"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[gcthomas]

It seems you responded to a question by issuing a 'chalenge'. Feeble diversion.

 

[Alate_One]

At the zygote stage? It's hardly even that. To make the analogy more accurate, we should say the draftsman draws a "go" button on his drawing and when he pushes the button it begins to grow into what he is drawing. At some point he has to add nutrients.

It's an imperfect analogy. But the zygote can't get very far on its own - a few cell divisions. And as I said before It's not just nutrients, the mother supplies *everything* the developing embryo needs aside from the instructions and the basic cellular machinery to carry most of them out. But ALL cells have said instructions and machinery (it's cells *other* than zygotes that have an on button that needs to be pushed).

The zygote is as much the thing it will become as a child will become an adult.

No, it isn't. An acorn isn't an oak tree either.

Heck yeah! And that fascinating process begins because mom has another human inside her.

Human being in your definition. It is biologically a foreign body, the immune system must be suppressed because it is non-self and would normally be attacked.

Sure, women will murder their children after it is illegal to do so. Making it legal has turned out to be worse.

You assume that's the case. As I've pointed out before other countries that have made it illegal have very similar abortion rates. Making something illegal that can be done in the privacy of a doctor's office with no notice to anyone other than the woman and the doctor is probably not going to work.

No, you want to talk about "abortion" when it is murder that is the problem. When you intentionally kill an innocent human it is murder. If you haven't been able to figure out, this is all pro-lifers are worried about.

No, you're worried about things that are not considered human beings by the vast majority of the population.

Normally, we don't have to point this out because "abortifacient" is used as a general term meaning intentionally taking a chemical for the purpose of killing the zygote-and-beyond. Whenever I use the term, that is always how I will use it. However, if you have a better term to describe it, then I'll use that. We can even make up a new one just for you... because you're special.

These terms have specific definitions. It's the pro-life movement that wants to re-define them. Preventing implantation has not been considered an abortifacient. All of that said, none of the various types of emergency contraception have *actually* been found to prevent implantation. People have sometimes assumed they do, but there's no evidence to say they do.

You would agree that preventing fertilization is not murder, right?

I don't recall. Is it your position that a zygote is a human, but we can kill it anyway because it has no value? If not, when does an organism that becomes a human achieve such? Is a person different from a human?

As I've said many times you can have human cells that are not people. A zygote isn't a person. It *might* become a person, maybe not. And I'm mostly considering factors within the zygote itself, is it missing chromosomes, was it fertilized twice etc. Calling a fertilized egg with 69 chromosomes a person, is stupid. Point being you can't count on a zygote to develop into an embryo or a baby the same way a child has the capacity to develop into an adult.

I think the problem here is it's actually rather hard to intentionally kill a zygote. It *might* be prevented from implanting by some technologies, but there's no evidence to say it is. I don't believe a zygote is a person, and the slight chance of preventing implantation (in the face of high natural failure especially) from some technologies is no reason to ban them.

A person is different from a cell with human DNA. A person should have some reasonable level of development of the parts we normally associate with a human being, baby or otherwise. (Central Nervous system, heartbeat etc.)

 

[Stripe]

A person is different from a cell with human DNA. A person should have some reasonable level of development of the parts we normally associate with a human being, baby or otherwise. (Central Nervous system, heartbeat etc.)

Of course personhood means nothing to you. Even after a baby qualify as a person under your arbitrary and nonsense standard, you will still advocate a mother's "right" to terminate that life.

 

[Alate_One]

Of course personhood means nothing to you. Even after a baby qualify as a person under your arbitrary and nonsense standard, you will still advocate a mother's "right" to terminate that life.

Only in certain cases where the mother's rights are being violated (rape or her own life). Accurately representing someone else's views means nothing to you. You're willing to repeat whatever you want to believe as if it is fact ad infinitum, true or not.

 

[alwight]

Of course personhood means nothing to you.

Personhood seems to mean rather less to you Stripe since you seem content that under your definition most "persons" will be naturally snuffed out within hours or a few days.

 

[Stripe]

Only in certain cases where the mother's rights are being violated (rape or her own life). Accurately representing someone else's views means nothing to you. You're willing to repeat whatever you want to believe as if it is fact ad infinitum, true or not.

It is fact. You just conceded the point again.

Personhood means nothing to you. You argue for a vague and nonsense delimiter and then ignore your own standard to advocate for the death of what even you consider babies.

And, by the way, abortion is never necessary to save the mother.

 

[Alate_One]

It is fact. You just conceded the point again.

Personhood means nothing to you. You argue for a vague and nonsense delimiter and then ignore your own standard to advocate for the death of what even you consider babies.

There's a difference in a child innocently conceived and a child that's a violation by definition. Don't like my opinion? Fine. I don't like yours. Mine is more likely to be put into law.

And, by the way, abortion is never necessary to save the mother.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event." Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option, cases where it would be putting the mother's life at risk to continue the pregnancy," she says.

Source

 

[Stripe]

There's a difference in a child innocently conceived and a child that's a violation by definition. Don't like my opinion? Fine. I don't like yours. Mine is more likely to be put into law.

They're both people. They're both innocent of any crime. Yet you advocate the death penalty for one.

And you do not advocate the death penalty for the rapist.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health.

Nope. They can deliver the child. There is never a need to stop delivery in order to kill the child.

AN INTERNATIONAL symposium on maternal healthcare in Dublin at the weekend has concluded that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother. Prof O’Dwyer and a panel of speakers also formally agreed a “Dublin declaration” on maternal healthcare. It stated: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. “We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. “We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” In a statement, Prof O’Dwyer also said no treatment should ever be withheld from a woman if she needed it to save her life, even if that treatment resulted in the loss of life of her unborn child.

-source.​

And, of course, you're jumping to every case available to you in order to distract attention from your hypocritical stance. Personhood means nothing to you. You advocate for a mother's "right" to terminate her child even after you confess personhood.

 

[Alate_One]

They're both people. They're both innocent of any crime. Yet you advocate the death penalty for one.

And you do not advocate the death penalty for the rapist.

Who says I didn't?

Nope. They can deliver the child. There is never a need to stop delivery in order to kill the child.

You can't deliver a fetus below a certain age and have any expectation of survival. "Delivery" = death in those cases. You are unbelievably stupid for making this statement.

And, of course, you're jumping to every case available to you in order to distract attention from your hypocritical stance. Personhood means nothing to you. You advocate for a mother's "right" to terminate her child even after you confess personhood.

Hmm a conference in Dublin, where's Dublin? Oh Ireland . . . I can't imagine they might be biased or anything.

 

[Lighthouse]

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.

"...no longer exists.":think:

Methinks logic got away from you on that one.

Now answer the question as asked, can you prove your argument?

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.

You admit this is only opinion...

Does dandruff have said potential? If a pregnant woman had dandruff and it was DNA tested would it match hers exactly? If the "fetus" as you like to call it, were tested would its DNA be an exact match to the mother's?

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?

lain:

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?

As you claim a non-functioning, or not yet extant, CNS precludes them from being a person you are asking a very stupid question.

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.

No kidding.

 

[Stripe]

Who says I didn't?

Do you think rapists should be executed?

You can't deliver a fetus below a certain age and have any expectation of survival. "Delivery" = death in those cases. You are unbelievably stupid for making this statement.

And you can deliver the baby without setting out to kill him.

The abortion is an invasive procedure with one goal - kill the baby. A failed abortion means the baby survives. If you're trying to use abortion to cover cases where the baby dies naturally, we're not arguing that it should be illegal for babies to die. We're arguing that it should be illegal to kill innocent human beings.

But we know that personhood means nothing to you. You advocate for the "right" of a mother to kill her child even after you confess personhood.

Hmm a conference in Dublin, where's Dublin? Oh Ireland . . . I can't imagine they might be biased or anything.

Feel free to ignore the facts and engage in more fallacious rhetoric. :up:

The genetic fallacy is not a rational argument. :nono:

 

[alwight]

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.

"...no longer exists.":think:

Methinks logic got away from you on that one.

Now answer the question as asked, can you prove your argument?

I will give you the credit of supposing that you are being deliberately dense here LH while the clear evidence is that as far as anyone can tell, based on physical evidence, a personality can only exist within a CNS.
While you can much less establish otherwise then you clearly have no right to dictate to others what their options are in their lives. Personal choice does not require that I prove anything to you. If you personally believe that a “person” nevertheless exists at the moment of conception then fine, if you are the pregnant one then you will no doubt decide for yourself and your body not to have an abortion, see how that works?

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 foetus anyway then they remain only potential persons at best.

You admit this is only opinion...

Yes, you seem to object to other people having their own opinions and conclusions. Show me any evidence that a “person” is independent of a CNS or that even with one it doesn’t require sensory input and time to develop then I will reconsider. If you can’t then sorry you don’t get to make other people’s choices for them.

Does dandruff have said potential? If a pregnant woman had dandruff and it was DNA tested would it match hers exactly? If the "fetus" as you like to call it, were tested would its DNA be an exact match to the mother's?

Again you seem to be deliberately missing the point. Any living cell from any human could supply the initial DNA information for a potential clone, the only difference in a zygote is that the DNA is usually unique. Monozygotic twins however start with the same DNA information yet still are not totally identical physically and mentally because of epigenetic factors controlling which genes are expressed. Clearly then separate persons will develop from the same DNA, there is nothing special within the DNA itself to suggest a “person”.

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?

As you claim a non-functioning, or not yet extant, CNS precludes them from being a person you are asking a very stupid question.

Then show me how you think that a person can exist without a CNS and also that it could even be harmed by an abortion anyway if there is no actual physical element.

 

[WizardofOz]

That is the start of the formation of the central nervous system, but the cross linking is missing, as are the peripheral nerves. I would generally oppose abortion after the nervous system functions sufficiently for suffering or pain to happen. (I think that is around twenty weeks, but I'm not an expert). If it became apparent that suffering could happen at an earlier age, I'd reassess.

(I also oppose the wanton killing or harm to animals for the same reason - unnecessary suffering.)

If a person (by your accepted use of the word) were in a persistent vegitstive state and proven to have no feeling, should it be legal to kill this person? Why or why not?

After 20 weeks, I'd support abortion if there was a real and present danger to the mother's life, with the bar set higher as the pregnancy progresses (where suffering is going to happen regardless).

Shouldn't the fetus be removed with all efforts then made to save it? Do you oppose the killing of a 20-month-old fetus?

Should the mother and/or doctor be able to decide to kill the fetus rather than try to save it?

It is quite clear at I am arguing that the foetus should be considered substantially human when it has assembled the requisite parts to build a human.

And of course, if a baby can be delivered safely then it should be delivered.

Should it be illegal to electively kill a 23-week-old fetus?

 

[gcthomas]

If a person (by your accepted use of the word) were in a persistent vegitstive state and proven to have no feeling, should it be legal to kill this person? Why or why not?

Yes, after a legal petition, as is currently the case in the US and UK. The don't technically meet legal brain death criteria for death, but nonetheless their conscious lives are over.

Shouldn't the fetus be removed with all efforts then made to save it?

What is the point of trying to save a 10 week old foetus? It cannot survive.

Do you oppose the killing of a 20-month-old fetus?

Assuming you meant a 20-WEEK-old foetus , you have picked the approximate boundary where I have already said is probably the start of the grey area. I have supported law changes here to bring the legal limit for elective abortions down to 20 weeks. So, to answer the question, yes for less than 20 weeks, no for over 20 weeks.

Should the mother and/or doctor be able to decide to kill the fetus rather than try to save it?

Yes for less than 20 weeks, no for over 20 weeks, unless there are strong medical grounds.

Should it be illegal to electively kill a 23-week-old fetus?

Yes, probably. The exact date is difficult to pick, and medical opinion seems to split over the 20 to 24 week period, and I'd defer to medical ethics judgements for the exact line.

 

[Lighthouse]

I will give you the credit of supposing that you are being deliberately dense here LH while the clear evidence is that as far as anyone can tell, based on physical evidence, a personality can only exist within a CNS.

Personality ≠ personhood.:nono:

While you can much less establish otherwise then you clearly have no right to dictate to others what their options are in their lives. Personal choice does not require that I prove anything to you. If you personally believe that a “person” nevertheless exists at the moment of conception then fine, if you are the pregnant one then you will no doubt decide for yourself and your body not to have an abortion, see how that works?

We're discussing life and death; even the abortionists recognize this, as does PP. In such a case the moment a person becomes a person is not something that can be left to opinion.

Yes, you seem to object to other people having their own opinions and conclusions. Show me any evidence that a “person” is independent of a CNS or that even with one it doesn’t require sensory input and time to develop then I will reconsider. If you can’t then sorry you don’t get to make other people’s choices for them.

You have yet to demonstrate, or even give any evidence, that a functioning CNS is what makes a person.

I have offered the existence of human DNA unique from the mother's as evidence for my position. And the fact that the mother was not born with a placenta, umbilical cord, amniotic sac, baby, etc. in her womb as evidence those are not her body parts.

Again you seem to be deliberately missing the point. Any living cell from any human could supply the initial DNA information for a potential clone, the only difference in a zygote is that the DNA is usually unique.

So that fact that if left alone to do as programmed those other cells will never develop into what you consider a person, while the zygote will isn't a difference?

Monozygotic twins however start with the same DNA information yet still are not totally identical physically and mentally because of epigenetic factors controlling which genes are expressed. Clearly then separate persons will develop from the same DNA, there is nothing special within the DNA itself to suggest a “person”.

