200 presidential election?

Jocabia, the only thing that is going to back you up, is some crazy, landmark decision that actually states what you are stating...that a dead person is the one still invested with rights, and that the estate itself is not a separate legal entity, but rather the incorporeal form of the deceased that will continue to live on, and retain the rights (much as a living person) until such time as the estate expires. Do you have any idea the legal can of worms such a pronouncement would open? In any case, harping on estates is not backing up your Constitutional argument.

See, I am saying that. You haven't read the whole argument which is why you're making a mistake here. The point is that our expression of rights are limited by will. The law recognizes this. However, our will or our probable will does not cease to exist at death, which is the reason why my rights as the relate to my will are respected posthumously.

The reason why our will is no longer changing or respected as something being expressed by a non-corporeal form is because it cannot.

That was always the point, Sin. You just didn't see it because it was an argument that was dropped by Vittos when he started losing.

My point is that we recognize that the will of the living is not limited by birth and death, and this recognition should recognize that if a living person exists that any action intending to violate the will or probable will of that person is an issue of rights. According to Vittos, the rights don't exist if the person is not living, which is why his argument that the will is to protect the heirs not the dead or the property of the dead.

Okay, we're done here. This is and always was the pont. The will of the living is not limited by when they are alive. It extends passed the limits of their corporeal form. You've now admitted it.

So now that we recognize that person does not have to be living for their will or probable will (as it would be expressed while they are living) to be respected then we won't hear any more arguments that the will of the living only applies when they are living. Glad to hear it.

the problem is you seem to lack the sophistication for subtle legal arguments.

The first argument is that the will of the living being exercised by a seperate legal entity, which is granted extention of selective rights, past the point of death.

The second is that the rights of the living extending in ad of themseles beyond death, such that one retains rights AFTER DEATH..

The first is a very obvious argument, and is the very definition of will. The second is legally nonsensical.

My point is that we recognize that the will of the living is not limited by birth and death, and this recognition should recognize that if a living person exists that any action intending to violate the will or probable will of that person is an issue of rights.

If you wish to keep insisting that the dead have rights after they are dead please tell me again why I can't vote in 2200

My point is that we recognize that the will of the living is not limited by birth and death, and this recognition should recognize that if a living person exists that any action intending to violate the will or probable will of that person is an issue of rights. According to Vittos, the rights don't exist if the person is not living, which is why his argument that the will is to protect the heirs not the dead or the property of the dead.

The problem is, Vitt is correct. The rights do not exist, in the form that you claim, if the person is dead. You are taking the word 'will' too literally, and ignoring the legal aspect. It's one thing to argue this on moral grounds, and quite another to claim that the law backs you up. It really doesn't, I'm sorry.

Okay, we're done here. This is and always was the pont. The will of the living is not limited by when they are alive. It extends passed the limits of their corporeal form. You've now admitted it.

So now that we recognize that person does not have to be living for their will or probable will (as it would be expressed while they are living) to be respected then we won't hear any more arguments that the will of the living only applies when they are living. Glad to hear it.

Yes, the legal resolution and respect for the rights of the living are respected after death, if you admit that rights do not extend infinitely in both directions regardless of life, I will admit that the resolution and legal protections of the rights that the living possess can extend outside of their actual life. (I never actually denied this)

Because of this we can assume that the self-determination of the child does not provide self-determination before the life of the child.

If you wish to keep insisting that the dead have rights after they are dead please tell me again why I can't vote in 2200

I already brought this up, but he then "altered" the definition of rights that he had given before.

I already brought this up, but he then "altered" the definition of rights that he had given before.

amazing how that works eh? Once you start losing the arument that a fish is a mammal, just argue that you mean mammal to be "animal with scales and gills that lives underwater and lays eggs".

You are taking what is a completely flawed argument, ignoring those flaws, and then holding up counter-arguments as support for your position? Wait...that sounds like something you accused others of doing...can't put my finger on it...

You don't get it. I'm not claiming that will can be expressed by the dead. I'm saying that the will of a living person is respected even after they have expired.

The law recognizes my rights and my will even after I have expired. I recognize that you've not taken the time to look at the origin of this argument, but you don't get that I've been trying to prove exactly what you guys are stating, that we respect the will or probable will of a person even if that person is no longer able to immediately express that will.

I asked you this before. If you're going to jump in, read the damn arguments yourself. You've jumped in the middle and you're making claims that absolutely agree with me. You simply think they don't because you're ignorant of the argument I'm making.

Vittos claims that rights only apply if the person is present. I used this example to prove otherwise. You, Vittos and Arthias101 all agree with me. Your problem is that you are so caught up in how I tried to establish this point, that you've not noticed the point.

Time for quotes -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12195496&postcount=864

I give the example of a person in a coma because he is arguing that if you cannot any longer express your will that it needn't be respected.

I prefer to think that we have rights when we have a conscious and justified claim upon them.

He said that rights require you be conscious. He gives other expressions of the same claim.

It was the origin of the argument about whether rights exist without ability to express them and it was the reason that he claims that rights do not exist if we are unable to express them (except he now admits that we can actually have our will protected even when we are no longer conscious).

If you wish to keep insisting that the dead have rights after they are dead please tell me again why I can't vote in 2200

You can't vote by proxy ever. You can't state now whom you wish to vote for 2200 even if you are still alive.

The exact same example would be if you said you wished to vote for Gore in 2008 and then lapsed into a coma today. Your vote would not be cast. You cannot vote by proxy and your ability to vote in the future is very limited.

Again, you guys haven't actually read the argument. My point is and always has been that while our expression of rights are necessarily limited by our ability to express them and while the law is only concerned with our expression of rights, rights exist whether we express them or can.

You don't get it. I'm not claiming that will can be expressed by the dead. I'm saying that the will of a living person is respected even after they have expired.

This is where you're right.

The law recognizes my rights and my will even after I have expired.

This is where you're wrong. The law does not recognize your rights after you're dead. It recognizes the rights you HAD when you were alive. This is a subtle but HUGELY important legal distinction.

The problem is, Vitt is correct. The rights do not exist, in the form that you claim, if the person is dead. You are taking the word 'will' too literally, and ignoring the legal aspect. It's one thing to argue this on moral grounds, and quite another to claim that the law backs you up. It really doesn't, I'm sorry.

No, I'm not. You're again jumping in the middle. Seriously, read the argument or admit you aren't willing to actually have a discussion that relates to my argument. Either is fine with me, but if you're going to be willfully ignorant, then there is little point to exploring this.

The will of the person can only be expressed by them when they are living and conscious. I've stated this repeatedly. However, that will is respected even after they are no longer living or conscious. The point is that we have rights as a person and that they don't disappear when we die, even if our ability to express an immediate will (desire) has. That's what I said, natural rights are not dependent on ability. Legal rights are. I was discussing natural rights.

The legal argument was brought only and solely to show that our will is honored after death if there is any way to know it.

Again, you guys haven't actually read the argument. Ok, you can stop with that. We absolutely have, and it as flawed as it ever was. Not agreeing does not = not having read.

This is where you're right.

Of course. And it's been my point all along.

This is where you're wrong. The law does not recognize your rights after you're dead. It recognizes the rights you HAD when you were alive. This is a subtle but HUGELY important legal distinction.

False. It honors the will you had when you were alive, but the rights you still have. The limitations are practical based on your ability to express them, but you cannot claim that if we are honoring rights at a given time that they no longer exist at that time. It's silly. However, my ability to continue to express my will expires when I do and the legal definition of rights recognizes this.

THe court is clearly recognizing rights after you're dead or are you claiming that these actions do not occur after death and do not recognize rights. They exist still. However, the law can only apply to your will which can no long be expressed after you die. Again, this is how we got on the subject of natural rights not being dependant on ability.

No, I'm not. You're again jumping in the middle. Seriously, read the argument or admit you aren't willing to actually have a discussion that relates to my argument. Either is fine with me, but if you're going to be willfully ignorant, then there is little point to exploring this.
Do not pretend that one argument backs up all your others, and then complain when that one argument gets poked full of holes. I do not have to analyse every claim you have made in this thread to notice that you are WRONG on this, and point it out. You do not have the right to decide when I can analyse a particular argument of yours out of a set of arguments in this thread. Your position on this is flawed, so perhaps it should be dropped as PROOF you are using in the rest of your argument, hmmmm? Because this particular argument is all I'm focusing on. I have read the bulk of this thread, and don't care to comment on much of it, because I'm not particularly convinced either way.

Ok, you can stop with that. We absolutely have, and it as flawed as it ever was. Not agreeing does not = not having read.

You're full of it. You are absolutely not recognizing that I have consistently stated that the law recognizing the practical limitation of being dead. I have also consistently stated that legal rights <> natural rights. I have also consistently stated that examining the law only takes us so far on an examination of natural rights since the law recognizes actually practical expression and has to balance societal rights against individual rights.

I'll tell you what, if you read all this then do you admit that I've said exactly this?

Keep in mind, that if you deny it, I'll quote it.

Of course. And it's been my point all along.



False. It honors the will you had when you were alive, but the rights you still have.


No, no you don't, that's the point.

The limitations are practical based on your ability to express them, but you cannot claim that if we are honoring rights at a given time that they no longer exist at that time. It's silly. However, my ability to continue to express my will expires when I do and the legal definition of rights recognizes this.

I am quite capable of expressing "I wis to vote democrat in every election" and have that expressed with great ease, why can't I?


THe court is clearly recognizing rights after you're dead or are you claiming that these actions do not occur after death and do not recognize rights. They exist still.

No court has EVER said that, the legal ramification of saying rights continue after death is HUGE. It said the rights EXISTED, that's it. That's all. Show me where in that case it says otherwise.

Am I right in thinking that there was an ulterior motive in choosing the word die?

No.

I just saw that you had used 'see', which leaves the object in the same state afetr the verb as before the verb.

Jocabia had used 'alter', which leaves the object in a different state after the verb as before the verb.

It occured to me that 'die' would be the ultimate expression of a verb acting on an object that left no doubt that the object was in a different state after the verb, to the state it was before the verb.

You're full of it. You are absolutely not recognizing that I have consistently stated that the law recognizing the practical limitation of being dead. I have also consistently stated that legal rights <> natural rights. I have also consistently stated that examining the law only takes us so far on an examination of natural rights since the law recognizes actually practical expression and has to balance societal rights against individual rights.

