Another abortion article...

[Masquerouge]

I'll pose this question concerning late term abortions to all:
[...]
Since many here seem to have some knowledge of neuroscience, how can you possibly support late term abortions?

Well of course if the foetus is not viable/severly crippled/genetically broken.

But the most scandalous thing about late-term abortions is that it could be prevented, and turned into early-term abortions, if there was more information available, and less shame and stigma attached to the act.

 

[Gothmog]

Indeed, arguments from authority can be good in some cases. In your case though, you have not brought any authority other than 'science' without offering additional explanation. Only berating others with the simple statement.

There is certainly a difference between calling something a baby, or a human, and a zygote (which is a single undifferentiated cell). If you can't see that then we have nothing to discuss.

Yes, the zygote is the beginning of the human life cycle, but as I said it is not a person. It is a zygote, a potential human, and in reality an undifferentiated cell having no resemblance to a human.

You go on for a bit, but as I said -

The only way that I could feel that a zygote (the initial product of fertilization) is a separate organism is if we specifically define an organism in that way. That is by using a semantic argument. Normally, I use the term organism to separate a thing (or usually a collection of things) from its environment. An arbitrary separation, but sometimes useful. Keirador must feel that an organism is defined solely by its DNA, this is a huge oversimplification IMO, and not useful at all. I bypassed that part of his argument because it is a long philosophical debate about separateness and not necessary to debunk the part of his post that I feel is most foolish. Trying to link science to his personal belief.

What is the use of defining an organism solely by its DNA?

Identical twins are the same person for a time, until the zygote divides into two separate zygotes.

Point was that they have the same DNA, are they then the same organism? What about the other examples I gave? Don't they show that a person is not defined by a zygote?

I did not resort to a strawman, you made the implied argument

a zygote is a person

this does sound a lot like 'a potential human is a human' to me. Again, just because an undifferentiated cell may at some point become a brain, that does not make it a brain. A zygote is not a person, no biology book would even address that topic.

You are welcome to your opinion, but there is no support for the assertion that a zygote is a person in any biology book that I know of.

 

[Mark1031]

The clearest, starkest, and easiest to identify line is conception. Does anyone disagree with that? Is there any time, from haploid cells to newborn baby, where it is easier to draw a definite line of differentiation from one day to the next than conception?

How about birth. Conception is not a very clear line at all because it cannot be detected unless you are doing in vitro. A woman has no way at all of knowing how many times she has crossed your clear line because she cannot see the line.

 

[Gothmog]

no single organism contains parts that have different cellular genetic codes than the rest of the whole, excluding mitochondrion, and even they were at one point separate organisms that operated symbiotically with human cells.

This is simply wrong, but I'm in a bit of a hurry at the moment. Hopefully I'll get back to it tomorrow.

@bad_ronald - only in the case of possible death of the mother.

The clearest, starkest, and easiest to identify line is conception. Does anyone disagree with that? Is there any time, from haploid cells to newborn baby, where it is easier to draw a definite line of differentiation from one day to the next than conception?

Yes, the best line is where the pregnant woman draws it (out to consciousness i.e. roughly late second trimester, after that it is society's choice - pretty much how it works in the US today)

 

[Keirador]

How about birth. Conception is not a very clear line at all because it cannot be detected unless you are doing in vitro. A woman has no way at all of knowing how many times she has crossed your clear line because she cannot see the line.

But what difference is there between a baby in the womb, and that same baby one hour later when it has been taken from the mother through a Caesarian section operation?
Obviously it's nearly impossible to tell when a woman is conceiving, but it is quite easy to tell that the line has been crossed between being pregnant, and not being pregnant.

 

[Keirador]

Yes, the best line is where the pregnant woman draws it (out to consciousness i.e. roughly late second trimester, after that it is society's choice - pretty much how it works in the US today)

What if the pregnant woman draws that line as she's going into labor?
I was speaking in terms of scientific classification. Do you really think that, objectively, any one event is more portentous in the process from haploid to newborn than conception? One moment, the woman is not pregnant, the next, she is. Past that point, everything is just development.

 

[Elrohir]

Dang, I came on here hoping that someone had responded to my post and we could continue where we left off - but apparently I kicked Alpine Troopers and Blackhearts butts, because they never cared to respond to my assertion that only 1% of abortions take place because of rape or incest.

So, short of one of them taking up the gauntlet again -

I win!

(No, seriously, I would like to continue that line of argument)

 

[blackheart]

Dang, I came on here hoping that someone had responded to my post and we could continue where we left off - but apparently I kicked Alpine Troopers and Blackhearts butts, because they never cared to respond to my assertion that only 1% of abortions take place because of rape or incest.

So, short of one of them taking up the gauntlet again -

I win!

(No, seriously, I would like to continue that line of argument)

Sorry I didn't respond, but I never said anything about abortions in cases of rape or incest or even claimed that they were the majority causes.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Elrohir,
Actually, it's around 2.8%, and I posted reams of evidence from 'women's issues' pro-abortion websites to support it. It's in one or two of the previous abortion threads.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

What if the pregnant woman draws that line as she's going into labor?
I was speaking in terms of scientific classification. Do you really think that, objectively, any one event is more portentous in the process from haploid to newborn than conception? One moment, the woman is not pregnant, the next, she is. Past that point, everything is just development.

