"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[xAvarice]

May I help you clarify a little because foresight is a fine thing... it's a collection of these "missing parts", if we keep it simple that lowers the value, and not one or two...

For example, you don't feel that a person born without a brain has less value than someone born with one (If absolutely possible)?

Or born with a severely debilitating condition, which would be included in your current logic?

Just wanted to help you incorporate that before it's used as a Trojan horse... also, how do you feel about a baby that develops a congenital condition after 24 weeks? Let us say 29 weeks, and is not life-threatening or harmful to the mother?

Thanks gc.

 

[alwight]

Because she is choosing to wipe out the WHOLE life of an innocent unborn baby over a measley nine months of inconvenience.

The impact on the unborn babies life who is being aborted is catastrophic, whereas women can give birth and go on with the rest of their lives regardless of whether or not they decide to be a mother.

You seem to want to grant "baby" status to a zygote for no clear reason that I can figure out, "babyhood" perhaps? To something that is rather more likely to be discarded quite naturally than to become something in time that I too might recognise as being close enough to give "baby" status. From that point on we may well be in much closer agreement about what should then happen.

 

[Lighthouse]

So which part of the argument can you ridicule?

The entire idea; the idea that just because it has yet to develop physically to the point it has body parts makes it not a person. I've already been through this over the CNS with alwight.

 

[gcthomas]

May I help you clarify a little because foresight is a fine thing... it's a collection of these "missing parts", if we keep it simple that lowers the value, and not one or two...

For example, you don't feel that a person born without a brain has less value than someone born with one (If absolutely possible)?

If it has no functioning nervous system then it will not have the value of a functioning baby as it can have no consciousness, ever.

Or born with a severely debilitating condition, which would be included in your current logic?

Not included in the logic. Unless the debilitating condition forever prevented consciousness.

Just wanted to help you incorporate that before it's used as a Trojan horse... also, how do you feel about a baby that develops a congenital condition after 24 weeks? Let us say 29 weeks, and is not life-threatening or harmful to the mother?

In general, no, I wouldn't support the abortion on the basis of a deformity or 'condition', but neither would I storm a hospital to prevent the action. There is a grey area where the suffering would be great and short lived and an abortion could prevent a high level of suffering. The judgement of what level of suffering should be avoided is a difficult one that should not be avoided simply by ruling out one of the sensible choices.

Thanks gc.

You're welcome. :cheers:

 

[gcthomas]

The entire idea; the idea that just because it has yet to develop physically to the point it has body parts makes it not a person. I've already been through this over the CNS with alwight.

Thanks. But you did 'go over' the point without giving a rationale for your position, only saying that the other position was wrong.

 

[alwight]

May I help you clarify a little because foresight is a fine thing... it's a collection of these "missing parts", if we keep it simple that lowers the value, and not one or two...

For example, you don't feel that a person born without a brain has less value than someone born with one (If absolutely possible)?

Or born with a severely debilitating condition, which would be included in your current logic?

Just wanted to help you incorporate that before it's used as a Trojan horse... also, how do you feel about a baby that develops a congenital condition after 24 weeks? Let us say 29 weeks, and is not life-threatening or harmful to the mother?

Thanks gc.

This is surely when there should be no dogmatic legal prohibition on all abortions.
Imo all the circumstances of each case should be properly and professionally taken into account before sometimes tough human choices are made for perhaps only the least worst outcome, even if sometimes they will inevitably be the wrong choices in hindsight.

 

[Lighthouse]

Thanks. But you did 'go over' the point without giving a rationale for your position, only saying that the other position was wrong.

Your argument doesn't have a solid, or sound, foundation. There is no reason to give a rationale for my position, because yours doesn't have one. On its face your position is ludicrous.

 

[alwight]

Thanks. But you did 'go over' the point without giving a rationale for your position, only saying that the other position was wrong.

Why, isn't LH just telling you that you are wrong, even ludicrous, not good enough for you then gc? :shocked:

I, as usual eventually ran out of ways of trying to provoke a more reasoned and rational response from LH but sadly had to give up trying.
I suspect he may think he has divine authority or some such powers?
But I think he might just be deluded about this.

 

[gcthomas]

Why, isn't LH just telling you that you are wrong, even ludicrous, not good enough for you then gc? :shocked:

I, as usual eventually ran out of ways of trying to provoke a more reasoned and rational response from LH but sadly had to give up trying.
I suspect he may think he has divine authority or some such powers?
But I think he might just be deluded about this.

Yup. Less like a Lighthouse, more like a Foghorn.

 

[xAvarice]

He's belittling the foundations of your argument with no evidence or elucidation... It's more like "Light-house" than the actual light emitting tower.