I'll tell you what, if you read all this then do you admit that I've said exactly this?

Keep in mind, that if you deny it, I'll quote it.


The discussion of natural rights versus legal rights for the purposes of what is legal is an irrelevant discussion since it is the law that recognizes rights.

Do not pretend that one argument backs up all your others, and then complain when that one argument gets poked full of holes.

It's not full of holes. You're arguing a strawman. I was using legal rights to show that legally we recognize that conscious will is not immediate. This was direct argument to refute his claim that if you are not conscious that your rights don't exist. I don't believe legal and natural rights are equal.

I do not have to analyse every claim you have made in this thread to notice that you are WRONG on this, and point it out. You do not have the right to decide when I can analyse a particular argument of yours out of a set of arguments in this thread. Your position on this is flawed, so perhaps it should be dropped as PROOF you are using in the rest of your argument, hmmmm? Because this particular argument is all I'm focusing on.

Again, your ignorance does not an argument make. I made a clear distinction between the necessity of the law to be practical and the lack of necessity for natural rights to be so.

I'll give you an example. At one point law didn't address genetics at all. It couldn't because practically we couldn't address it. Now, the law recognizes the existence of genetics and has since caught up with what natural rights always covered, our ownership of our DNA and our right to privacy.

The discussion of natural rights versus legal rights for the purposes of what is legal is an irrelevant discussion since it is the law that recognizes rights.

We weren't discussing what is legal, but what is ethical? Are you claiming that ethics are solely defined by law?

You're full of it. You are absolutely not recognizing that I have consistently stated that the law recognizing the practical limitation of being dead. I have also consistently stated that legal rights <> natural rights. I have also consistently stated that examining the law only takes us so far on an examination of natural rights since the law recognizes actually practical expression and has to balance societal rights against individual rights.

I'll tell you what, if you read all this then do you admit that I've said exactly this?

Keep in mind, that if you deny it, I'll quote it.
Don't threaten me with quotes, I could care less. THIS is where you have gone so terribly wrong:



False. It honors the will you had when you were alive, but the rights you still have. No. You are wrong. Period. Nor have you once provided a shred of legal proof to back this up.

No, no you don't, that's the point.

Again, you are denying existence of something that you admit is being recognized. It's contradictory.


I am quite capable of expressing "I wis to vote democrat in every election" and have that expressed with great ease, why can't I?

Can you do that today? Nope. You have to actually go and vote democrat in every election. Life and death have nothing to do with it. This makes voting a poor example. Now, if you'd actually read this discussion, you'd recognize that we discussed this example before and you wouldn't made the claim that an action you can't do in life or death is somehow proof of the denial of rights in death.


No court has EVER said that, the legal ramification of saying rights continue after death is HUGE. It said the rights EXISTED, that's it. That's all. Show me where in that case it says otherwise.

The courts deal with practical execution of rights. Legal rights. Natural rights are not limited by legal rights, but the fact that the will of the living is recognized after death establishes that a conscious will needn't actually be immediately expressed in order for a right to be recognized.

No one can tell you who to love. Everyone's teased and picked on for who they are... I'm sure most of the time people bully others, they dont feel too good about themselves either. I'm guilty of bullieng too, but I feel like I'm above that now.

On the note of -fixing- it, I dont feel like being a dyke is a problem to be -fixed-. I love my partner, and she'd be awefull upset if we were to be -fixed- and unable to love eachother anymore.

Don't threaten me with quotes, I could care less. THIS is where you have gone so terribly wrong:

You didn't answer the question. If you read the entire thread as you claim, did I or did I not say those things?

No. You are wrong. Period. Nor have you once provided a shred of legal proof to back this up.

Pardon? This is a question of exist. If I am currently acting on your rights, even if you are dead, how can you claim the object on which I am acting does not exist any longer?

Am I acting in the past? Or I am acting on an object that no longer exists?

You've not established your side either. And it doesn't make logical sense. Legal rights are necessarily limited by the ability to express them. This is a legal limitation, not a philosophical one. It has NO bearing on whether or not rights exist after your death. None.

the problem is you seem to lack the sophistication for subtle legal arguments.

The first argument is that the will of the living being exercised by a seperate legal entity, which is granted extention of selective rights, past the point of death.

The second is that the rights of the living extending in ad of themseles beyond death, such that one retains rights AFTER DEATH..

The first is a very obvious argument, and is the very definition of will. The second is legally nonsensical.

You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. We are talking about natural rights and for the purpose of one argument, we discussed legal rights in order to examine a recognition that rights are not based on immidiate expression of will. Don't mix the two up. Legal rights are practical and so they are limited by practicality. However, when discussing ethics, which is the point of this thread, legality is not the end-all and be-all of rights.

Recognize the limits of a legal examination in determining natural rights.

Jocabia, I verified FIRST that you were attempting to make a legal argument, and focused on it, and only now are you claiming that you are not, in fact making that argument. Make up your mind, don't just try to change the focus when it becomes inconvenient. I do not have to take your argument as a totality to deal with the legal argument you have been failing to prove. Nor am I going to be sidetracked into analysing every post you have made, because the point is not what you have said before, it's what you are saying now.

As for not establishing my side? Give me a break. Do you really want me to toss cases at you so you can go through and see the ratio does not in any way support your position? (you could even look at dissenting views perhaps, or obiter, which might possibly reflect the way the law MIGHT one day be in regards to this...even there, I doubt you'd find support) Someone who makes a radical suggestion as to what the law actually means, which flies contrary to the bulk of law in that area, has the responsibility to prove it....not the other way 'round.

Recognize the limits of a legal examination in determining natural rights.

Better yet, recognise that the legal examination does not in any way support your interpretation of natural rights, and abandon it.

Edit: as I shall...the law stands, and you've given no compelling evidence to the contrary. Carry on.

No.

I just saw that you had used 'see', which leaves the object in the same state afetr the verb as before the verb.

Jocabia had used 'alter', which leaves the object in a different state after the verb as before the verb.

It occured to me that 'die' would be the ultimate expression of a verb acting on an object that left no doubt that the object was in a different state after the verb, to the state it was before the verb.

I agree, I was just saying that both the action and the object were necessary for transitive verbs, and once the action or object is nonexistent so is the transitive verb.

Die is actually a bad example, because it is always intransitive, but kill would be a good one. If I kill a fetus, I take the fetus out of existence, and I take the child out of existence (the child, minus the killing of the fetus, would come into existence), but we wouldn't say that I am killing a child.

I can kill a child, and say that I took away the existence of a child and an adult (without the action the adult would exist), but we wouldn't say that I killed an adult.

Here, since it's obvious that putting the argument in context is not being done.

Let me offer up my points, all of my points, in context.

Rights do not require an immediate expression of will.

This is important in determining whether a procedure designed to alter the child has bearing on a violation of rights by not considering the will of the child (whild living).

Vittos argued that since that will cannot be immediately expressed that they don't exist.

I pointed out that even the law counters that argument and used the fact that we allow for living wills, that we recognize burial rites and that we handle estates.

His reply was to claim that estates respect the heirs not the will of the person while living.

My example of freedom of expression lasting after death was, of course, in logical recognition of that FACT that such expression can only happen in life.

Also, Vittos argued that actions in terms of rights only have immediate bearing (you've seen that argument continued here).

Again, I used legal wills as the example as well as the fact that we recognize actions as having occured at the time of their desired effect, like if I sign a contract prior to the birth of a child, that it is considered to be on behalf of a child that exists when the contract takes effect, not when it was signed or the example of rigging a shotgun to shoot a burglar that may not even exist yet.

This is it in context. The fact that honoring the will of the living exists past outside of limits of one's life is precisely the point and absolutely estabilshes exactly what I wanted to establish during this line of argument.


Disclaimer: Could I have expressed this better? Certainly. Which is the reason for rewording now. However, my point is never changed. Natural rights are eternal and that our recognition of the rights of a person do not begin and end with birth and death. There is much evidence that this is true and some of that evidence is by our recognition of rights by the law. You've all supported that general point even if you disagreed with my way of making it.

I agree, I was just saying that both the action and the object were necessary for transitive verbs, and once the action or object is nonexistent so is the transitive verb.

Die is actually a bad example, because it is always intransitive, but kill would be a good one. If I kill a fetus, I take the fetus out of existence, and I take the child out of existence (the child, minus the killing of the fetus, would come into existence), but we wouldn't say that I am killing a child.

I can kill a child, and say that I took away the existence of a child and an adult (without the action the adult would exist), but we wouldn't say that I killed an adult.

Again, you use a fallacious example. The "killing" of the fetus precludes the existence of the child and thus cannot act on that which never existed. In your example, you intentionally choose an action that would prevent the existence of further states.

See in altering the fetus you still have the further state of the child and it is also altered.

However, in the case of abortion, there will never be that state called child. If we want to make this even remotely apply, then you'd have to say that if I killed a child, that it's body would most certainly remain dead (which is the resultant state of the act of killing).

An altered fetus will remain altered and pass the state of being altered on to any other stage it enters into. You cannot deny this.

You don't get it. I'm not claiming that will can be expressed by the dead. I'm saying that the will of a living person is respected even after they have expired.

This is where you're right.

To give you a little background, the argument has been made that protecting the fetus from manipulation would be protecting the will of the child, so while his argument that rights are eternal is bogus, it could be said that if we assume that the child would prefer a natural gestation then we could protect that will even though he is not alive. That is what Jocabia is getting at.

Unfortunately, I think it was Soheran who was making that argument.

So the argument here would progress to whether we can assume definitively that the child would naturally prefer a natural gestation, or alternatively whether the child would naturally prefer the genes that influence his sexuality were unaltered during the pregnancy.

An even greater over-reaching argument would be whether wills should be presumed at all, but I think we must assume that they have to be or the rights of the sleeping person become very difficult.

To give you a little background, the argument has been made that protecting the fetus from manipulation would be protecting the will of the child, so while his argument that rights are eternal is bogus, it could be said that if we assume that the child would prefer a natural gestation then we could protect that will even though he is not alive. That is what Jocabia is getting at.

THAT is what I am getting at. Thank you.


Unfortunately, I think it was Soheran who was making that argument.

Soheran may have also made that argument. Why do you think we started on this line of discussion in the first place. Why do you think I brought up that rights were eternal? Why do you think I gave the example of contracting a fetus into slavery?


So the argument here would progress to whether we can assume definitively that the child would naturally prefer a natural gestation, or alternatively whether the child would naturally prefer the genes that influence his sexuality were unaltered during the pregnancy.

We needn't assume any such thing on the part of the individual, but instead that once we recognize a will exists that such a will be respected in any decision made regarding that child. Again, it is not about whether or not the child is necessarily harmed or whether that child would be harmed, but whether or not a decision affected the child should be left to the child.


An even greater over-reaching argument would be whether wills should be presumed at all, but I think we must assume that they have to be or the rights of the sleeping person become very difficult.

The only presumption is that absent an emergent need or the impossiblity of a return of their conscious will, we allow for decisions being made on behalf of an individual to be made by the individual. There is much evidence that a husband would have every reason to presume his wife would allow him to have sex with her, but if she is not conscious we have to err on the side of inaction unless there is a compelling reason to act.

The "killing" of the fetus precludes the existence of the child and thus cannot act on that which never existed. In your example, you intentionally choose an action that would prevent the existence of further states.

Existence and nonexistence are contrasting states.

But yes, this is all true.

See in altering the fetus you still have the further state of the child and it is also altered.

So if the fetus exists with the genes to produce a heterosexual and I change it to the genes to produce a homosexual, I change the child to homosexual, even though it never was homosexual?

However, in the case of abortion, there will never be that state called child. If we want to make this even remotely apply, then you'd have to say that if I killed a child, that it's body would most certainly remain dead (which is the resultant state of the act of killing).

An altered fetus will remain altered and pass the state of being altered on to any other stage it enters into. You cannot deny this.

Its altered state will be passed on, but that state will be the default state of the child. If I alter the fetus to produce a child with homosexual predelictions, the child's original state will be homosexual, not heterosexual. It would take a reversal of the alteration of the fetus to actually alter the child.

I understand that the effects of the alteration linger, but that doesn't mean that the altering lingers. Just because the effects of killing a fetus include causing a child to be nonexistent rather than existent and therefore last through what would have been the birth of a child, we would not say that I am killing a child.

Even though the effects of altering the genes of a fetus extend through all of those decendents of the person the fetus becomes, the alterer of the fetus is not altering all of the decendents.

Altering does not last as long as the effects, it lasts as long as the action and the object exist.

Soheran may have also made that argument. Why do you think we started on this line of discussion in the first place. Why do you think I brought up that rights were eternal? Why do you think I gave the example of contracting a fetus into slavery?

I thought you were imply that a child's natural right to self-determination was also present when it was a fetus, not because we were protecting the child's will.

We needn't assume any such thing on the part of the individual, but instead that once we recognize a will exists that such a will be respected in any decision made regarding that child. Again, it is not about whether or not the child is necessarily harmed or whether that child would be harmed, but whether or not a decision affected the child should be left to the child.

Then in utero manipulation to prevent genetic diseases should be left to the child, or should we assume that the child would naturally want them?

The only presumption is that absent an emergent need or the impossiblity of a return of their conscious will, we allow for decisions being made on behalf of an individual to be made by the individual. There is much evidence that a husband would have every reason to presume his wife would allow him to have sex with her, but if she is not conscious we have to err on the side of inaction unless there is a compelling reason to act.

But the nature of the decision precludes it from being made by the individual.

Existence and nonexistence are contrasting states.

But yes, this is all true.

Word games. You can't claim to have effected something that never exists. It's ludicrous. The existence of the object is implied by use of the term.



So if the fetus exists with the genes to produce a heterosexual and I change it to the genes to produce a homosexual, I change the child to homosexual, even though it never was homosexual?

I assume you mean "even though it never was heterosexual" and, yes, you have. It's a comparison between it's state without alteration and with, not whether or not that state had already occurred.



Its altered state will be passed on, but that state will be the default state of the child. If I alter the fetus to produce a child with homosexual predelictions, the child's original state will be homosexual, not heterosexual. It would take a reversal of the alteration of the fetus to actually alter the child.

Again, this ignores that when we look at effect it is a comparison of the state without the action. Without the action, the child would clearly be heterosexual, thus the action altered it to a homosexual.

I understand that the effects of the alteration linger, but that doesn't mean that the altering lingers. Just because the effects of killing a fetus include causing a child to be nonexistent rather than existent and therefore last through what would have been the birth of a child, we would not say that I am killing a child.

It means that it is still altered. If you child is altered, it is appropriate and requirement of logic and that we accept that something altered it.

Again, this is a false analogy, because by definition you cannot kill something that never existed. It's impossible. However, you can alter a child. So we can say the child was altered. We cannot say the child was killed.


Even though the effects of altering the genes of a fetus extend through all of those decendents of the person the fetus becomes, the alterer of the fetus is not altering all of the decendents.

Of course they are. Effects are there and those effects have a cause. The actor was the cause, clearly and by definition the actor altered the descendents.

Altering does not last as long as the effects, it lasts as long as the action and the object exist.

You keep making this claim, but you've not established it in any way other than to claim that all verbs are point of time verbs.

You are recognizing a change and that the change will continue through generations. Yes, your use of effect is synonymous with change.

For example, if I set out to make you a homosexual, but you are already homosexual, did I effect you? Am I a cause for your homosexuality? Nope. You can't claim that I am a cause for your homosexuality or in this case, for the genes you pass down while claiming that there is no change. If there was no change, then the cause of your homosexuality would be natural, not me, and your homosexuality would be an effect of nature, not me.

I thought you were imply that a child's natural right to self-determination was also present when it was a fetus, not because we were protecting the child's will.

I said that it's natural right to self-determination is eternal, but that it's a recognition of it's personhood and the rights of that person.


Then in utero manipulation to prevent genetic diseases should be left to the child, or should we assume that the child would naturally want them?

If there is an emergent need, then it should handled then. I've already stated this. We handle comas in exactly the same way. However, if there is no pathological reason for not waiting, then we wait. You also couldn't have my arm amputated even I might possible need it, if there is no emergent reason for doing so and I am merely unconscious.

Your scenario does not address this need.

But the nature of the decision precludes it from being made by the individual.

Then again you have to establish that there is a need for the individual to be changed and you've already admitted that your argument depends on homosexuality and heterosexuality being of equal value. Therefore, there is no way to establish a reasonable argument for altering the child without consideration for that child's will.

This is precisely the reason that our ability to act as proxy for an individual is necessarily limited both ethically and legally.

Well, sort of. I am saying that she makes the decision to bring a particular child into existence, and her intent to bring a child into existence starts when she has the possibility of bringing the child into existence. In other words, her intent begins when her desires are met by the "potential child". Only then is her intent to bring a child into the world. Since that is when you would apply rights, that is when the rights would begin.

Now I may end up putting word in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong or use these words if I'm right: I think I see what you are saying here, that her decision to manipulate the fetus represents her intention to bring this specific fetus to term. This is a valid point, but I think you got a little caught up in altered/unaltered dichotomy, because she never makes the decision to carry the unaltered fetus. I think it is that her decision to manipulate expresses her intent to carry this specific fetus (not altered or unaltered) to term is what you are trying to say.

To this I would say that this is not an expression of her intent to bring the child into the world (as she would not bring the child into existence if the manipulation were unsuccessful), but an expression of her intent to create a fetus that she would intend to bring into existence.

Her intent to bring the child into existence is dependent on the outcome of the manipulation, she only makes the decision upon seeing the results of the alteration.Saying the specific fetus is more concise, so, yes, I'll do that. She alters the specific fetus and brings it to term. If this is the case, then a child's rights have been violated. If the alteration is unsuccessful, she doesn't bring it to term, and a child's rights have not been violated. In the latter case, she never made the decision to bring the fetus to term. In the former case, she did.

For the love of all things wonderful Europa....do NOT take him up on this. Please.
I'll take your advice. :)

Europa, we are very similar in our thought processes and I respect you, so if I can't convince you that I am being consistent, I will concede that I am being inconsistent.

So where have I been adamant in repeating a mistake?
Merely on the matter of intent, and some minor confusions on rights and ability. I think you've rectified previous errors you were making though.

EDIT: Also, do you agree that Samuel Clemens still maintains a natural right to free speech even though he has been dead for nearly a century?
I would say it's a violation of the publisher's freedom of speech, as in to publish anything they want or have the right to publish (via copyright arrangements).

That's what I said, natural rights are not dependent on ability. Legal rights are. I was discussing natural rights.
I think a point Vittos was making was that to have a right, even a natural one, you must claim it first by an action of will. Whilst the right may extend past death legally, it cannot come before existence. The intention behind genetic engineering would be to change a future child (who presumably would've claimed their right), and thereby violate their rights, so any such contract could be vitiated. Feel free to correct me Vittos.

I'll take your advice. :)


Merely on the matter of intent, and some minor confusions on rights and ability. I think you've rectified previous errors you were making though.


I would say it's a violation of the publisher's freedom of speech, as in to publish anything they want or have the right to publish (via copyright arrangements).
No different. Certainly there are books published long ago that can still be read. There needn't be a current publisher.

I think a point Vittos was making was that to have a right, even a natural one, you must claim it first by an action of will. Whilst the right may extend past death legally, it cannot come before existence. The intention behind genetic engineering would be to change a future child (who presumably would've claimed their right), and thereby violate their rights, so any such contract could be vitiated. Feel free to correct me Vittos.

I know what he's saying, but the fact is that our will extends to anything that effects our life and certainly our rights can be violated by an action taken long before birth. To suggest otherwise simply denies that there is such a thing as a chain of events.

Again,, an example as of yet NEVER addressed by our friend is that if I rig a gun with the purpose of killing an inspecific intruder and it shoots you in the face when you knock on the door, I have violated your rights even if you didn't exist when I rigged the gun.

The intention behind genetic engineering would be to change a future child (who presumably would've claimed their right), and thereby violate their rights, so any such contract could be vitiated. Feel free to correct me Vittos.

I would say that the intention behind genetic engineering would be to design a future child, not change it.

A particular definition for design from American Heritage goes "To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect" and that is much more appropriate in relation to the child than any definition of change.

Whether that is a morally sufficient difference (I would say the morality would be determined by the mother's treatment of the child as her end, not by her action of changing the fetus) is another argument that hasn't even arisen yet.

