"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[gcthomas]

The nervous system is present from day 1.

Does it have any other organ systems to go along with the nervous system in your version of reality, or is it just the nervous system that has formed? :dunce:

At one day old the cell bundle has no organ systems at all. Didn't you know that?

 

[Alate_One]

The nervous system is present from day 1.

No. It isn't. You're making a biologically incorrect statement.

If you're trying to say "the instructions to make it are there", then my skin cells have nervous systems under your "definition".

That's because it is those that represent who abortion kills.

Not necessarily. Most abortions already are before the 9th week.

And you have a prejudice against people based upon appearance.

I determine what is a *people* based on it having things like a nervous system and a human head. Every human being does this every day, whether you like it or not. It's how you tell a human being from a dog, cat, or chimpanzee. Your slippery slope argument is stupid and nonsensical.

Liar. You do not condemn a mother who chooses abortion even after the baby is recognisable to you.

Depends on the situation, in most yes I would.

A mother is raped and finds out she's pregnant 9 weeks later then terminates. Murder or not? Are you willing to support a law that would send her to prison?

I believe in exceptions for rape.

 

[alwight]

Yeah, because personhood is dependent upon opinion.

My opinion is at least as good as yours LH but unlike yours there is reasonable physical evidence to support mine.

Inability to function is irrelevant.

Then tip a glass of water into your computer and then use it to tell me just how irrelevant its not functioning any more is.

You can hide behind your poppycock all you want, we can still see you for what you are.

The fact that you don't like my reasoning doesn't seem to mean that you can contradict any of it other than by bald assertion.

 

[Stripe]

I believe in exceptions for rape.

Which justified everything I've said. Personhood means nothing to you.

 

[alwight]

Which justified everything I've said. Personhood means nothing to you.

In your world most "personhoods" are simply snuffed out soon after conception, does that make you happy? lain:

 

[WizardofOz]

DISCLAIMER: hypotheticals are not a good way to determine value decisions, for either side.

:thumb:

This has really been my point. I played along in an attempt to show quip that the hypothetical had nothing to do with my position specifically and little to do with abortion in general.

 

[WizardofOz]

I think the current situation with abortion policy in the USA isn't good, but I don't think you're going to get zygote protection ever. You're going to have to draw a semi-arbitrary line somewhere and fight for it to get any change, imo.

You're probably right although I feel the principle is worth fighting for.

 

[mighty_duck]

:thumb:

This has really been my point. I played along in an attempt to show quip that the hypothetical had nothing to do with my position specifically and little to do with abortion in general.

I use to love hypotheticals, then I read about one that I frequently used - the train switching dilemma.

Basically, a mad ethics professor kidnaps six people, ties 5 of them to a railroad track, and the 6th to another railroad track. Then sets a runaway train towards the group of 5. You are at a remote station, but can push a button to switch the train over to the track with only one person. Most people would push that button, even though they would be intentionally killing that one person (to save the other 5).

Seems pretty clear cut, most people agree that intentionally causing the death of an innocent is sometimes justified. Right?

But change the case slightly - instead of one person tied to the track, pushing the button would derail the train, causing it to kill a guy sleeping in a hammock outside his house. Same moral decision, yet this time most people would not press the button (unless they were asked the former hypothetical first - then they would keep their answers consistent!).

Change the hypothetical again - this time there is no switch, but you can push a severely obese man in front of the train, killing him but saving the 5. Almost no one would make that choice, despite it being "morally equivalent".

In short, subtle changes can be used to get the result you want.


With abortion, the problem is compounded. There is no hypothetical that does a good job of portraying the factors involved. Any hypothetical offered is either inapplicable, deals with only one facet of the moral decision, overemphasizes or flat out replaces a factor, or is so foreign to our innate moral compass that we can't make a reasonable judgement. Many times hypotheticals are all of those.

----------------------------------
The only (arguably) useful aspect of hypotheticals is in proving the folly of most blanket universal moral statements.

 

[Alate_One]

Which justified everything I've said. Personhood means nothing to you.

No. You want an absolute line on every subject. I'm not willing to draw one. In the case of abortion, you're balancing the rights of two people. Under most circumstances the balance tips in favor of the embryo/fetus at personhood, but in the case of rape you have a violation that occurred to form that embryo/fetus. In that case I think there should be mercy for the woman's situation over that of the embryo/fetus. It's a terrible situation either way and I don't think it should go on forever (no late term abortions) at some point you should have made your decision earlier.

 

[Stripe]

No.

Yes. You condone the supposed "right" of a mother to terminate her child even after you confess his personhood. Personhood means nothing to you.

 

[quip]

I use to love hypotheticals, then I read about one that I frequently used - the train switching dilemma.

Basically, a mad ethics professor kidnaps six people, ties 5 of them to a railroad track, and the 6th to another railroad track. Then sets a runaway train towards the group of 5. You are at a remote station, but can push a button to switch the train over to the track with only one person. Most people would push that button, even though they would be intentionally killing that one person (to save the other 5).

Seems pretty clear cut, most people agree that intentionally causing the death of an innocent is sometimes justified. Right?

But change the case slightly - instead of one person tied to the track, pushing the button would derail the train, causing it to kill a guy sleeping in a hammock outside his house. Same moral decision, yet this time most people would not press the button (unless they were asked the former hypothetical first - then they would keep their answers consistent!).