 

[WizardofOz]

Exactly!
And "who should have rights" is an ethical question - which falls in the realm of philosophy. This is where the "quick switch" happens in your argument, when you move from the biological to the ethical.

All organisms biologically human should have a fundamental right to life.

Now, you'll see why we must be precise. An individual with an opinion contrary to mine can and have taken my above statement to make it mean toe nails and skin cells.

So, it is more precise to state that a human should have a fundamental right to life. A skin cell is not a human. A toe nail is not a human.

A zygote is a human, biologically speaking.

However, an individual in favor of the death penalty will say that not all humans have a right to life; rapist, murderers, etc have forfeited this right.

Therefore, it is the most precise statement I can present: all innocent humans have (or should have) a fundamental right to life.

This is an ethical statement based on what is biologically factual. There is no "quick switch". This is the argument I've presented all along.

Moral thinking is often imprecise. We're not talking about an exact science here. We're talking about value and ethics, which are very subjective, with blurry lines.

I am talking about science here. Science is the premise of my argument. Scientifically (biologically) speaking a human zygote is a human. All innocent humans should have a fundamental right to life.

I pose to the individual with an opinion contrary to mine, "why should all innocent humans not be given a fundamental right to life?"

What I was demonstrating was that "person" and "human" are used interchangeably. In my example, they were both used to define each other.

And the definitions you offered only prove that even a zygote is a person.

I am not even making that philosophical argument but you did just make it for me, even if unwittingly.

Nice dancing
In the same way that a baby is capable of driving a car, but not presently...

A zygote has the potential to develop the capability. It is not actually capable of any of the above.

Just like a baby has the potential to drive a car, but not the actual capability.

I don't think there is as much ambiguity in my definition as you claim.

I am simply pointing out the need to be as precise as possible and that "capable" is ambiguous but I concede the point.

I have zero problems with the morning after pill (ie the kind that allows fertilization but prevents implantation), stem cell research, or IVF.

As the pregnancy goes on, I find it more and more objectionable. But it is not until around the 20th week that I think the law should step in. There is more to the argument than only personhood.

-----------------------
You ignored my request to frame a pro-life-from-conception argument using neutral terms. Got an ETA? :think:

I agreed with "all human organisms, including zygotes, should be protected by law" but isn't a sperm a human organism? It could be argued that it is and I'm not looking for sperm protection. Alate earlier stated (if I remember correctly) that a skin cell is a human organism (or could be).

My point stands and I want to push you to be more precise. You said "all human organisms capable of thought, personality, sentience and/or viability should be protected by law."

If that is your standard, then you're allowing for elective abortion. If you're against elective abortion, what qualifiers would you be willing to add to your standard as quoted above?

 

[WizardofOz]

To avoid the disagreement on the nuances of the term 'a human', try rephrasing the question as

Why should something which does not possess the above criteria, be unworthy of legal protection?​

and you should see my point of view.

Did you want to answer your own question?

Why should something which does not possess the above criteria, be unworthy of legal protection?​

Surely you realize how utterly ambiguous "something" is when used as to define a subject.

Let's be more precise, not less precise.

 

[WizardofOz]

WizOz said "Why should a human, who does not yet possess the above criteria, be unworthy of legal protection?"

I don't believe there exists a human who does not possess the criteria listed, so for me the point is moot. The term 'a human' is loaded with assumptions such that I can't apply it to a zygote. So, the question is not whether I support the 'murder' of 'innocent babies' or 'humans', but whether I consider them worthy of protection in their own rights.

Is a human zygote a human a primates of the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo?

If no, explain why you don't think so and let me know what classification you feel it belongs under.

If yes, it is a human.

"I don't believe" is simply incredulity on your part. Offer a better biological classification of the human zygote if you don't accept mine.

By the way, Rusha is an atheist/agnostic and pro-life if you want to ask her your questions regarding the bible.

 

[gcthomas]

Is a human zygote a human a primates of the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo?

No, it isn't. Not yet. It is a human zygote, not a human if being a human implies rights.

Assigning is to a biological classification is semantics, and I thought we were trying to avoid that.

Tell me. What is it about a zygote, in its own right, that makes you want it to have rights? Saying it is A human begs the question of why you want it to have rights.

 

[Rusha]

This is basically conceding the debate.

Without begging the question, you are practically admitting you don't have a case.

WRONG ... thus far in all the years I have debated abortion, I have yet to see any pro-abortion advocate offer up a reasonable argument as to why it is preferable to intentionally kill an unborn baby rather than allowing the baby to live and thrive.

The option is for TWO human beings to live OR one human being to intentionally kill her child due to a temporary inconvenience.

 

[xAvarice]

WRONG ... thus far in all the years I have debated abortion, I have yet to see any pro-abortion advocate offer up a reasonable argument as to why it is preferable to intentionally kill an unborn baby rather than allowing the baby to live and thrive.

The option is for TWO human beings to live OR one human being to intentionally kill her child due to a temporary inconvenience.

I myself am pro-abortion, rather than choice, I'm not ambivalent about medical procedures, you don't have an abortion for leisure.

I wouldn't say that I'm "pro-choice" about cancer treatment - so I've got a few:

I'll only add one caveat that these are all circumstances under an ideal society where right wing radicals are not oppressing women or sex education.

Rape/Incest (lamentable I have to write that)

for the sake of the mother's health
including her mental health

a pregnancy that is the result of a crime
such as crimes like rape, incest, or child abuse

the child of the pregnancy would have an ' unacceptable quality of life' such as cases where the child would have
serious physical handicaps,
serious genetic problems,
serious mental defects

social reasons, including:
poverty
mother unable to cope with a child (or another child)
mother being too young to cope with a child

as a way of regulating groups within a population (prison, if pathinogenisis ever arises ;] )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/when_1.shtml

I found that my native BBC had a pretty extensive and rational list, *waves flag*.


Edit: I appreciate Oz's provocation... shame about the ostentatious motto, though.

 

[gcthomas]

WRONG ... thus far in all the years I have debated abortion, I have yet to see any pro-abortion advocate offer up a reasonable argument as to why it is preferable to intentionally kill an unborn baby rather than allowing the baby to live and thrive.

The option is for TWO human beings to live OR one human being to intentionally kill her child due to a temporary inconvenience.

Not preferable, but not bad enough to want to stop the procedures. In general it is better to allow the pregnancy to progress naturally, but there are specific cases that change the balance of the argument.

Are there NO situations where you'd consider an abortion appropriate? Can you think of any at all, so we have something in the middle to discuss?

 

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz
Is a human zygote a human a primates of the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo?

No, it isn't. Not yet. It is a human zygote, not a human if being a human implies rights.

You're getting ahead of yourself. If a human zygote is not a human (biological classification) then what is it?

Classify it.

Assigning is to a biological classification is semantics, and I thought we were trying to avoid that.

:liberals: No, assigning a biological classification is scientifically objective. It is an objective foundation so that we can define the subject scientifically rather than philosophically.

Tell me. What is it about a zygote, in its own right, that makes you want it to have rights? Saying it is A human begs the question of why you want it to have rights.

As opposed to your special pleading? A human zygote should have rights, specifically a right to life, because all humans (should) have this right.

A human zygote is biologically a human (whether you concede the point or not) and belongs to a species that otherwise has a right to life in all aspects other than capital punishment or warfare.

It should not be legal to kill a human without due process.

 

[WizardofOz]

I myself am pro-abortion, rather than choice, I'm not ambivalent about medical procedures, you don't have an abortion for leisure.

I wouldn't say that I'm "pro-choice" about cancer treatment - so I've got a few:

I'll only add one caveat that these are all circumstances under an ideal society where right wing radicals are not oppressing women or sex education.

Rape/Incest (lamentable I have to write that)

for the sake of the mother's health
including her mental health

a pregnancy that is the result of a crime
such as crimes like rape, incest, or child abuse

the child of the pregnancy would have an ' unacceptable quality of life' such as cases where the child would have
serious physical handicaps,
serious genetic problems,
serious mental defects

social reasons, including:
poverty
mother unable to cope with a child (or another child)
mother being too young to cope with a child

as a way of regulating groups within a population (prison, if pathinogenisis ever arises ;] )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/when_1.shtml

I found that my native BBC had a pretty extensive and rational list, *waves flag*.

From your link: Such societies usually lay down a maximum age after which the foetus must not be aborted, regardless of the circumstances.

Should there be a maximum age after which the fetus must not be aborted, regardless of the circumstances?

Edit: I appreciate Oz's provocation... shame about the ostentatious motto, though.

:chuckle:

I'd be happy to discuss that as well

I'm laughing at yours

 

[WizardofOz]

II. When does a human being begin?​ Getting a handle on just a few basic human embryological terms accurately can considerably clarify the drastic difference between the "scientific" myths that are currently circulating, and the actual objective scientific facts. This would include such basic terms as: "gametogenesis," "oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization," "zygote," "embryo," and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further, more complicated, details can be obtained by investigating any well-established human embryology textbook in the library, such as some of those referenced below. Please note that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected human embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human embryologists internationally. A. Basic human embryological facts​ 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. To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down’s or Turner’s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained—otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

Previously cited

Further:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote." This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being—the single-cell human zygote—is biologically an individual, a living organism—an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen: "... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."