the truth about abortion

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
whoops, i gave him too much credit. i went back and looked now. at least he's corrected now.

anyway, resume the brawl. i may join in later.

I was scratching my head pretty hard on that one.

Well I was arguing using the exact fallacious premise only from the human>human being aspect.

Its easy to do you see!!

I just latched onto the fact that you couldnt go from zygote to human being and stretch human characteristics over into the definition of zygote. It is not right to make that correlation.

If I am wrong (and I have been wrong before) I will say so.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The ball is being dropped on the 'being' part of 'human being'. See above. The point that a zygote is 'human' is already assumed, and there is no need to argue over it. The argument is over 'human being'

Maybe you can show me where he said anything remotely to that effect. I'm not sure how this would even be an issue, as it's pretty clear that the zygote is a separate organism simply from its distinct genetics. This makes it pretty apparent that it's not the same situation as your skin cells.

or maybe i'll get involved now :evil: at least one post.

distinct genetics do not define a human being. (we could implant a foreign cell with different dna into a woman's uterus and that wouldn't make it life. similarly, we could take haploid chromosomal DNA from the mother and father, inject it into an enucleated skin cell, and implant it in the mother, and it still wouldn't make life.)

there is much more to human-ness than just DNA, unique DNA, or even 50/50 mother father DNA.

I already made this argument some time back in the thread. It went completely ignored, for the same reason why yours will likely be ignored.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Well I was arguing using the exact fallacious premise only from the human>human being aspect.

Its easy to do you see!!

I just latched onto the fact that you couldnt go from zygote to human being and stretch human characteristics over into the definition of zygote. It is not right to make that correlation.

If I am wrong (and I have been wrong before) I will say so.

Fair play to you, sir. :beer:

Originally posted by: totalcommand
or maybe i'll get involved now :evil: at least one post.

distinct genetics do not define a human being. (we could implant a foreign cell with different dna into a woman's uterus and that wouldn't make it life. similarly, we could take haploid chromosomal DNA from the mother and father, inject it into an enucleated skin cell, and implant it in the mother, and it still wouldn't make life.)

there is much more to human-ness than just DNA, unique DNA, or even 50/50 mother father DNA.

i'll post why i don't believe the zygote is a human being a bit later, and surprisingly I will argue it from the fact that a benevolent God exists. I know, the anticipation is killing you.

I'm not trying to define a human being. I'm trying to define what is human, then ask the question: why is what is human not a person? As yet, I haven't been able to make any reasonable argument why this would not be true.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
I already made this argument some time back in the thread. It went completely ignored, for the same reason why yours will likely be ignored.

Don't you have some slinking to do? :roll:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So are you saying that a human zygote does not have human DNA? Is a human zygote 'not characteristic of humans'? Do you even know what you just said? Let's start over.

1. Human is a term indicating a member of a species. Let's define species.

Biology.
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy.
An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. A zygote is an organism having human DNA (though maybe you were arguing this above... not so sure).
3. A zygote is part of the human species, per the definition of species and the fact that it has human DNA.

I'm not sure where I'm dropping the ball. Feel free to point it out.

The ball is being dropped on the 'being' part of 'human being'. See above. The point that a zygote is 'human' is already assumed, and there is no need to argue over it. The argument is over 'human being'

right... it's human, but it's no A human.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So are you saying that a human zygote does not have human DNA? Is a human zygote 'not characteristic of humans'? Do you even know what you just said? Let's start over.

1. Human is a term indicating a member of a species. Let's define species.

Biology.
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy.
An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. A zygote is an organism having human DNA (though maybe you were arguing this above... not so sure).
3. A zygote is part of the human species, per the definition of species and the fact that it has human DNA.

I'm not sure where I'm dropping the ball. Feel free to point it out.

The ball is being dropped on the 'being' part of 'human being'. See above. The point that a zygote is 'human' is already assumed, and there is no need to argue over it. The argument is over 'human being'

right... it's human, but it's no A human.

umm, ok then don't read my posts. cyclo understood it all along, maybe you should talk to him.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
or maybe i'll get involved now :evil: at least one post.

distinct genetics do not define a human being. (we could implant a foreign cell with different dna into a woman's uterus and that wouldn't make it life. similarly, we could take haploid chromosomal DNA from the mother and father, inject it into an enucleated skin cell, and implant it in the mother, and it still wouldn't make life.)

there is much more to human-ness than just DNA, unique DNA, or even 50/50 mother father DNA.

i'll post why i don't believe the zygote is a human being a bit later, and surprisingly I will argue it from the fact that a benevolent God exists. I know, the anticipation is killing you.

I'm not trying to define a human being. I'm trying to define what is human, then ask the question: why is what is human not a person? As yet, I haven't been able to make any reasonable argument why this would not be true.