Change the hypothetical again - this time there is no switch, but you can push a severely obese man in front of the train, killing him but saving the 5. Almost no one would make that choice, despite it being "morally equivalent".

In short, subtle changes can be used to get the result you want.

Is it "to get what you want" or do these external circumstances demonstrate the complexities of human nature? Yes, I'm familiar with these. It seems people are not wont to directly harm someone who isn't already in harm's way (the hammocked man and fat man.). Pushing the man in front of the train is an especially hard one to accept. (this one is usually reserved as a deontological rebut of the original universal ethic of saving the most possible.) You could also add another wrinkle by adding that the 1 person tied to the track is your best friend....then which one would you choose? :dead:

With abortion, the problem is compounded. There is no hypothetical that does a good job of portraying the factors involved. Any hypothetical offered is either inapplicable, deals with only one facet of the moral decision, overemphasizes or flat out replaces a factor, or is so foreign to our innate moral compass that we can't make a reasonable judgement. Many times hypotheticals are all of those.

----------------------------------
The only (arguably) useful aspect of hypotheticals is in proving the folly of most blanket universal moral statements.

I believe my hypothetical falls into the "deals with only one facet..." area. I never claimed that it did more than that though....Oz's (mis)characterizations notwithstanding.

 

[WizardofOz]

I believe my hypothetical falls into the "deals with only one facet..." area. I never claimed that it did more than that though....Oz's (mis)characterizations notwithstanding.

What mischaracterizations? By all means, quote me. As far as I'm concerned, you're whipping a straw man. Your hypothetical set to establish that people value living babies over a Petrie dish full of zygotes.

This is a position I have not disputed since it was first brought up. :idunno:

 

[Lighthouse]

My opinion is at least as good as yours LH but unlike yours there is reasonable physical evidence to support mine.

You have evidence the zygote is not a person?

Is it not human?

Then tip a glass of water into your computer and then use it to tell me just how irrelevant its not functioning any more is.

Apples and zebras.

The fact that you don't like my reasoning doesn't seem to mean that you can contradict any of it other than by bald assertion.

per·son [pur-suh

n] noun

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

 

[alwight]

You have evidence the zygote is not a person?

Yes, I'm reasonably convinced that every human person you might suggest requires to have a central nervous system and that without it that "person" no longer exists. In this realm at least.

Is it not human?

As we know from physical evidence that a zygote has no CNS and clearly then imo actually has no personality at all, but yes also clearly it is something of human origin, but then again so is dandruff. Since only a minority get to become a feotus anyway then they remain only potential persons at best.

Apples and zebras.

I realise computers don't have personalities (although I've had computers that seem to have had.) but they can stop functioning just as a CNS can. Do you have any evidence that a "person" is more than just a very complex computer running in real time? Is it perhaps backed up on some other device or medium?

per·son [pur-suh

n] noun

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

Can you suggest any living physical person that we can both recognise as being an individual personality, say from an individual stick of wood, who functions without a CNS?

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists love to use terms like blastocyst, zygote and embryo as if those terms mean non-persons. When we ask, "What is the mother pregnant with" they will say one of these instead of "person" as an answer. Perhaps if we asked them what their 12 year old was they'd say child, pre-teen or son.

But they wouldn't ignore the personhood of their own child.

One wonders why they can ignore the personhood of other people's children and use such deceptive means to justify their apathy.

 

[alwight]

Evolutionists love to use terms like blastocyst, zygote and embryo as if those terms mean non-persons. When we ask, "What is the mother pregnant with" they will say one of these instead of "person" as an answer. Perhaps if we asked them what their 12 year old was they'd say child, pre-teen or son.

But they wouldn't ignore the personhood of their own child.

One wonders why they can ignore the personhood of other people's children and use such deceptive means to justify their apathy.

Some of us "evolutioniststs" it seems can rationalise at what point a person might logically be able to exist from the physical evidence.
Imo this also bestows a greater worth, meaning and respect to associate with the word "person" than you do say, when it is applied, than to simply apply it dogmatically to all recently fertilised human ova, most of which will quite naturally fail anyway.

 

[gcthomas]

Some of us "evolutioniststs" it seems can rationalise at what point a person might logically be able to exist from the physical evidence.
Imo this also bestows a greater worth, meaning and respect to associate with the word "person" than you do say, when it is applied, than to simply apply it dogmatically to all recently fertilised human ova, most of which will quite naturally fail anyway.

Although the date would be different if Stripe was right that there was a nervous system from day one. Any evidence of that, Stripe? We're quite amenable to evidence, you know.

 

[Stripe]

Although the date would be different if Stripe was right that there was a nervous system from day one. Any evidence of that, Stripe? We're quite amenable to evidence, you know.

Where was the CNS if not within the one cell?

 

[gcthomas]

Where was the CNS if not within the one cell?

Err, not existent yet? The genes of the cell contain the instructions to build the proteins that build the nervous system, making it out of a complex web of cells. That takes time.

There is no nervous system IN a cell. I asked what you had for evidence last post: do you have any?

 

[Stripe]

Err, not existent yet? The genes of the cell contain the instructions to build the proteins that build the nervous system, making it out of a complex web of cells. That takes time.

Sounds complicated. :think: