More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated

[Crucible]

Every single human that has ever lived started as a single cell that was conceived from one egg and one sperm, save Adam and Eve (and perhaps Jesus).

Of course, you don't want to go back further, when the egg and sperm were proteins on a slab of rib eye.

This is where you all fumble the ball and go right into arbitrary grandstanding.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I went back and streamlined my rebuttal. It was a bit messy. Here it is again:

Your assignation of right is arbitrary (as is any) and cannot be argued as a rational necessity. Our compact has recognized, foundationally, the idea of right and its vestment as an absolute, and the inability of our compact to alienate that right absent actions that are outside the possible in our consideration. Within the recognition that we cannot demonstrate a necessary point of vestment and the principle that the point exists and is inviolate lies the argument against abortion.

A law that favors one arbitrary assignation over another is unjust and no real, rational argument for itself that doesn't make a neat circle. It doesn't really matter where you believe that right and the humanity we're speaking to may exist. If we cannot establish prima facie that it is a logical necessity, one whose conclusion is inescapable regardless of our inclination, then we have a larger duty to protect that which we are not entitled to abrogate. Otherwise, we risk doing that which we are not entitled to do and dismiss the foundation of law itself.

I put stock into what experts say. You're right, there is not a definite, consensus opinion to draw from. There is data suggesting that around 22 weeks is when "humanity" begins and that's based on science, which I wouldn't consider particularly arbitrary.

Could they be wrong? Could "humanity" begin before 22 weeks? I suppose it's possible, but based on what we know about our brain it's highly highly unlikely. And I don't think that a pregnant woman should have to care for a child that she neither wants nor has the means to care for if the science backs her up, and the only opposition is "what if"

You're right, this "line of humanity" is somewhat arbitrary. But we have to draw it somewhere, and we might as well base that on the objective and expert opinions of those who study it

 

[glassjester]

No. It's a diploid cell. It takes a bit more than that to be human. I don't think you'll find many experts who would consider a zygote human

You don't think so? Who cares?

A zygote is an individual human organism.
That's objective fact.

 

[glassjester]

This is where you all fumble the ball and go right into arbitrary grandstanding.

22 weeks is arbitrary.

Life begins at conception.
That's not at all arbitrary.
It is objectively true.

The organism that you are, began existing at the moment of your conception.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You don't think so? Who cares?

Not what was said

A zygote is an individual human organism.
That's objective fact.

Then you can find one expert who has said as much? You know, since its objective fact and all

 

[Town Heretic]

I put stock into what experts say.

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. And where that opinion is demonstrably subjective, an arbitrary valuation, it has no more weight than what your local butcher believes, or the guy who changes your tires.

You're right, there is not a definite, consensus opinion to draw from. There is data suggesting that around 22 weeks is when "humanity" begins and that's based on science, which I wouldn't consider particularly arbitrary.

I take exception to that idea. Humanity isn't a stage in development on any biological/medical chart. It does not describe process or reflect a demonstrable thing, which is the province of scientific fact. Instead, humanity exists as a reflection of our response to biology, as a point where we value that collection of cells and recognize the vesting of right. Now you can believe that point should be at conception, or where those collected cells experience pain, or where they can exist independently of the host (the Roe standard), or with the first breath, but wherever you place value, you aren't doing it by logical necessity.

That's the problem of any assignment and the danger in failing to protect the unborn at every point along our line of chronological being, given that all of us recognize that point exists.

Could they be wrong? Could "humanity" begin before 22 weeks? I suppose it's possible, but based on what we know about our brain it's highly highly unlikely.

That we could be abrogating that which we have no right to abrogate is sufficient, but unnecessary given that there is no way to factor probability here, there being no points in relation to a defined and necessary litmus.

And I don't think that a pregnant woman should have to care for a child that she neither wants nor has the means to care for if the science backs her up, and the only opposition is "what if"

Except that you do believe it once the demonstrable what if becomes a certainty to you. At that point you're as militant as any.

You're right, this "line of humanity" is somewhat arbitrary.

Outside of its existence, entirely.

But we have to draw it somewhere

Rather, we know it exists somewhere and that it is inviolate and that if we draw that line at any point past the point of conception we permit ourselves the possibility to do that which we have no right to do and, worse, we do not take that chance, risk endangering the fundamental right of another being by necessity either.

, and we might as well base that on the objective and expert opinions of those who study it

But they don't study humanity. They study biology. They're no more qualified than the milkman to render an opinion on a thing a microscope will never demonstrate.

 

[ok doser]

The things that qualify as life for a human being are absent at conception....

and those would be?

a functioning brain for example.

this has a functioning brain

do you believe it is human?

 

[Greg Jennings]

22 weeks is arbitrary.

Life begins at conception.
That's not at all arbitrary.
It is objectively true.

The organism that you are, began existing at the moment of your conception.

Are you sure you know what "objective" means? You're using it a lot, but objective facts are backed up by something concrete. All you've given me is emotion. Do you have some science that suggests 22 weeks is too long?

 

[ok doser]

This coming from someone who voted for Donald Trump yet has the audacity to call herself "pro life".