:doh:

The fact that is is unique from the mother's DNA is the issue.

Then show me how you think that a person can exist without a CNS and also that it could even be harmed by an abortion anyway if there is no actual physical element.

Can pain be felt without a functioning CNS? No. Is the zygote living before the abortion? Yes. Is it dead after? Yes.

harm [hahrm] noun

1. physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.
2. moral injury; evil; wrong.

verb (used with object)

3. to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt: to harm one's reputation.

Synonyms
1, 2. See damage. 3. maltreat, abuse.

Antonyms
1. benefit. 3. help.

Does it damage the living cell? Yes. Does it benefit, or help it? No.

Also, the living cell is physical, thus there is a physical element.

dam·age [dam-ij] noun, verb, dam·aged, dam·ag·ing. noun

1. injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness: The storm did considerable damage to the crops.
2. damages, Law. the estimated money equivalent for detriment or injury sustained.
3. Often, damages. Informal. cost; expense; charge: What are the damages for the lubrication job on my car?

verb (used with object)

4. to cause damage to; injure or harm; reduce the value or usefulness of: He damaged the saw on a nail.

verb (used without object)

5. to become damaged: Soft wood damages easily.

death [deth] noun

1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Compare brain death.
2. an instance of this: a death in the family; letters published after his death.
3. the state of being dead: to lie still in death.
4. extinction; destruction: It will mean the death of our hopes.
5. manner of dying: a hero's death.

The living cell is destroyed.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yes, after a legal petition, as is currently the case in the US and UK. The don't technically meet legal brain death criteria for death, but nonetheless their conscious lives are over.

Would a legal petition for abortion be a good idea as well?

What is the point of trying to save a 10 week old foetus? It cannot survive.

You're answering a question with a question. Let me rephrase. Say a woman is 21 weeks pregnant and doesn't want the child. Should the child be killed or should the medical staff try to save the life?

Assuming you meant a 20-WEEK-old foetus , you have picked the approximate boundary where I have already said is probably the start of the grey area. I have supported law changes here to bring the legal limit for elective abortions down to 20 weeks. So, to answer the question, yes for less than 20 weeks, no for over 20 weeks.

Yes, weeks :doh:

If the woman is 21-weeks-pregnant and claims she was raped, would you still oppose the killing of the fetus?

Yes, probably. The exact date is difficult to pick, and medical opinion seems to split over the 20 to 24 week period, and I'd defer to medical ethics judgements for the exact line.

What medical opinion? Please clarify exactly what you're referring to.

 

[alwight]

Personality ≠ personhood.:nono:

Tell that to Merriam Webster then:
personality:
"a: the quality or state of being a person
b: personal existence"
Do you want to quibble about the "hood" part?

We're discussing life and death; even the abortionists recognize this, as does PP. In such a case the moment a person becomes a person is not something that can be left to opinion.

You have yet to demonstrate, or even give any evidence, that a functioning CNS is what makes a person.

I don't need to LH this is about personal choice and opinions, it's you who wants to remove that choice from others so it is you who has to show whether a "person" is actually being aborted or not.
My opinion is that no person could exist without a functioning CNS because when it stops so do they. What is your evidence?

I have offered the existence of human DNA unique from the mother's as evidence for my position. And the fact that the mother was not born with a placenta, umbilical cord, amniotic sac, baby, etc. in her womb as evidence those are not her body parts.

This is about actual persons not their DNA or DNA that could potentially be a person. Neither is this about who you think the placenta belongs to.

So that fact that if left alone to do as programmed those other cells will never develop into what you consider a person, while the zygote will isn't a difference?

Plaese stick to the point LH, if a zygote is also a person then explain how and by what means. If you can't then you have no right to take away a woman's right to choose for herself.

The fact that is is unique from the mother's DNA is the issue.

I see no reason why the same DNA could not produce countless different "persons".

Can pain be felt without a functioning CNS? No. Is the zygote living before the abortion? Yes. Is it dead after? Yes.

Agreed, so what?

 

[Stripe]

What is the point of trying to save a 10 week old foetus? It cannot survive.

This statement exposes your heartless nature and your rejection of personhood.

 

[gcthomas]

Should the fruitless attempt to save a 10 week foetus salve the conscience when it is destroyed?

 

[alwight]

This statement exposes your heartless nature and your rejection of personhood.

You seem to conclude that your God must be a far greater heartless monster who routinely allows most "persons" (zygotes) to fail, only to disappear without trace.
That or you don't really believe it yourself and this is all silly pointless and "personless" emotive bluster.