'human' is easily defined. anything 'human' has human DNA.

why is what is human not a person, or in my words, a human being?

because human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation. human DNA in any form - genomic DNA, combination of mother and father DNA, etc. - is not sufficient to create to life. we can combine motherly and fatherly haploid DNA in a test tube, stick it in a skin cell, but it doesn't make a human being.

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
'human' is easily defined. anything 'human' has human DNA.

why is what is human not a person, or in my words, a human being?

because human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation. human DNA in any form - genomic DNA, combination of mother and father DNA, etc. - is not sufficient to create to life. we can combine motherly and fatherly haploid DNA in a test tube, stick it in a skin cell, but it doesn't make a human being.

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

Then I'll ask the question again. At what point between conception and birth can we logically conclude that the *insert name of gestating thing here* is a person?

edit: And why is it that the only people who bring religion into this argument are those arguing for abortion? No one opposing abortion has used a religious argument to this point, yet it repeatedly gets tossed around.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So are you saying that a human zygote does not have human DNA? Is a human zygote 'not characteristic of humans'? Do you even know what you just said? Let's start over.

1. Human is a term indicating a member of a species. Let's define species.

Biology.
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy.
An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. A zygote is an organism having human DNA (though maybe you were arguing this above... not so sure).
3. A zygote is part of the human species, per the definition of species and the fact that it has human DNA.

I'm not sure where I'm dropping the ball. Feel free to point it out.

The ball is being dropped on the 'being' part of 'human being'. See above. The point that a zygote is 'human' is already assumed, and there is no need to argue over it. The argument is over 'human being'

right... it's human, but it's no A human.

umm, ok then don't read my posts. cyclo understood it all along, maybe you should talk to him.

i was supporting your argument. no need to be a dick about it.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
'human' is easily defined. anything 'human' has human DNA.

why is what is human not a person, or in my words, a human being?

because human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation. human DNA in any form - genomic DNA, combination of mother and father DNA, etc. - is not sufficient to create to life. we can combine motherly and fatherly haploid DNA in a test tube, stick it in a skin cell, but it doesn't make a human being.

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

Then I'll ask the question again. At what point between conception and birth can we logically conclude that the *insert name of gestating thing here* is a person?

edit: And why is it that the only people who bring religion into this argument are those arguing for abortion? No one opposing abortion has used a religious argument to this point, yet it repeatedly gets tossed around.

during the 2nd trimester (the beginning part, but not the beginning, per se) is when a fetus actually becomes a living thing and can be perceived to be a human being.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
'human' is easily defined. anything 'human' has human DNA.

why is what is human not a person, or in my words, a human being?

because human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation. human DNA in any form - genomic DNA, combination of mother and father DNA, etc. - is not sufficient to create to life. we can combine motherly and fatherly haploid DNA in a test tube, stick it in a skin cell, but it doesn't make a human being.

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

Then I'll ask the question again. At what point between conception and birth can we logically conclude that the *insert name of gestating thing here* is a person?

I simply do not know exactly when, but I believe that the first consciousness is necessary for a human being to exist. Now, when is that? The hell if I know, but definitely after/when the brain forms. But my justification for abortion still works for me regardless of whether the fetus is conscious or not.

edit: And why is it that the only people who bring religion into this argument are those arguing for abortion? No one opposing abortion has used a religious argument to this point, yet it repeatedly gets tossed around.

maybe God is on our side

For real though, the reason why God must be brought into the argument is because He has the most convincing argument.

I could argue that the potential to be a human being does not equal actually existing as a human being by definition. We already know that DNA is not sufficient for a human being, now we show that 50/50 DNA + potential to form a human being is not an actual human being. So at what point does the potential become actual? The potential becomes actual when the fetus realizes "I exist" or has any thought. When can the fetus realize "I exist"? I believe the brain must exist physically before the thought "I exist" can exist mentally. So the fetus, forming a brain, realizes "I exist" or has a first thought, and is now a human being.

But then, you get into notions of duality, that the mind is separate from the body and can exist independently from it (and there is a LOT of philisophical argument for this notion). And clearly this throws a wrench into the whole argument - which is why the argument from God is the strongest in my opinion.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So are you saying that a human zygote does not have human DNA? Is a human zygote 'not characteristic of humans'? Do you even know what you just said? Let's start over.

1. Human is a term indicating a member of a species. Let's define species.

Biology.
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy.
An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. A zygote is an organism having human DNA (though maybe you were arguing this above... not so sure).
3. A zygote is part of the human species, per the definition of species and the fact that it has human DNA.

I'm not sure where I'm dropping the ball. Feel free to point it out.

The ball is being dropped on the 'being' part of 'human being'. See above. The point that a zygote is 'human' is already assumed, and there is no need to argue over it. The argument is over 'human being'

right... it's human, but it's no A human.

umm, ok then don't read my posts. cyclo understood it all along, maybe you should talk to him.

i was supporting your argument. no need to be a dick about it.

ok sorry, my sarcasm meter is off today.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
ok sorry, my sarcasm meter is off today.

no worries

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eits
during the 2nd trimester (the beginning part, but not the beginning, per se) is when a fetus actually becomes a living thing and can be perceived to be a human being.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Originally posted by: totalcommand
maybe God is on our side

For real though, the reason why God must be brought into the argument is because He has the most convincing argument.

I could argue that the potential to be a human being does not equal actually existing as a human being by definition. We already know that DNA is not sufficient for a human being, now we show that 50/50 DNA + potential to form a human being is not an actual human being. So at what point does the potential become actual? The potential becomes actual when the fetus realizes "I exist" or has any thought. When can the fetus realize "I exist"? I believe the brain must exist physically before the thought "I exist" can exist mentally. So the fetus, forming a brain, realizes "I exist" or has a first thought, and is now a human being.

But then, you get into notions of duality, that the mind is separate from the body and can exist independently from it (and there is a LOT of philisophical argument for this notion). And clearly this throws a wrench into the whole argument - which is why the argument from God is the strongest in my opinion.

All well and good. The problem, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that arguments regarding God aren't really logically or legally tenable. I'm more curious about the first part:

I simply do not know exactly when, but I believe that the first consciousness is necessary for a human being to exist. Now, when is that? The hell if I know, but definitely after/when the brain forms. But my justification for abortion still works for me regardless of whether the fetus is conscious or not.

What is your justification? I'm sure I've probably heard it, but my memory is a little hazy today.

 

[eflat]

Have you people ever seen a baby? They are RETARDED. They do not know what the hell is going on. Their brains have not yet developed. They are (and this is a fact) dumber than almost every other mammal when they come out of the womb.

If your argument is that killing a baby is wrong because they are sentient beings, then I hope you do not eat animals because they are far far more sentient than a baby. Let alone a fetus.

Mmmm anyone else suddenly hungry hungry for some fetal soup

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Have you people ever seen a baby? They are RETARDED. They do not know what the hell is going on. Their brains have not yet developed. They are (and this is a fact) dumber than almost every other mammal when the come out of the womb.

If your argument is that killing a baby is wrong because they are sentient beings, then I hope you do not eat animals because they are far far more sentient than a baby. Let alone a fetus.

There are probably people a lot smarter than you out there who think you're retarded. Does that mean I should be able to give you the ax?

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Have you people ever seen a baby? They are RETARDED. They do not know what the hell is going on. Their brains have not yet developed. They are (and this is a fact) dumber than almost every other mammal when the come out of the womb.

If your argument is that killing a baby is wrong because they are sentient beings, then I hope you do not eat animals because they are far far more sentient than a baby. Let alone a fetus.

There are probably people a lot smarter than you out there who think you're retarded. Does that mean I should be able to give you the ax?

Well, sort of. The problem is that the disparity between our intelligence is not yet great enough that you could justify killing me.

It is only great enough that you could justify a life of menial work and relative poverty for me.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Have you people ever seen a baby? They are RETARDED. They do not know what the hell is going on. Their brains have not yet developed. They are (and this is a fact) dumber than almost every other mammal when they come out of the womb.

If your argument is that killing a baby is wrong because they are sentient beings, then I hope you do not eat animals because they are far far more sentient than a baby. Let alone a fetus.

Mmmm anyone else suddenly hungry hungry for some fetal soup

CitizenDoug, do you suport Infanticide? It sure as hell sounds like it...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Well, sort of. The problem is that the disparity between our intelligence is not yet great enough that you could justify killing me.

It is only great enough that you could justify a life of menial work and relative poverty for me.

Sounds like you're backtracking now. How do you define relative intelligence? Are we going to give every single person an IQ test and say that if my IQ is at least 3 times as high as yours, I can just walk up and off you on the spot?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eits
during the 2nd trimester (the beginning part, but not the beginning, per se) is when a fetus actually becomes a living thing and can be perceived to be a human being.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Originally posted by: totalcommand
maybe God is on our side

For real though, the reason why God must be brought into the argument is because He has the most convincing argument.

I could argue that the potential to be a human being does not equal actually existing as a human being by definition. We already know that DNA is not sufficient for a human being, now we show that 50/50 DNA + potential to form a human being is not an actual human being. So at what point does the potential become actual? The potential becomes actual when the fetus realizes "I exist" or has any thought. When can the fetus realize "I exist"? I believe the brain must exist physically before the thought "I exist" can exist mentally. So the fetus, forming a brain, realizes "I exist" or has a first thought, and is now a human being.

But then, you get into notions of duality, that the mind is separate from the body and can exist independently from it (and there is a LOT of philisophical argument for this notion). And clearly this throws a wrench into the whole argument - which is why the argument from God is the strongest in my opinion.

All well and good. The problem, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that arguments regarding God aren't really logically or legally tenable. I'm more curious about the first part:

I simply do not know exactly when, but I believe that the first consciousness is necessary for a human being to exist. Now, when is that? The hell if I know, but definitely after/when the brain forms. But my justification for abortion still works for me regardless of whether the fetus is conscious or not.

What is your justification? I'm sure I've probably heard it, but my memory is a little hazy today.

The relationship between the mother and fetus is the most important consideration, and the rights of the mother to have control over her own body is paramount. Giving rights to the fetus over the mother's own rights is asking the mother to sign her right to her own body to the fetus. In effect, the mother becomes the bodily slave of the fetus. Is it not clearly unethical to make one sign a contract enslaving themself?

Furthermore, this contract would not be between two equal parties. The relationship of the mother to the fetus is NOT one of commensalism between two organisms. It is a relationship of parasitism (take away any negative connotations you have with this word, and keep its simple scientific implications). The fetus depends solely on the mother to live, and gives nothing back in return. The mother should have the right to terminate such a relationship, because the fetus is physiologically dependent on her and withdrawing her energy and resources.

Note that, even should the fetus be conscious (which is not clear), the rights of the mother supercede the (presupposed) rights of the fetus. Why? Because of the "parasitic" nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus. The fact that the mother helps create the fetus is irrelevant. Say, hypothetically, that there was an 80 year old man who temporarily needed a blood, oxygen, hormones, water, proteins, antibodies, and so on to live. Could we in our right mind force a woman to be "hooked up" to the man in order to give him a chance to live? The answer is no. And the reason is because this is a parasitic relationship, where we cannot ethically make the mother enslave her bodily rights to the man.

For these reasons alone, the mother has any and all rights to do what she wants with the fetus, since it is as much a part of her body as her left hand.

from http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1751693&enterthread=y

it was formulated to be as inflammatory as possible :evil:, so pardon me.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eits
during the 2nd trimester (the beginning part, but not the beginning, per se) is when a fetus actually becomes a living thing and can be perceived to be a human being.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

that's when all of the criteria required for something to be considered biologically living are fulfilled (at around week 15)

as for totalcommand's question about a fetus's cognition, that too happens in the 2nd trimester. it happens at around the 24th week. the fetus doesn't exactly realize "i'm a fetus," but it does recognize voices, arguing, soothing music, etc., just like a sleeping baby would.

by the way, just so everyone's clear with where i stand, i am pro-choice.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Well, sort of. The problem is that the disparity between our intelligence is not yet great enough that you could justify killing me.

It is only great enough that you could justify a life of menial work and relative poverty for me.

Sounds like you're backtracking now. How do you define relative intelligence? Are we going to give every single person an IQ test and say that if my IQ is at least 3 times as high as yours, I can just walk up and off you on the spot?

No, but you could probably find a way to put me in jail. That is where most dumb people end up in our society.

The point I was actually trying to make is that sentience is a silly argument to support abortion with unless you are also an animal rights activist.

I'm not saying there aren't other good arguments but sentience alone is not one of them.

 

[mattjbak]

Abortion disgusts me, but seriously I can see how some teens have it. If I got in the situation myself I don't know what I'd do. I agree with what an earlier poster said that no one LIKES it. I would like to see it made illegal, but I couldn't justify wasting time trying to convince people with a different way of thinking, it's just not going to happen.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Have you people ever seen a baby? They are RETARDED. They do not know what the hell is going on. Their brains have not yet developed. They are (and this is a fact) dumber than almost every other mammal when they come out of the womb.

If your argument is that killing a baby is wrong because they are sentient beings, then I hope you do not eat animals because they are far far more sentient than a baby. Let alone a fetus.

Mmmm anyone else suddenly hungry hungry for some fetal soup

CitizenDoug, do you suport Infanticide? It sure as hell sounds like it...

No, but I do not think it is on the same level as killing an adult.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Have you people ever seen a baby? They are RETARDED. They do not know what the hell is going on. Their brains have not yet developed. They are (and this is a fact) dumber than almost every other mammal when they come out of the womb.

If your argument is that killing a baby is wrong because they are sentient beings, then I hope you do not eat animals because they are far far more sentient than a baby. Let alone a fetus.

Mmmm anyone else suddenly hungry hungry for some fetal soup

CitizenDoug, do you suport Infanticide? It sure as hell sounds like it...

No, but I do not think it is on the same level as killing an adult.

Is killing an elderly wheelchaired person leeching on taxpayers on the same level as killing a working functional adult?