:think:

... go right ahead, acw - do all you can to ensure that hillary wins the election ... I am.

 

[ok doser]

Re-read Town Hetetic's post, and answer when you actually understand what he wrote.

:doh:

might as well ask him to perma-ban himself

 

[ok doser]

I put stock into what experts say. You're right, there is not a definite, consensus opinion to draw from. There is data suggesting that around 22 weeks is when "humanity" begins and that's based on science....

"humanity" is not a scientific term

nor is it a measurable quantity

 

[glassjester]

Then you can find one expert who has said as much? You know, since its objective fact and all

Sure.

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”
Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”
Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419

“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”

Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86

“The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”

 

[Greg Jennings]

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. And where that opinion is demonstrably subjective, an arbitrary valuation, it has no more weight than what your local butcher believes, or the guy who changes your tires.

I trust the local butcher to chop my meat, and I trust the tire guy to know his stuff about cars. Just like I trust an expert in fetal development to know about fetal development. If you are saying that there is no such thing as an expert, then I disagree. Some people ARE more knowledgable than others on certain subjects, and more often than not those are people who work professionally in those subjects

I take exception to that idea. Humanity isn't a stage in development on any biological/medical chart. It does not describe process or reflect a demonstrable thing, which is the province of scientific fact. Instead, humanity exists as a reflection of our response to biology, as a point where we value that collection of cells and recognize the vesting of right. Now you can believe that point should be at conception, or where those collected cells experience pain, or where they can exist independently of the host (the Roe standard), or with the first breath, but wherever you place value, you aren't doing it by logical necessity.

That's the problem of any assignment and the danger in failing to protect the unborn at every point along our line of chronological being, given that all of us recognize that point exists.

I recognize that. I'm not saying my position is perfect, but I think it's the best we can do with the current knowledge available.

Do you have a better solution than 22 weeks? Do you think it should not be allowed at all? I've answered a lot of questions explaining mt position, but I'm afraid others haven't been so kind as to define and defend a position of their own

That we could be abrogating that which we have no right to abrogate is sufficient, but unnecessary given that there is no way to factor probability here, there being no points in relation to a defined and necessary litmus.

The probability comes from the likelihood that we are wrong about the way in which our brains develop and operate. It's not likely that we are, but there's always a shot

Except that you do believe it once the demonstrable what if becomes a certainty to you. At that point you're as militant as any.

I don't think so. I give the woman a minimum 16 week deadline in which she can get the abortion done. If she has a good reason why she could not get it done on time, or if there is an emergency situation then I'm open to making exceptions.

Are you saying that by enforcing a long deadline, I'm being militant?

Outside of its existence, entirely.


Rather, we know it exists somewhere and that it is inviolate and that if we draw that line at any point past the point of conception we permit ourselves the possibility to do that which we have no right to do and, worse, we do not take that chance, risk endangering the fundamental right of another being by necessity either.

But by disallowing any abortion to take place, you are removing certain rights from an adult woman because you think that maybe.....just maybe......the fetus inside her is "human" even though there is no actual evidence showing that. I disagree with that

But they don't study humanity. They study biology. They're no more qualified than the milkman to render an opinion on a thing a microscope will never demonstrate.

Biologists/neurologists would know better than anyone else when a human brain becomes "conscious" (or "human" or whatever. I think you get what I'm trying to convey)

Who would be better, in your opinion? What experts in "humanity" are there that exist?

 

[glassjester]

I don't think so. I give the woman a minimum 16 week deadline in which she can get the abortion done. If she has a good reason why she could not get it done on time, or if there is an emergency situation then I'm open to making exceptions.

You'd make "exceptions" even beyond the point that you believe the baby is in fact a living human being?

Sicko.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Sure.

Though there are likely some that view zygotes as truly human, those quotes above mostly refer to the fact that the zygote cannot become anything OTHER than a human after fertilization, not that it is a being worthy of human rights. This is demonstrated in your last quote, where many animals are spoken about as individuals besides humans.
Also, I don't think anyone was ever arguing that a zygote isn't alive.

Context is important

 

[Greg Jennings]

You'd make "exceptions" even beyond the point that you believe the baby is in fact a living human being?

If she has a really good reason, yes. Not for convenience. In order to save her life, I would obviously ok it. Wouldn't you?

Sicko.

Is this also your "objective" opinion?

 

[ok doser]

Also, I don't think anyone was ever arguing that a zygote isn't alive.

mr dante has been


but he's a bit odd

 

[Greg Jennings]

"humanity" is not a scientific term

nor is it a measurable quantity

Hence the marks around it. There are many ways to convey what we're all taking about: when something becomes truly human

 

[ok doser]

Hence the marks around it. There are many ways to convey what we're all taking about: when something becomes truly human

speaking as a scientist myself, i'm happy with saying that a new human life is created at conception

it's new

it's human

it's alive

 

[Greg Jennings]

speaking as a scientist myself, i'm happy with saying that a new human life is created at conception

it's new

it's human

it's alive

And completely literally, you are correct. But we both know that a fetus doesn't behave like a human until way down the developmental road.