"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[alwight]

Actually, you are determined to keep legal abortion of children well after they would be easily recognizable as babies.

You just choose to focus on pictures of babies at very early stages when you think appearance gives your position credence.

Atheists are always judging a person based on how they look.

Persons? :think:
I have no right to speak for atheist "persons" only this one, and despite what you may think, you apparently have no right to speak for any atheist "persons" Stripe. Imo you also have no right to speak for women and what they want to happen with their own bodies and whether or not they can decide to permit a new "person" to develop inside them.
By all means do argue about individual cases/pregnancies/abortions that might possibly involve a new "person" and their right to live, but before that afaic women should clearly choose for themselves without your unwanted interference.

 

[WizardofOz]

For further edification:

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization—the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte—usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D

 

[WizardofOz]

Imo you also have no right to speak for women and what they want to happen with their own bodies and whether or not they can decide to permit a new "person" to develop inside them.
By all means do argue about individual cases/pregnancies/abortions that might possibly involve a new "person" and their right to live, but before that afaic women should clearly choose for themselves without your unwanted interference.

Unless, of course, the woman is over 24 weeks pregnant. Then you feel that society can tell a woman whether or not they can decide to permit a new "person" to develop inside them.

Correct?

 

[alwight]

A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like a human fetus or a human baby) and is a human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo). What is unclear? A toe nail clipping or a skin cell is not a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo. A human zygote is.

If it's not human, what is it? Is it's not a human, what is it?

Again you are fudging imo, whatever Latin name it goes by is neither here nor there as to it being a human being or indeed an actual person. I have never claimed that it is not human only that it is not yet a person. Simply because it is human and potentially a person imo does not mean that it qualifies as a person and must therefore be granted the same rights as an extant person with a life to live.
If you don't want to permit a woman to have an opportunity to decide for herself at some early stage, well before signs of a functioning CNS say, then imo you are simply being dogmatic and unnecessarily interfering in an extant female person's life right to choose what will happen to her body.

 

[gcthomas]

For further edification:

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization—the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte—usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D

From the same author:

Or will you choose an ethics which is objectively grounded on our very human natures, on what we know empirically is either harmful or good for us as human beings? One which defines the "common good" as those goods which we hold in common simply as human beings? A rich consistent ethics that is cognizant of and matches the complexities of daily living in the real world? One grounded on the immutable laws of man's nature but which is capable of being drawn to immeasurable heights by its perfection in the Divine Law, the Word of God?

Her Catholic ethical position makes her judgements for a secular law les acceptable for many people. Her arguments are based on faith, and the reasons follow from that.

 

[WizardofOz]

Again you are fudging imo, whatever Latin name it goes by is neither here nor there as to it being a human being or indeed an actual person. I have never claimed that it is not human only that it is not yet a person. Simply because it is human and potentially a person imo does not mean that it qualifies as a person and must therefore be granted the same rights as an extant person with a life to live.
If you don't want to permit a woman to have an opportunity to decide for herself at some early stage, well before signs of a functioning CNS say, then imo you are simply being dogmatic and unnecessarily interfering in an extant female person's life right to choose what will happen to her body.

You're dogmatic and "unnecessarily interfering" as we'll, just at a later point. I am trying to discuss science, not epistemology or philosophy as you consistently are.

But don't take my word for it:

The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question. In the final section, I will also address some "scientific" myths that have caused much confusion within the philosophical discussions on "personhood."

Link above

 

[alwight]

Unless, of course, the woman is over 24 weeks pregnant. Then you feel that society can tell a woman whether or not they can decide to permit a new "person" to develop inside them.

Correct?

I've only argued so far that a woman has a right to choose to be pregnant or not. Of course there has to be a reasonable period in which that choice can be made and society seems to want to bring down the shutter about halfway through the pregnancy. I personally think that it's very reasonable to assume that the foetus now has rights too from that point, why not? However I'd certainly listen to arguments and reasoning for changing that period of time.

 

[alwight]

You're dogmatic and "unnecessarily interfering" as we'll, just at a later point. I am trying to discuss science, not epistemology or philosophy as you consistently are.

But don't take my word for it:

The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question. In the final section, I will also address some "scientific" myths that have caused much confusion within the philosophical discussions on "personhood."

Link above

Well, I'm not seeking to be philosophical here only pragmatic and reasonable. I would like all pregnancies to be wanted but I don't think that could be called interfering. After all there is no shortage of unwanted pregnancies nor people afaic.

 

[gcthomas]

Think carefully about these absolutely terrible comparisons. Life and death is black and white (what's the grey area?). A seventeen year old that cannot join the army still has a fundamental right to life.

You missed the point that societies are happy to grant different fundamental rights based on calendar age, even though there is some judgement required as there is no obvious change over the single day.

So all abortions should be illegal other than when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? Is that your position, or are you feeding me some "feel goodery"?

I meant EXACTLY what I wrote. (clue: I didn't mention 'threatens the life of the mother'.)

You're the only one who is bringing the bible into the conversation. Ask a pro-life atheist why it's a strawman, I'm not wasting my time addressing why the bible has nothing to do with our conversation.

No, but you are the one quoting from a Catholic ethicist to bolster the case.

In order for the concept "fully human" to exist, the concept "partially human" must also exist. There is no such thing as "partially human". All humans are "fully human". This should really go without saying. Either an organism is human or it is not.

This is where we disagree. A zygote is not fully a human, an embryo or a partially developed foetus is not fully a human. I am content, with what I know about them, that a late term foetus that has substantially formed and functioning systems and is largely just growing bigger, is a human.

Or, if a fetus is not "fully human", it is partially human and partially what? Complete the pie chart of the "partially human" fetus.

Does naming it make a difference, since we are not supposed to be playing word games? Oh well, I'll try again if I must.

The foetus is a 'fully human' bunch of cells on its way to forming A human. It is not, of course, partially human, although you seem to imply I mean 'only part of a human' from your question. What exactly were you implying?

 

[WizardofOz]

Devil's advocate

Devil's advocate

I've only argued so far that a woman has a right to choose to be pregnant or not. Of course there has to be a reasonable period in which that choice can be made and society seems to want to bring down the shutter about halfway through the pregnancy. I personally think that it's very reasonable to assume that the foetus now has rights too from that point, why not? However I'd certainly listen to arguments and reasoning for changing that period of time.

I'll argue that a woman who didn't realize she was pregnant until the 25th week should be able to legally obtain an abortion. Convince me I'm wrong.

 

[gcthomas]

I'll argue that a woman who didn't realize she was pregnant until the 25th week should be able to legally obtain an abortion. Convince me I'm wrong.

You'd need to give your reasons first, if we are to judge them. 25 weeks is an interesting date, as the connections between the frontal lobe (consciousness) and the thalamus (pain) have not formed yet (26 weeks).

If you wanted to strongly argue 26 weeks then that may be in the reasonable range. I'm not strongly attracted to one date over another, although I am content with society's 20 to 24 week judgements on the matter, to err on the side of caution.

 

[alwight]

I'll argue that a woman who didn't realize she was pregnant until the 25th week should be able to legally obtain an abortion. Convince me I'm wrong.

I've previously argued that each case should be considered by its own particular individual circumstances. I'd need to be aware of all the facts before jumping to any perhaps rash conclusion while otherwise generally sticking to what I've already said.

 

[WizardofOz]

Fundamentals

Fundamentals

You missed the point that societies are happy to grant different fundamental rights based on calendar age, even though there is some judgement required as there is no obvious change over the single day.

Joining the army isn't a "fundamental right". Obtaining a drivers license isn't a "fundamental right". Whereas, not being indiscriminately killed is a fundamental right.

All innocent humans should have a right to life unless.....

Care to complete that statement?

I meant EXACTLY what I wrote. (clue: I didn't mention 'threatens the life of the mother'.)

Even an abortion in a case of rape isn't an abortion for "medical reasons". Perhaps your vague standard requires clarification.

No, but you are the one quoting from a Catholic ethicist to bolster the case.

Care to discuss the arguments or the person presenting them?

This is where we disagree. A zygote is not fully a human, an embryo or a partially developed foetus is not fully a human. I am content, with what I know about them, that a late term foetus that has substantially formed and functioning systems and is largely just growing bigger, is a human.

Does naming it make a difference, since we are not supposed to be playing word games? Oh well, I'll try again if I must.

The foetus is a 'fully human' bunch of cells on its way to forming A human.

A fetus is fully human but not is not yet fully a human.

Compelling.

 

[WizardofOz]

From the same author:

Or will you choose an ethics which is objectively grounded on our very human natures, on what we know empirically is either harmful or good for us as human beings? One which defines the "common good" as those goods which we hold in common simply as human beings? A rich consistent ethics that is cognizant of and matches the complexities of daily living in the real world? One grounded on the immutable laws of man's nature but which is capable of being drawn to immeasurable heights by its perfection in the Divine Law, the Word of God?

Her Catholic ethical position makes her judgements for a secular law les acceptable for many people. Her arguments are based on faith, and the reasons follow from that.

Care to counter her scientific arguments?

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization—the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte—usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

What do you dispute?

 

[gcthomas]

All innocent humans should have a right to life unless.....

..they are not yet humans.

Even an abortion in a case of rape isn't an abortion for "medical reasons". Perhaps your vague standard requires clarification.

I would consider being forced to carry your rapist's child a real and present risk to her mental health if she was traumatised by the attack or the outcome. Wouldn't you?

Care to discuss the arguments or the person presenting them?

Her conclusions are based on her Catholic ethics, not the science of the situation, given that she has departed radically from scientific reasoning. Her arguments are based on biblical inspiration, not science.

A fetus is fully human but not is not yet fully a human.

Compelling.

It has, though, convinced most doctors, medical ethicists, many Christians now and throughout history (think 'quickening'), politicians and governments, and regulatory bodies. I'm not worried that you don't agree.

 

[WizardofOz]

You'd need to give your reasons first, if we are to judge them. 25 weeks is an interesting date, as the connections between the frontal lobe (consciousness) and the thalamus (pain) have not formed yet (26 weeks).

If you wanted to strongly argue 26 weeks then that may be in the reasonable range. I'm not strongly attracted to one date over another, although I am content with society's 20 to 24 week judgements on the matter, to err on the side of caution.

Why not allow an abortion at 30 weeks? After all, its her body. We have no right to tell her what to do with her body. A fetus is not fully human at 30 weeks. It had no personality. It's not a person nor does it have personhood. It's a developing clump of cells that only have the potential to become such.

 

[alwight]

A fetus is fully human but not is not yet fully a human.

Compelling.

I think the "A human" bit was again something you seem to ignore having a specific meaning over just "human".

 

[WizardofOz]

Noun vs adjective

Noun vs adjective

I think the "A human" bit was again something you seem to ignore having a specific meaning over just "human".

I have repeatedly acknowledged and refuted it.

A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like a human fetus or a human baby) and is a human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo).

Is a human zygote a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo?

If so, it is both human as well as a human.

 

[gcthomas]

Care to counter her scientific arguments?

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization—the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte—usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

What do you dispute?

The bold part, where she thinks a single cell can be whole human with so many parts (ie. all of the parts except for DNA) missing.

As a Catholic she may be happy with the idea that the Eucharist bread and wine have been actually 'transformed' into the body and blood of Christ, but is her use of the same word here as scientifically questionable?

 

[alwight]

I have repeatedly acknowledged and refuted it

A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like a human fetus or a human baby) and is a human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo).

Is a human zygote a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo?

If so, it is both human as well as a human.

I'm not trying to be annoying btw but do you mean A human "something" or just A human? I think there is a clear difference and that you are unwilling to say which. For me "A" human is also a person, do you agree? A human toe nail is not, yes?
Is a zygote a human[person] iyo?