But I think that the argument that changing the fetus = changing the child and is therefore a violation of the child's rights has no reasonable basis.

Again,, an example as of yet NEVER addressed by our friend is that if I rig a gun with the purpose of killing an inspecific intruder and it shoots you in the face when you knock on the door, I have violated your rights even if you didn't exist when I rigged the gun.

Rigging a gun doesn't violate anyone's rights, shooting them in the face does.

Therefore your analogy is false, unless you are stating that being born heterosexual is a violation of a child's rights.

Rigging a gun doesn't violate anyone's rights, shooting them in the face does.

Therefore your analogy is false, unless you are stating that being born heterosexual is a violation of a child's rights.

I claim someone altering your body so that you're heterosexual violates you're rights. Do you know what a circular argument is? You're making one. You're claiming the argument used to establish the violation of rights is not a violation of rights because the violation of rights is not establish. It's called a circular argument and it's fallacious.

Meanwhile, altering a fetus is not violating anyone's rights. Altering a person is. Again, the person only acted on rigging the gun, the trap they set was what shot the person in the face, but they clearly violated their rights since we recognize the existence of a chain of events. Well, I and most people recognize a chain of events. You seem to not accept that they occur.

Altering a person is.

And no person is altered.

I would say that the intention behind genetic engineering would be to design a future child, not change it.

A particular definition for design from American Heritage goes "To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect" and that is much more appropriate in relation to the child than any definition of change.

Well, unless you actually use the definition of change, which simply refers to causing the child to be different than they would be absent the action. But, hey, that's only for people who want to use English definitions.

You again create a false dichotomy, because designing and changing can happen simultaneously.

Change. 1 a : to make different in some particular : ALTER <never bothered to change the will> b : to make radically different : TRANSFORM <can't change human nature> c : to give a different position, course, or direction to

The child is undoubtedly different if it is heterosexual versus homosexual and it's course is undoubtedly different. It's sexual direction and position are most assuredly different.


Whether that is a morally sufficient difference (I would say the morality would be determined by the mother's treatment of the child as her end, not by her action of changing the fetus) is another argument that hasn't even arisen yet.

But I think that the argument that changing the fetus = changing the child and is therefore a violation of the child's rights has no reasonable basis.

Well, I would agree, except for the that pesky definition of change that means to make different. See, design doesn't preclude this despite your claim that it's one or the other. If I design the room I'm sitting in, I would have to most certainly change it. If a house is being built and I alter the design of a room that is being build, I most certainly changed the room.

And no person is altered.

The child is alter by the very definitio of alter. Again, you admit the action has an effect on the child. Effect in that use is synonymous to alteration. To claim otherwise is a misunderstanding of English.

Affect the verb is a synonym of alter and you've already admitted that the actions affects the child (causes an effect on the child).

Affect -
Main Entry: affect
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: influence
Synonyms: act on, affect, alter, change, disturb, impinge, impress, induce, influence, inspire, interest, involve, modify, move, overcome, perturb, prevail, regard, relate, stir, sway, touch, transform, upset

The opposite of affect, or having an effect, is to leave unchanged. By definition, having an effect, means to change, to alter.

Well, unless you actually use the definition of change, which simply refers to causing the child to be different than they would be absent the action. But, hey, that's only for people who want to use English definitions.

Then abortion changes the child, because the child would exist if not for the action.

The child is alter by the very definitio of alter. Again, you admit the action has an effect on the child. Effect in that use is synonymous to alteration. To claim otherwise is a misunderstanding of English.

Affect the verb is a synonym of alter and you've already admitted that the actions affects the child (causes an effect on the child).

Affect -
Main Entry: affect
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: influence
Synonyms: act on, affect, alter, change, disturb, impinge, impress, induce, influence, inspire, interest, involve, modify, move, overcome, perturb, prevail, regard, relate, stir, sway, touch, transform, upset

The opposite of affect, or having an effect, is to leave unchanged. By definition, having an effect, means to change, to alter.

Every trait I have has an effect on me, but that does not mean that they have been altered or that I have been altered.

Then abortion changes the child, because the child would exist if not for the action.

Fine. Pretend you believe this. I'll even accept it as true even though it denies the requirement that the object exist.

We're talking about rights. If you wish to call abortion a change to a nonexistent entity, feel free. Still no person exists or ever will and thus no rights to violate even if there was a change to this non-person.

Fine. Pretend you believe this. I'll even accept it as true even though it denies the requirement that the object exist.

We're talking about rights. If you wish to call abortion a change to a nonexistent entity, feel free. Still no person exists or ever will and thus no rights to violate even if there was a change to this non-person.

I don't believe that.

But the child would have existed if not for the abortion, correct?

I don't believe that.

But the child would have existed if not for the abortion, correct?

Perhaps. Abortions generally occur even before the fetal stage. There existence is hardly guaranteed, but fine, let's say it would have. It also by the same argument would have existed if the woman would simply put out more. So what? Still no being to apply rights to, since none exists.

Perhaps. Abortions generally occur even before the fetal stage. There existence is hardly guaranteed, but fine, let's say it would have.

Then abortion alters the child?

Then abortion alters the child?

If you'd like to say that, feel free. It hurts your argument, but, hey, whatever floats your boat. It doesn't change the fact that it has no bearing on rights, because a child never existed.

If you'd like to say that, feel free. It hurts your argument, but, hey, whatever floats your boat. It doesn't change the fact that it has no bearing on rights, because a child never existed.

I wouldn't say that.

I just wanted to push your argument into an absurdity.

I wouldn't say that.

I just wanted to push your argument into an absurdity.

Except you didn't, because in your example there is no object. The child doesn't exist. It was a nice try, but it only makes YOU look silly. Alter requires an object, and child cannot be the object since a child does not ever exist. Just as if a mother got this procedure and then aborted the child, it couldn't alter the child because none would ever exist.

It's suggesting comparing altering a person to altering something that never exists, that is absurd, but if you don't mind the absurdity, continue.

EDIT: It's unfortunate that you don't know the difference between your argument and mine. I don't agree that one can alter an object that never exists. Unless you can show that the child never exists in the OP's scenario, then your absurd argument is in no way related to mine.

So that you know, if you'd like to actually push MY argument into absurdity, you have to, you know, get me to push my argument, not make your argument and then establish that your argument is absurd.

If a mother chooses to have an abortion, then the child will never exist, any more than if she chose not to have sex in the first place. If she chooses to have th child, it will exist, even if it doesnt make it to term for whatever reason, because it is a child that will be born, as opposed to one that will never be.

Anyway, I believe that if one is to alter a fetus, one can only justify doing what they could do to a child. If a child is born with a disease or a disability, it would be perfectly reasonable to try to cure or heal it as much as possible. If a child is born gay, it would not be reasonable to try to "straighten" it with hormone therapy. Eliminating disease and disability before birth is no more playing God than doing it after birth. Eliminating personality traits is just as despicable before birth as after.

If you wouldnt do it to a person,theb doing it to a fetus is just as bad.

I would encourage anyone who is still following this thread to reply, it is directed at Jocabia, but it is a very general declaration of my argument, at least what my argument has evolved into.

So that you know, if you'd like to actually push MY argument into absurdity, you have to, you know, get me to push my argument, not make your argument and then establish that your argument is absurd.

I never made that argument, I just extended your logic until it reached a point of absurdity. You accepted that it was an extension up until you realized that it would be absurd.

If changing something does consist of causing the object to be different than they would have been minus the action (as you said), then second term abortion could very easily be included in that category. But of course we would never say that abortion "changes" the child.

We reach this absurdity because the child's default status is determined by the changes made to the fetus, and a default status is required for changes to be made. Abortion doesn't change the child because the child doesn't establish a default status of existence or living. Changing the fetus to produce a homosexual doesn't change the child because the child doesn't establish a default status of heterosexual.

There must be an original status for any assumed status to be considered a change. Because the child's original status is determined by the manipulation, it cannot be said that the child is changed.

What can be said is that the mother is determining the child's original state, and that very clearly should be considered building or designing a child.

So the question is not whether a child has a right that obligates others not to change him or his genetic code, the question is whether a child has a right not to be designed.

Soheran had somewhat recognized this, and said that the rights violated in situations where the mother is designing the child (he didn't actually use the term designing, so I may be misrepresenting his argument) depended on what type of control and how much of it the woman claimed for herself.

This is problematic because it creates somewhat of an arbitrary line where you say this much power of reproduction belongs to the woman, anything over that is violation of the child's rights, but we do see that in abortion arguments, so it isn't baseless. I have a tendency to be a little unsympathetic towards the child in abortion cases, and I am unsympathetic here, as well.

I would encourage anyone who is still following this thread to reply, it is directed at Jocabia, but it is a very general declaration of my argument, at least what my argument has evolved into

I never made that argument, I just extended your logic until it reached a point of absurdity. You accepted that it was an extension up until you realized that it would be absurd.

No, I didn't. I recognized that it was absurd and that it would hurt your argument, so I allowed you to continue. I made several comments while you were making the ridiculous argument. I simply gave you the rope to do with as you like.

I'll even accept it as true even though it denies the requirement that the object exist.

Since reading isn't something you appear willing to do, I bolded the word that makes it clear that what you're saying is ludicrous. See "requirement" means that it cannot be considered to be true without meeting that requirement. It means, I'll allow you to continue but it doesn't work.

I can't believe this far into the argument I have to explain what requirement, change, alter and affect all mean.


If changing something does consist of causing the object to be different than they would have been minus the action (as you said), then second term abortion could very easily be included in that category. But of course we would never say that abortion "changes" the child.

Because the child doesn't ever exist. Existence is a requirement to be acted upon. Nothing can change something that does not exist.


We reach this absurdity because the child's default status is determined by the changes made to the fetus, and a default status is required for changes to be made. Abortion doesn't change the child because the child doesn't establish a default status of existence or living. Changing the fetus to produce a homosexual doesn't change the child because the child doesn't establish a default status of heterosexual.

False. This is a false comparison. In one case, nothing exists. In the other case the child most certainly does. I've pointed out how the definition of change means to alter the course.

c : to give a different position, course, or direction to

You've even admitted (before it hurt your argument) that this hurts the child.


There must be an original status for any assumed status to be considered a change. Because the child's original status is determined by the manipulation, it cannot be said that the child is changed.

Again, you manipulated. You keep using synonyms of change and then claiming it doesn't happen. It's hilarious.


What can be said is that the mother is determining the child's original state, and that very clearly should be considered building or designing a child.

Which doesn't preclude changing the child.


So the question is not whether a child has a right that obligates others not to change him or his genetic code, the question is whether a child has a right not to be designed.

Amusing. Except, you've already said the child is affected and manipulated, both synonyms of change.


Soheran had somewhat recognized this, and said that the rights violated in situations where the mother is designing the child (he didn't actually use the term designing, so I may be misrepresenting his argument) depended on what type of control and how much of it the woman claimed for herself.

This is problematic because it creates somewhat of an arbitrary line where you say this much power of reproduction belongs to the woman, anything over that is violation of the child's rights, but we do see that in abortion arguments, so it isn't baseless. I have a tendency to be a little unsympathetic towards the child in abortion cases, and I am unsympathetic here, as well.

Abortion is not comparable because no child exists. This was established very early on by many, many people. You can't act upon the non-existent. And even if you could, something that never exists never has rights. You keep trying to pretend giving rights to something that exists is comparable to giving rights to something that never exists, but you've not done the work.

Are you now claiming that something can have rights that never existed? If not, then stop comparing a procedure that is meant to have an effect upon a child that does exist to a procedure that is meant to have an effect of ending the pregnancy and results in no child ever existing. In one a child exists. In the other, no child exists. Establish this isn't true, establish that you didn't claim that something must exist to ever have rights or admit that you're making a silly argument.


Time for quotes. You're playing word games where you say "we're not chaniging the child, but we are affecting the child and we are manipulating the child.

Because the child's original status is determined by the manipulation, it cannot be said that the child is changed.

The child was manipulated. This means changed. The child's original status was what was changed. You've in your own quote assigned the ownership of this status to the child.

the effects of altering the genes of a fetus extend through all of those decendents of the person the fetus becomes

You cannot have an effect something without somehow changing it.

You've used the example of genes effecting you (which is actually a poor use of the word), but the fact is that if you are using it that way then you are saying if those genes were different I would be different, which is precisely what I'm saying as well.

Find a dictionary that defines alter as "to have an effect on" and I will concede this argument to you.

Now, let's go back to our friend "alter". Since you've accepted that this procedure had an effect on the child, we'll go from there.

Affect - : to produce an effect upon: as a : to produce a material influence upon or alteration in <paralysis affected his limbs> b : to act upon (as a person or a person's mind or feelings) so as to effect a response : INFLUENCE

The dictionary gives two types of usage for producing an effect upon. One is an alteration to material alteration (which a difference in the way something behaves, like liking boys versus liking girls) or to act upon so as to effect a response, which cannot apply here. Affect must, in this instace, refer to a material influence, or alteration, according to the dictionary.

Sucks the dictionary compares alteration to having an effect upon. Let's see what other ways I can show that affect and alter mean the same thing.

Lalala.

Now, alter - 1 : to make different without changing into something else

So to make different. Hmmm....

What else means to make different? Well, let's look at synynyms in the thesaurus.

Main Entry: affect
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: influence
Synonyms: act on, affect, alter, change, disturb, impinge, impress, induce, influence, inspire, interest, involve, modify, move, overcome, perturb, prevail, regard, relate, stir, sway, touch, transform, upset

What? Affet is a synonym for both alter and change?

Impossible.

No more magical word games. You admitted this changes the child, before retracting it because it was killing your argument. You admitted this affects the child (a synonym for change and alter). You admitted this manipulates the initial state of the child (establishing ownership of this initial state to the child). Manipulates of course meaning to have an influence, to change, to alter.

You've been trying to a use a word that doesn't mean alter to establish that the child is different in some way as a result of the procedure, but you can't manage to do it, because it cannot be done. The child is different. The purpose of the procedure is precisely that, to affect the child, to alter him/her, to change him/her. That's the point. You even admitted it, before you realized that position was untenable and you've been scrambling ever since.

We reach this absurdity because the child's default status is determined by the changes made to the fetus, and a default status is required for changes to be made.

Address this point.

Since you've accepted that this procedure had an effect on the child, we'll go from there.

I made that statement once, and have repeatedly admitted that it was a mistake.

It wasn't even your prodding that led me admit the mistake, but a much more productive discussion I was having with Jello Biafra.

Address this point.

Seriously? You think I've not addressed that point, yet? The default status of the child is it's unaltered status. I've stated this repeatedly. Must I pull out the quotes AGAIN.

The default status is heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual or whatever status it would have without any intentional action. You've admitted repeatedly that the purpose of this procedure is to change, effect, manipulate, make different these traits of the child. Alter, affect, change, manipulate are all words that imply a comparison to the default (the position or course sans the action). You've stated repeatedly that this does affect the child, manipulate the child's state, change the child, etc.

You can keep trying to find a word to describe this situation that doesn't imply that the child is affected by the intentional actions of the mother and that this effect is a violation of his/her rights, but none of what you've said those far has accomplished that goal.

Children have rights. You've admitted an intentional effect on the child. Everything else is just word games on your part.

I made that statement once, and have repeatedly admitted that it was a mistake.

It wasn't even your prodding that led me admit the mistake, but a much more productive discussion I was having with Jello Biafra.

No, you didn't. You made a statement about change to the child, once. That was early on and that was what you retracted. You've since argued that the effect continues to the child but that doesn't mean a change occurred.

But, okay, you admit it's a mistake. Good we're done here.

See, this is a debate. You can't keep saying things are true and then keep claiming they aren't when you realize they hurt your argument. Either you were lying when you said it initially or you admit you don't know what you're talking about. Which is it?

The default status of the child is it's unaltered status. I've stated this repeatedly.

Here you say that the status of the fetus imbues the child with a status.

Because the child doesn't ever exist. Existence is a requirement to be acted upon. Nothing can change something that does not exist.

So then the existence of the fetus, the life of the fetus would also imbue the child with the status of existence or living.

To say that the child that would have existed minus the abortion did not have his existence altered is inconsistent with your argument.

No, you didn't. You made a statement about change to the child, once. That was early on and that was what you retracted. You've since argued that the effect continues to the child but that doesn't mean a change occurred.

You are right, I misread what you said. There is an effect, but it does not alter it.

Would you say that my mother's choice of my father has an effect on me? Would you say that it actually altered me?

Id like to meet the gay man or lesbian who would admit to wanting to be straight. I mean sure, every once in a while we might wish it wasn't such a pain in the ass. <insert crude joke here> but for the most part, we enjoy being unique. i mean, they dont call it gay pride for nothing.

besides, where would the world be without gay men and women? No hairdressers, no wedding planners, no interior designers and no female lumberjacks! horrendous, no?

:headbang:

You are right, I misread what you said. There is an effect, but it does not alter it.

Would you say that my mother's choice of my father has an effect on me? Would you say that it actually altered me?

You misunderstand english. Having an effect and alter are synonyms. I've shown this repeatedly, your lack of understanding of terms notwithstanding.

EDIT: Meanwhile, by your misunderstanding again, you've dropped the point, that I've demonstrated that all of these terms are synonymous and that you switched from one term to another but that they all mean the same. You admitted it changed the child, but then took it back. Then admitted it affects the child. Your terms have changed, the meaning has not. You cannot affect without changing.

You used the terms change, affect, effect, manipulate. These all imply the same thing and all support my point.

I don't really understand all of the controversy that this thread has generated. If sexual orientation is no different than eye color, as it's often said by defenders of gay rights, then having your genes manipulated to make you straight should not be any more of a problem than having your genes manipulated to make your eyes brown instead of blue. I doubt anyone would have a problem with the latter. Why should it be any different with the former, if the analogy about eye color is valid?

I don't really understand all of the controversy that this thread has generated. If sexual orientation is no different than eye color, as it's often said by defenders of gay rights, then having your genes manipulated to make you straight should not be any more of a problem than having your genes manipulated to make your eyes brown instead of blue. I doubt anyone would have a problem with the latter. Why should it be any different with the former, if the analogy about eye color is valid?

I would. I don't believe that you can design your babies to match your couch.

Meanwhile, do you have equal support for making a child homosexual?

I would. I don't believe that you can design your babies to match your couch.

I do -- I see no harm in doing so, nor do I see any harm in changing a child's sexuality.

Meanwhile, do you have equal support for making a child homosexual?

Indeed. That is, unless the child is growing up in, say, Iran. In that case, doing so would be rather cruel.

I do -- I see no harm in doing so, nor do I see any harm in changing a child's sexuality.



Indeed. That is, unless the child is growing up in, say, Iran. In that case, doing so would be rather cruel.

Well, I do. That's the point. It has no value and it submits to a cosmetic medical procedure without my permission. That's the harm. Would you mind if I changed your eye color while you slept to something of my choosing?


Meanwhile, gay rights activists don't say that sexuality and eye color are the same. Sexuality has much more to do with our actions, who we love, etc. than eye color does. The only comparison gay rights activists make is that they are all natural traits.

Well, I do. That's the point. It has no value and it submits to a cosmetic medical procedure without my permission. That's the harm. Would you mind if I changed your eye color while you slept to something of my choosing?
Except, in that case, I would have already had that eye color for my whole life. Come now, you're good at analogies.

Meanwhile, gay rights activists don't say that sexuality and eye color are the same. Sexuality has much more to do with our actions, who we love, etc. than eye color does. The only comparison gay rights activists make is that they are all natural traits.
Natural traits that have no bearing on the worth of a person. So, if one such natural trait is altered before birth, and thus becomes a part of what the person has always known, what's wrong with that?

Except, in that case, I would have already had that eye color for my whole life. Come now, you're good at analogies.

This makes no difference. If they don't matter at all, that you've already had it doesn't matter. And if they do, then we shouldn't be changing it.

What's the matter? You don't have an argument that doesn't blatantly admit that it matters.

Natural traits that have no bearing on the worth of a person. So, if one such natural trait is altered before birth, and thus becomes a part of what the person has always known, what's wrong with that?

If you change on infants, it's also what they've always known. Or as a toddler. Or as a prepubescent. What's the difference when talking about sexuality? Oh, right, there's that little subject of human rights. You have no right to submit to cosmetic procedures without my consent. Simple really. And if there is no value, it's cosmetic.

Do you have an issue with giving babies a sex change? How about making them sterile? It's what they've always known.

This makes no difference. If they don't matter at all, that you've already had it doesn't matter. And if they do, then we shouldn't be changing it.

What's the matter? You don't have an argument that doesn't blatantly admit that it matters.
The point of my argument is that it doesn't matter what you're born with. Once you have a trait, you tend to become attached to it. If you've never known the difference, though, then why should you care?

If you change on infants, it's also what they've always known. Or as a toddler. Or as a prepubescent. What's the difference when talking about sexuality? Oh, right, there's that little subject of human rights. You have no right to submit to cosmetic procedures without my consent. Simple really. And if there is no value, it's cosmetic.
I believe that the initial poster was discussing altering sexuality before birth.

From the article cited:
Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

If this "patch" were to occur, the child would have never been able to recognize his or her eye color, nor his or her sexuality. It would make no difference to them.

You misunderstand english. Having an effect and alter are synonyms. I've shown this repeatedly, your lack of understanding of terms notwithstanding.

EDIT: Meanwhile, by your misunderstanding again, you've dropped the point, that I've demonstrated that all of these terms are synonymous and that you switched from one term to another but that they all mean the same. You admitted it changed the child, but then took it back. Then admitted it affects the child. Your terms have changed, the meaning has not. You cannot affect without changing.

You used the terms change, affect, effect, manipulate. These all imply the same thing and all support my point.

Answer my questions:

Would you say that my mother's choice of my father has an effect on me? Would you say that it actually altered me?

If you do not answer yes to both, then alter does not mean the same thing as "have an effect on".

Do you have an issue with giving babies a sex change? How about making them sterile? It's what they've always known.

Sterility would affect their lives negatively by denying them a right to have children of their own...which actually brings up a possible argument about banning of the practice of breeding a child to be gay. The same scenario would occur; it would occur as well if one was to give the child a sex change.

Answer my questions:

Would you say that my mother's choice of my father has an effect on me? Would you say that it actually altered me?

If you do not answer yes to both, then alter does not mean the same thing as "have an effect on".

I would say her choice of who raises you will have an effect on you.

I would say that had she chosen a different biological father, that you would have a different child or perhaps no child at all. Thus there is no other state. When I choose a mother for my children, the child IS the effect, there is no effect TO the child.

They are synonyms. If you don't like what the thesaurus has to say, well, it would probably help you to stop acting like lexical references are useful when they help you, since it suggests that they hurt you when they don't.

I showed that alteration is part of the definition of affect.

I'll tell you what. Let's play your game. If a woman chooses between father A and father B does that have an effect on me according to you?

The point of my argument is that it doesn't matter what you're born with. Once you have a trait, you tend to become attached to it. If you've never known the difference, though, then why should you care?

If it doesn't matter, then why should you ever care? And if there is a difference, then it should not be changed unless I choose to change it.


I believe that the initial poster was discussing altering sexuality before birth.

I'm aware. However, establish the difference. You've not done so. Your argument is there is no difference and if there is no difference then it wouldn't matter when I've changed it.


From the article cited:


If this "patch" were to occur, the child would have never been able to recognize his or her eye color, nor his or her sexuality. It would make no difference to them.

If I knock you over the head so you never remember, you wouldn't be able to either. You'd never know the difference. Still a violation of your rights. If I rape you while you're sleeping and you never find out, still a violation of your rights.

If I do this when you're an infant, you'd never know the difference. If I did this when you're a toddler, you'd never know the difference.

So are you saying it's okay to do this to a prepubescent?

I would say that had she chosen a different biological father, that you would have a different child or perhaps no child at all. Thus there is no other state. When I choose a mother for my children, the child IS the effect, there is no effect TO the child.

So your father's biology has no effect on you?

That seems to be counter to any common sense.

They are synonyms. If you don't like what the thesaurus has to say, well, it would probably help you to stop acting like lexical references are useful when they help you, since it suggests that they hurt you when they don't.

I showed that alteration is part of the definition of affect.

Yes, you have shown that alteration is one way to bring about an effect, bully for you.

That there are other ways to bring about an effect, namely building and designing, is what you are avoiding.

I'll tell you what. Let's play your game. If a woman chooses between father A and father B does that have an effect on me according to you?

The choosing doesn't, but the fertilization with either sperm A or sperm B does.

So your father's biology has no effect on you?

That seems to be counter to any common sense.

I am the effect. Changes to my father's biology could have an effect on me however. What is counter to common sense I will establish if you continue answering these questions. I warn you, make sure you think about them before you answer.

Yes, you have shown that alteration is one way to bring about an effect, bully for you.

I've shown that according to the dictionary it's one of two ways and the other requires you to do so to elicit a response, which simply can't apply here. However, if you'd like to contend that the Mirriam-Webster is less qualified to define a word than you, please state your credentials and your arguments.

See, I posted the ENTIRE definition, not part of one.

[QUOTE=Vittos the City Sacker;12210290]That there are other ways to bring about an effect, namely building and designing, is what you are avoiding.

The problem is that you don't realize what the effect is. The effect IS the building. It doesn't affect the building. However, if I change the plans of a building I effect the building. I'll show you the difference if you keep answering my questions.

The choosing doesn't, but the fertilization with either sperm A or sperm B does.

So if she gets to choose between a number of sperm from father A and a number of sperm from father B and a number of sperm from mother A, these all have an effect on me, according to you?

So if she gets to choose between a number of sperm from father A and a number of sperm from father B and a number of sperm from mother A, these all have an effect on me, according to you?

No.

When she fertilizes the egg, she has an effect on me. At that point she ingrains characteristics in me, and these characteristics are effectual in nature.

No.

When she fertilizes the egg, she has an effect on me. At that point she ingrains characteristics in me, and these characteristics are effectual in nature.

So now you've changed from the father having an effect on you something you said just a post ago is counter to logic to saying her choice of sperm matters to saying it's the fertilization of the eggs. So much for consistency.

What effect did she have on you, pray tell?

And I'm not talking about the moment of choice. I'm saying is there an effect on you if she fertilizes with sperm A or sperm B? Is there an effect on you if she fertilizes egg A or egg B?

So now you've changed from the father having an effect on you something you said just a post ago is counter to logic to saying her choice of sperm matters to saying it's the fertilization of the eggs. So much for consistency.

What effect did she have on you, pray tell?

And I'm not talking about the moment of choice. I'm saying is there an effect on you if she fertilizes with sperm A or sperm B? Is there an effect on you if she fertilizes egg A or egg B?

The father's sperm has an effect on me. Everything that goes into my creation has an effect on me, even if it doesn't alter or change me. If she chooses sperm A, the choosing of sperm A doesn't affect me, but the fertilization with sperm A does.

The father's sperm has an effect on me. Everything that goes into my creation has an effect on me, even if it doesn't alter or change me. If she chooses sperm A, the choosing of sperm A doesn't affect me, but the fertilization with sperm A does.

The question is if she chooses sperm B would that also have an effect on you?

And again you keep avoiding the question, what effect does it have? You answered that you think it has an effect, and that other things have an effect and even that everything has an effect. Now what effect does it have?

Oh, and since you say that it is the fertilzation that has the effect, why does fertilization suddenly become the line? Not long ago you were saying that choices before or after fertilzation have the exact same effect. It seems you've once again changed your story.

EDIT: By the way, I've gotten you contradict yet another of your arguments that a couple of days ago you were saying must be true. I guess we've established just how much credibility your arguments have even to you.

I will personally sic a Laser Penis-melting zionist robot comb on anyone who advocates this.

I realized that I should post this while watching 24. (That show isn't that good, no matter what my cousin says.)

The problem is that you don't realize what the effect is. The effect IS the building. It doesn't affect the building. However, if I change the plans of a building I effect the building. I'll show you the difference if you keep answering my questions.

Because the child's original status is determined by the manipulation, it cannot be said that the child is changed.

A particular definition for design from American Heritage goes "To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect" and that is much more appropriate in relation to the child than any definition of change.

What happens to the child changes the person but makes the adult.

Altering the child alters the person but builds the adult.

Altering the genetic structure produces the sexuality of the child, it brings it forth, it causes it to occur.

I have repeatedly said that the effect of building or designing is to bring about the original state of whatever one is building. I understand the effect.

But to say that the effect of building something stops as soon as that something is built is idiocy. If I build something, the effects of my building it last as long as it stays in existence.

The question is if she chooses sperm B would that also have an effect on you?

I have posted at least two times that the choosing has no effect on me.

Oh, and since you say that it is the fertilzation that has the effect, why does fertilization suddenly become the line?

Because that is where the building begins.

I have posted at least two times that the choosing has no effect on me.



Because that is where the building begins.

Ha. You've stated TWO WHOLE times that the choosing has no effect on you? Wow. Now, I wonder how many times you've contradicted that by trying to claim that the act of choosing a spouse is equivalent to this procedure and that they act of choosing a sperm is identical and that the act of getting multiple abortions until you get a particular child are identical. Now it's only what happens once you fertilize the egg.

Well, first you said that things effect the building from prior to the building being built, no? Now, you can't be affected until the building begins. But let's pretend that's true. So now you've claimed that you are beginning to be built at the moment of fertilization that this is when the actions on you begin to have an effect. Hmmmm...

Now let's pretend that you've said something that makes sense and that you begin to be affected by the actions that occur after you've begun to be built. This procedure is after you've begun being built, no?

The premise of this thread is Eugenics. Eugenics is wrong in almost all applications.

I realized that I should post this while watching 24. (That show isn't that good, no matter what my cousin says.)

I have repeatedly said that the effect of building or designing is to bring about the original state of whatever one is building. I understand the effect.

But to say that the effect of building something stops as soon as that something is built is idiocy. If I build something, the effects of my building it last as long as it stays in existence.

Oh, I realize what you've said, but thanks for that. It saves me some time. It is idiocy to claim that a change you make ceases to have an effect at the moment you're born, which is EXACTLY what you've been arguing. I agree that you've affected the child (a synonym for alter, change, manipulate). I agree you've manipulated the CHILD'S state at birth I agree you've changed the CHILD'S state at birth. I agree you've altered the CHILD'S state at birth.

And it IS idiocy to claim stop being affected after birth. You're right. It continues to effect them when they have rights and it continues to make them homosexual when they would have been heterosexual.

See how easy that is? We are in agreement. The effect does not stop at birth, and by definition is intended to not be so. It is intended to have the effect of making them heterosexual (as opposed to homosexual or bisexual). The effect is that their sexuality is different.

Now, you say the effect continues after birth. What effect is it that continues after birth?

Time for the quote game. Now, you've stated recently that the choice of father does not have an effect, and it's the fertilzation that does.

I have posted at least two times that the choosing has no effect on me.

But earlier and for about a week you've been arguing that the choice does have an effect (but does not alter) as found here -

You are right, I misread what you said. There is an effect, but it does not alter it.

Would you say that my mother's choice of my father has an effect on me? Would you say that it actually altered me?

Since this was meant to show they are not the same thing, then it's clear you thought the answer to this was yes to the first and no to the second, however, correct me if I'm wrong and you were actually saying yes to the alter part.

That was just a couple of hours ago, but let's keep looking.

I said it a couple pages back, it is a matter of reductionism. You are ending the continuity somewhere in between the egg and the zygote, and it seems almost willfully arbitrary to include the fetus but not the genetics of the egg, or sperm, or chosen father, or chosen grandfather.

Stating that the line doesn't make any sense at fertilization and that there is continuity. This was several days ago.

There is a sperm for every child, there is an egg for every child, there is a mother for every child, there is a grandmother for every child. The genetic development of the child does not start with the fetus.

Now, here's the sad part. You make one argument for several days. Then suddenly it changes and you try another. And another. You may not actually say it, but abandoning and completely flipping these arguments are a tacit admission that you oculdn't support the argument. So much that you're now saying the opposite.

Now, at what point should I get bored with your searching for an argument that will actually win?

1. A while ago, you were arguing that this procedure changes the sexuality of the child. Then you realized it hurts your argument so it became affects (a synonym) the sexuality of the child (which of ccourse is evidence enough).

2. Then you argued that the effect is no different if it is during gestation or before. Now you've completely flipped to saying that before gestation and during gestation is different because you found the argument that choosing sperm or eggs to be untenable.

However, it took a week to get you to realize these rather simple points were wrong. How long am I supposed to play your game until you actually realize your entire position is indefensible?

One must wonder how you can claim that a particular stance is relevant and try to show why it is relevant and because it is a certain way that it supports your belief that this procedure is ethical. And then you flip the stance over arguing for exactly the opposite, but still claim it supports that the procedure is ethical. Either it is not and never has been relevant. Or, and this is more likely, that you're trying to cling to any argument that will make it seem ethical, and keep claiming to believe things that you know aren't true just so you can make your argument.

Time for the quote game. Now, you've stated recently that the choice of father does not have an effect, and it's the fertilzation that does.

I have posted at least two times that the choosing has no effect on me.

But earlier and for about a week you've been arguing that the choice does have an effect (but does not alter) as found here -

Since this was meant to show they are not the same thing, then it's clear you thought the answer to this was yes to the first and no to the second, however, correct me if I'm wrong and you were actually saying yes to the alter part.

That was just a couple of hours ago, but let's keep looking.

Stating that the line doesn't make any sense at fertilization and that there is continuity. This was several days ago.

Now, here's the sad part. You make one argument for several days. Then suddenly it changes and you try another. And another. You may not actually say it, but abandoning and completely flipping these arguments are a tacit admission that you oculdn't support the argument. So much that you're now saying the opposite.

Now, at what point should I get bored with your searching for an argument that will actually win?

1. A while ago, you were arguing that this procedure changes the sexuality of the child. Then you realized it hurts your argument so it became affects (a synonym) the sexuality of the child (which of ccourse is evidence enough).

2. Then you argued that the effect is no different if it is during gestation or before. Now you've completely flipped to saying that before gestation and during gestation is different because you found the argument that choosing sperm or eggs to be untenable.

However, it took a week to get you to realize these rather simple points were wrong. How long am I supposed to play your game until you actually realize your entire position is indefensible?

One must wonder how you can claim that a particular stance is relevant and try to show why it is relevant and because it is a certain way that it supports your belief that this procedure is ethical. And then you flip the stance over arguing for exactly the opposite, but still claim it supports that the procedure is ethical. Either it is not and never has been relevant. Or, and this is more likely, that you're trying to cling to any argument that will make it seem ethical, and keep claiming to believe things that you know aren't true just so you can make your argument.

Once again, the biology of the father, of the mother, and all of their ancestors has an effect on me. My mother's fertilization of the egg with a particular genetic code has an effect on me, her rejection of all other genetic codes does not.

It is not the process of choosing, but the person she chooses who has an effect.

To use an example, while rejecting cedar, oak, maple, and pine may not have an effect on a piece of furniture, the fact that it was made of mahogony does give the furniture qualities that should be considered effectual.

It is idiocy to claim that a change you make ceases to have an effect at the moment you're born, which is EXACTLY what you've been arguing.

Nope, I have not been arguing that the effect ends at birth (if it were anything, I would say that the effect begins at birth). What I am arguing is that it is not a changing, but a building. Changing alters the status of the entity, building establishes the status of the entity.

See how easy that is? We are in agreement. The effect does not stop at birth, and by definition is intended to not be so. It is intended to have the effect of making them heterosexual (as opposed to homosexual or bisexual). The effect is that their sexuality is different.

The effect is that their sexuality is produced rather than allowed to form on its own, not that the sexuality is different.

Now, you say the effect continues after birth. What effect is it that continues after birth?

The effects of being born with a particular trait.

Just as my being born with genetics that promoted brown hair, blue eyes, and a medium build has had an effect on me.

Nope, I have not been arguing that the effect ends at birth (if it were anything, I would say that the effect begins at birth). What I am arguing is that it is not a changing, but a building. Changing alters the status of the entity, building establishes the status of the entity.



The effect is that their sexuality is produced rather than allowed to form on its own, not that the sexuality is different.



The effects of being born with a particular trait.

Just as my being born with genetics that promoted brown hair, blue eyes, and a medium build has had an effect on me.


It took you a week to realize the arguments I said were untenable right away are exactly that. I don't have the time to actually continue showing you the flaws repeatedly until you accept them a week later.

I know you're pretending you're not changing your argument, but you've changed it dramatically, and anyone who questions that may read the quotes and come to their own conclusion. You chastised me when you mistakingly thought I was arguing that conception was a dividing line, now your arguing that it is. And before it was all about the fetus and not the child, now it's all about the child and not the fetus. If the effect begins at birth, then why were you comparing it to abortion? Wait, don't answer. We know. You don't believe any of these arguments and you're arguing anything to keep from admitting you can't support your claim that this doesn't violate the rights of a child.

Here's the point. You've admitted that the point of this procedure is to have an effect on the child. Keep playing word games as long as you like, but you've lost the argument. You admit the point is to effect the child, not the fetus, like you were originally claiming. I'm happy that you recognize this. And rather than argue for the next week, I'll just wait for the conclusions one must draw from such a thing to sink in.

I'm not going to argue for a week for you just to abandon your argument and pretend you didn't.

It took you a week to realize the arguments I said were untenable right away are exactly that. I don't have the time to actually continue showing you the flaws repeatedly until you accept them a week later.

I know you're pretending you're not changing your argument, but you've changed it dramatically, and anyone who questions that may read the quotes and come to their own conclusion. You chastised me when you mistakingly thought I was arguing that conception was a dividing line, now your arguing that it is. And before it was all about the fetus and not the child, now it's all about the child and not the fetus. If the effect begins at birth, then why were you comparing it to abortion? Wait, don't answer. We know. You don't believe any of these arguments and you're arguing anything to keep from admitting you can't support your claim that this doesn't violate the rights of a child.

Here's the point. You've admitted that the point of this procedure is to have an effect on the child. Keep playing word games as long as you like, but you've lost the argument. You admit the point is to effect the child, not the fetus, like you were originally claiming. I'm happy that you recognize this. And rather than argue for the next week, I'll just wait for the conclusions one must draw from such a thing to sink in.

I'm not going to argue for a week for you just to abandon your argument and pretend you didn't.

I have been consistent in my points throughout. There is no alteration of the child, even though there is an effect. The purpose of this is to bring about a child, not to alter the child. The child cannot claim a right to something that doesn't and could never exist.

That it took me a week to grasp and refute your manipulative semantics is certainly a knock against my ability to recognize linguistic fallacies, but it is also no support for your arguments.

But since you have admitted that I am right in this post, and have not offered a rebuttal, I will assume that you agree with my position. It was a long time coming.

I have been consistent in my points throughout. There is no alteration of the child, even though there is an effect. The purpose of this is to bring about a child, not to alter the child. The child cannot claim a right to something that doesn't and could never exist.

That it took me a week to grasp and refute your manipulative semantics is certainly a knock against my ability to recognize linguistic fallacies, but it is also no support for your arguments.

But since you have admitted that I am right in this post, and have not offered a rebuttal, I will assume that you agree with my position. It was a long time coming.

Nope. I have always stated that there is an effect after birth and that said effect is intent of the procedure. It's not coincidence that I agree when you say it now. I wouldn't want to refute that. That's the point.

Yes, it's a very easy way to get me to agree with you by suddenly arguing what I've been arguing all along.

Meanwhile, let's see exactly how consistent your arguments have been.

from 9 days ago -
If there is no confusion after the child gains some sense of self, then for there to be lasting relevant effects, then you must be assuming that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is inherently better.

According to you there are no relevant effects unless one or the other is better. Although you later say that engineering someone to die at 10 is equivalent, so apparently harm doesn't matter either.

9 days ago (referring to engineering a person to die at 10 years old)

What victim exists that has their life after 10 years taken away from them?

You say that, concerning abortion, no living person existed to have their life taken away from them, I say that, in our present scenario, no person existed who had a life past ten years to be taken away.

If the person never had the opportunity, how can opportunity be lost?

Okay, so harm doesn't matter either. I can construct a child however I like and there are no relevant effects on the child. Because even if one state is clearly better than the other, you still claim it's irrelevant.

And now -

But to say that the effect of building something stops as soon as that something is built is idiocy. If I build something, the effects of my building it last as long as it stays in existence.

So your father's biology has no effect on you?

That seems to be counter to any common sense.

the effects of altering the genes of a fetus extend through all of those decendents of the person the fetus becomes

Oh, look the effect is ongoing and relevant and to say otherwise is idiocy. What do you know? I guess you're calling yourself an idiot since your argument is consistent, no? In fact, your claim is that now your old arguments were counter to common sense.