Technically, I suppose pregnancy begins at implantation of the fetus into the uterine wall. However, pregnancy and life are unrelated in this instance, although I'd grudgingly accept that an unimplanted fetus has a 0% survival expectation, so prevention of implantation would still be contraception, rather than abortion.

 

[blackheart]

But what difference is there between a baby in the womb, and that same baby one hour later when it has been taken from the mother through a Caesarian section operation?
Obviously it's nearly impossible to tell when a woman is conceiving, but it is quite easy to tell that the line has been crossed between being pregnant, and not being pregnant.

Where's the line to when a baby gains consciousness or can survive outside the womb? The difference between a baby inside the womb and one hour later is the time elapsed and its location; in both instances the baby could survive outside the womb (if not premature), has conscious thought, and has limited cognitive abilities.

 

[Elrohir]

Sorry I didn't respond, but I never said anything about abortions in cases of rape or incest or even claimed that they were the majority causes.

You're right, I think that was Alpine Trooper. Didn't Fearless Leader own him or something, and that's why he's not posting on this thread anymore?

Elrohir,
Actually, it's around 2.8%, and I posted reams of evidence from 'women's issues' pro-abortion websites to support it. It's in one or two of the previous abortion threads.

Wiki it!

According to the Wiki, it's 1% in the US (Probably where I got my figure) and 2.1% worldwide.

 

[Mark1031]

But why wouldn't you allow that a separate organism is created at conception? That which I have learned of biology is, I am sure, a molehill to your mountain, me still being in high school and you being a scientist, but my AP Bio texts state conception as the beginning of the organism's life cycle, when it is first differentiated from both parents. These are secular books, distributed on a national basis. Are they lying to us? I am of course open to new information, my current opinions being based only on those facts which I have learned.
If it is fact that an organism's life begins at conception, how is it a non-sequitur to refer to that organism as a person? If it is an organism, it is most assuredly a human. What other organism could it be?
.

Since we communicate in English here I provide some relevant definitions from OED or Webster. The use of the appropriate words should not prevent anyone from arguing the underlying philosophy behind their POV, eg I think the fetus or zygote eventhough not currently defined as a person is morally equivalent to a baby or child because...

Zygote
A body of living protoplasm, as a cell or cell-nucleus, formed by the conjugation or fusion of two such bodies in reproduction; a zygospore, or any germ-cell resulting from the union of two reproductive cells or gametes. Also attrib. or as adj. That is a zygote, formed by conjugation; of or pertaining to a zygote.

Blastocyst
A mass of nucleated cells..within which there is a cavity or blastocoele.

Embryo
the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

Fetus
The young of viviparous animals in the womb, and of oviparous animals in the egg, when fully developed.

Baby
An infant, a young child of either sex. (Formerly synonymous with child; now usually restricted to an infant ‘in arms.’) -Not a fetus or embryo or balstocyst or zygote.

Child
A young person of either sex below the age of puberty; a boy or girl.-Not a fetus or embryo or balstocyst or zygote.

Human Being
(species Homo sapiens), a bipedal primate mammal that is anatomically related to the great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain, with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, and by a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members.

Person
An individual human being; a man, woman, or child. -Not a fetus or embryo or balstocyst or zygote.

Kill
To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc.

Abortion
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: -Yes it IS killing although I don't think anyone argues it is not.

 

[Keirador]

Technically, I suppose pregnancy begins at implantation of the fetus into the uterine wall.

Touche .

 

[blackheart]

You're right, I think that was Alpine Trooper. Didn't Fearless Leader own him or something, and that's why he's not posting on this thread anymore?

No, that was you that did him in .

The information in wiki is worldwide statistic, IDK much about the publisher of the data, so I will take it with a grain of salt but it has my benefit of the doubt.

 

[Keirador]

Person
An individual human being; a man, woman, or child. -Not a fetus or embryo or balstocyst or zygote.
Child
A young person of either sex below the age of puberty; a boy or girl.-Not a fetus or embryo or balstocyst or zygote.

Are the bolded bits your additions? (The hyphens would suggest it.) If so, by what authority do you add them? Or are they simply your opinion?

 

[Mark1031]

Are the bolded bits your additions? (The hyphens would suggest it.) If so, by what authority do you add them? Or are they simply your opinion?

They are my addition and are not opinion but a statement of fact based on the definitions since many people seem to interchange terms like zygote and person.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Sorry, Mark, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. They're your interpretations, based on your opinions, and not everyone shares them, or they'd be in the dictionary too.

 

[Keirador]

They are my addition and are not opinion but a statement of fact based on the definitions since many people seem to interchange terms like zygote and person.

If they are not part of the original definition, then why is claiming that embryos cannot be children a statement of fact?

 

[Elrohir]

No, that was you that did him in .

The information in wiki is worldwide statistic, IDK much about the publisher of the data, so I will take it with a grain of salt but it has my benefit of the doubt.

Nah, he kept posting after I stopped yesterday, but he ignored my post, then FL flamed him for not adding to the conversation.

It seems backed up by other sources I found googling that figure.