And I do not support the manipulation of sexuality after a child has developed said right.

Since you will not say that the child would prefer either homosexuality or heterosexuality if given a free choice, I cannot accept that the argument considers the child's will concerning the specific manipulation.
Clearly stating the sexuality is manipulated but that the manipulation occurs before the child has rights. This is more evidence that at this time you were admitting that this procedure is a manipulation of the child's sexuality.


It should also be noted that manipulate means to alter to one's own ends and implies that it is unethical.

1 : to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
3 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose : DOCTOR

Whoops.

Moving on.

So we know the child's sexuality was manipulated.

Secondly, the question of intent has long been settled, as the only action being considered is the willful, intentful one. So I hereby will state (you are free to agree or disagree) that in this situation the parent intends to change the sexuality of the child.

I believe that it is not wrong to intend to change the sexuality of a child through an in utero or in vitro procedure

So we have a changed, a manipulated sexuality. That is until you realized the damage to your argument of admitting the manipulation and the change are to the sexuality of the child.


If someone intentionally alters the sexuality of the offspring, how can you possibly say that they are not choosing it?

Oh, and the sexuality is altered as well. So far we have a changed, altered, manipulated sexuality.

And then, when you realize your argument is untenable -

It doesn't alter the sexuality of the child, because you cannot take something that doesn't exist and make it different or change it. Altering the genetic structure produces the sexuality of the child, it brings it forth, it causes it to occur.

Consistency, my left testicle.


Oh, and there is the little point where you said a woman who chooses between sperm or eggs of parents is manipulating the child in an equal way to altering the fetus.

And that wonderful scenario where she aborts fetus after fetus until she gets the right one. All claiming this is all equivalent. But, suddenly....

I'll tell you what. Let's play your game. If a woman chooses between father A and father B does that have an effect on me according to you?

The choosing doesn't, but the fertilization with either sperm A or sperm B does.

Is a mother behaving immorally and infringing on the rights of the child when she picks out a father based on traits she would want in her child?

You said picking the father and altering the child via the fetus are equivalent. And argued with us when we said they were not equivalent. Hmmmm...

Again, oops.

So much for all that consistency.

That statement applies to the obsessively planned pregnancy that I described.

It is a matter of reductionism. Where does the child begin?

Should it start at birth? Should it start at the zygote? Should it start with the separate egg and sperm? Should it start with the decision of the mother to have a child?

There is a sperm for every child, there is an egg for every child, there is a mother for every child, there is a grandmother for every child. The genetic development of the child does not start with the fetus.

And we have the claim that the fertilization does not matter and that regardless of the actions of the mother you are always manipulating the sexuality of the child.


And then there is of course this one -

rights=abilities.
no rights = no abilities

Along with this -
Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

So your consistent argument is that you are using a definition of rights that does not deserve the title and that your arguments when you entered the thread were counter to common sense and idiocy and that child is changed, manipulated, altered, but is not changed, manipulated or altered.

Yep, consistent. Well, so long as you don't read your arguments.

I wouldn't be forced to reiterate my points over and over again if you wouldn't misconstrue my arguments to fit your needs. Just keep that in mind.


According to you there are no relevant effects unless one or the other is better.

"Relevant" is a qualifier, Jocabia, it creates a subset. I am not saying that there are no effects, I am saying that there are no relevant effects, because not all effects should be considered a violation of rights.

Don't ignore important words and then make me waste my time explaining myself.

Okay, so harm doesn't matter either. I can construct a child however I like and there are no relevant effects on the child. Because even if one state is clearly better than the other, you still claim it's irrelevant.

At any point in that statement did I use the word "relevant" or "effect"?

It is easy to see that losing one's arms would be a relevant effect.

If you were truly observant, you would notice that I was addressing EM's claim that changing the fetus changes the child, and was not addressing effects at all, relevant or otherwise. I was in fact reiterating the point that I made at the beginning and that I am making now, that changing the fetus does not change the child, it established an original status for the child.

Clearly stating the sexuality is manipulated but that the manipulation occurs before the child has rights. This is more evidence that at this time you were admitting that this procedure is a manipulation of the child's sexuality.

Read the statements before you quote them.

manipulation of sexuality after a child has developed said right

Since I don't believe a child can have rights as a fetus, it should be obvious that this manipulation of sexuality would come long after birth.

In the second statement I refer to "the specific manipulation". The specific manipulation has, is, and will always be the manipulation of the genetic code.

I have repeatedly referred to it as the manipulation of the genetic code, and this confusion wouldn't exist if not for your wildly interpretive reading.



That is until you realized the damage to your argument of admitting the manipulation and the change are to the sexuality of the child.

That is until I realized that change was an improper word in relation to my argument. I had accepted your conflation of effect and alteration.

I explained quite clearly why I was changing the wording of my argument, and have explained myself (as well as admitted the mistake) many times since then. I won't explain myself again.

Consistency, my left testicle.

You, of course, fail to notice that that is the exact same argument I started with and that only the wording I have used has changed because I realized I was operating on the wrong definitions.

You said picking the father and altering the child via the fetus are equivalent. And argued with us when we said they were not equivalent. Hmmmm...

Yes, picking a father to pass on his genes to the child has an effect on the child. Rejecting 10 fathers does not. It is the woman's choice that effects the child, not the choosing.

I can retype that again next post if you want.

And we have the claim that the fertilization does not matter and that regardless of the actions of the mother you are always manipulating the sexuality of the child.

How do you get that?

I said that all of those were part of the genetic development of the child, so the fertilization does matter, and it is the specific actions of the mother that build the sexuality.

Along with this -

You are out of line. It is one thing to read something in my statements that isn't there because you are looking for something that is not there. It is another thing to take statements out of context to make them say what you want.

My statements:

Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

I was pointing out that your definition of rights is pointless because it is synonymous with ability. If we possess infinite rights but can only express them when we are able to, then for any practical purpose rights=ability.

I don't know how often I have reiterated that the child has no right to determination of its own in utero development because it doesn't possess the ability. Therefore my argument is no ability=no rights.

Obviously I never said that right=ability. I specifically said that you were creating a definition of right, where in all practical circumstances, right would be equivalent to ability, which is not true.

Saying no ability (which I have repeatedly explained means no such ability exists) = no right does not equate rights with abilities. It simply states that if the ability is an impossibility then it is absurd to claim the ability is also a right.

Yet another point that I have had to repeatedly explain.

So your consistent argument is that you are using a definition of rights that does not deserve the title and that your arguments when you entered the thread were counter to common sense and idiocy and that child is changed, manipulated, altered, but is not changed, manipulated or altered.

Yep, consistent. Well, so long as you don't read your arguments.

Of course my refined argument is this:

To create a child is to give a child an original state.

To alter a child is to change the child's original state into a new and different state.

Since there must be an original state for there to be a alteration, the child must be given its original state before an alteration can take place.

Therefore, a creation must take place before a change can take place.

It is incorrect to say that an effect = an alteration, because a creation also brings about an effect as well, but a creation is not a alteration.

So it is possible to have an effect without altering the child, namely through designing, building, or creating the child.

So, since we establish that the child is being created or built or designed, and not altered, we examine whether creating, building, or designing a child is wrong.

Obviously creating and building are not wrong, the natural gestation is a method of creating or building a child. So we turn to designing, which is the obvious question.

Merriam Webster defines design in a couple of ways, most notably: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan, and to devise for a specific function or end. Now this obviously, is what we are addressing with this discussion. We are not asking whether it is wrong to change a child, we are asking whether it is wrong construct a child according to the parents plan, or better is it wrong to fashion the child to a specific function or end. Soheran and AnarchyeL both addressed the mother's will in treating the child as an end and not allowing the child to be an end unto itself (while you were making arguments about eternally held rights and enforcing the word "alter"), because that is the moral issue: should a mother treat her child as her end.

The answer to this question is obviously not cut and dry. There are many instance where the mother treats her child as an end. The mother who fertilizes her egg with a man who's traits she wants to reproduce in her child is one that I repeatedly brought up.

To all of this, I would say, give the mother the pregnancy and give the child his life. If the child's life overlaps into the pregnancy, then it defaults to the mother. If the mother's control over the pregnancy overlaps into the child's life, it defaults to the child. However, the effects of the sexuality to the child are neglegible, so it would not be an intrusion into the child's life.


Now, you can address my argument as it is, or you can continue this ad hominem attack on this inconsistency that you have invented. One will recieve a response, one won't.

*snip*

I'll leave this as is. People can read. You said what you said. Your argument changes. I have no interest in arguing with someone who doesn't believe what he's saying at all and just changes it on a whim.

You claime your argument rested on a number of points I've quoted. I got you to abandon those points because they were wrong. You didn't say changed once. You repeated it for a couple of days. And it was consistent with everything else you were saying.

1. The change is to the sexuality. You also mentioned the manipulation of the sexuality and alteration of the sexuality. but that change doesn't matter because there is no valuation of the change. And it only matters if one sexuality is better than other.

That was your original point. I just happen to agree with it. I quoted it.

2. Suddenly, it's not unethical even if the change is harmful because the child doesn't know the difference.

That was your new point.

3. Suddenly, harm matters again, but the change is not harmful again.

Back to the first point, only now the change is not to the child anymore. It simply affects the child.

1b. You originally argued that choosing the parents is equally altering the child. You mention as an example the woman choosing IVF and go through sperm an eggs hoping for a certain effect and then aborting everything up until that point.

That was another part of your original argument.

Our rebuttal was to show that you are actually choosing between children in that scenario.

3b. You steal our argument and pretend as if you've been saying all along that there is a division at fertilzation (despite chastising me when you misread my argument as drawing such a line).

I've showed the quotes to support this. I can show the replies and how they are consistent with the argument you were making.

Face it, you know you were wrong. I know you were wrong. And now you're finally accepting that this does effect the child and has the purpose of effecting the child and it is the reason why this is unethical. Okay, well, you haven't yet accepted the last part, but since it's been 9 days just to get your this far, I'm not willing to spend another 40 days trying to get you to accept the flaws in the last bit of your argument.

Have it your way.

Have it your way.

I'm comfortable with where things are at. Me quoting you and you saying you didn't say it. Let's just leave it at that and let the readers decide what they'd like to think of your argument.