Another abortion article...

[feline_dacat]

...As I said in that post, there is a great difference between defending murder, and arguing for indifference towards death. Ideally, if I had true faith in God, I would not care if I die - in no way does that constitute me endorsing the killing of others who may not share my same indifference...

Fair point - this zygote/embryo/baby may share your view it it grews up.

The argument is not that potential human = human, but that killing a potential human is effectively preventing a human from existance. (I would argue that an embryo is a "potential human" in a direct sense while a sperm is one in a very indirect sense because an embryo, giving the normal course of events, will become a fully working human, while a sperm will remain a sperm.)...

I don't really think its murder if you're preventing the potential human from being a human

 

[blackheart]

What I am going to say is, to all of you that talk about 'a woman's body, a woman's choice', do you honestly believe that a woman with so little respect for her own body that she has a SECOND, and then a THIRD, unwanted pregnancy has any moral right to retain that ability? I would like to hear from all the 'I support abortion on demand as after-the-fact contraception' people: Tell me why women who apply for a second abortion should not have a 'bonus' hysterectomy thrown in to save them the bother of a third?

Because it's their choice, and it isn't your choice to shove what you want done to them down their throats.

 

[blackheart]

Why don't you allow that an embryo is a seperate organism? And secondly, the jump is clear - Keirador considers a seperate organism with human genes to be a "person".

Rationalize what exactly? Anyway, apparently what I heard was misinformation, but it wasn't entirely untrue. Wiki says birth control pills "work primarily by preventing ovulation, but it also makes the uterus less likely to accept implantation of an embryo if one is created. The synthetic hormones thicken the mucus in the cervix making it more difficult for sperm to reach any egg." If the first two methods fail, which is possible, then it would effectively abort an embryo.

So I take it Keirador considers tumors that have been cut and are sustained in labs for research to be a "person" too?

Birth control pills don't abort embryos. They prevent them from planting in the first place. There is a difference there.

This is the argument that I, as an inexperienced 16-yr old, despise, but I hope I continue to despise it when I am 50. Experience does not equal wisdom. Experience is not necessarily the basis of a proper moral philosophy.

Neither is inexperience. But back to what Mark1031 said, don't condenscend people that you read about in news articles, because frankly you don't know the half of it.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Because it's their choice, and it isn't your choice to shove what you want done to them down their throats.

Thanks for the knee-jerk, not-an-answer answer.

Would you care to actually answer the question now?

 

[Keirador]

Agree that life begins at conception and that abortion is the termination of human life, i.e. the killing of a person. I also belief that abortion should be legally acceptable as long as the fetus has not reached sentience. There are few of us that take this stance, but it is the only one that makes sense to me after years of thought and contemplation. I have the same belief at the end of life, once someone loses sentience, it is acceptable to terminate their life. In hindsite, the case in Florida fit this category for me. In fact, that definition is going in my next living will version.

This is a view I wish more abortion advocates would admit to having. It's honest. The argument that abortion is not taking human life is a sham and a lie. The argument you make, that in some cases, including abortion, the taking of human life is justifiable and acceptable, is an argument which I personally disagree with on religious and moral grounds, but also one that I believe could be argued legally acceptable. I believe the reason that more abortion advocates do not profess this view is that it opens up a shady area, a "slippery slope" where courts and parliaments get to decide the value of human life, which I doubt is agreeable to anyone.

 

[blackheart]

Thanks for the knee-jerk, not-an-answer answer.

Would you care to actually answer the question now?

You asked why, and I gave the reason. You talk about women's moral rights, who are you to take away someone's morals rights? Who are you to force hysterectomy's onto women? That's the entire point of "pro-choice", the choice is up to the woman, not to an arbitrary law.

 

[Keshik]

It seems to me like the women in the article would rather not have abortions. Why don't they make the "choice" not to get pregnant? It really isn't difficult, even if you are poorly educated.

And for us men: women don't have unplanned pregnancies on their own! We should be more responsible in this area, too, whether that means avoiding the pregnancy or supporting the child afterwards.

 

[Gothmog]

cgannon wrote

Why don't you allow that an embryo is a seperate organism? And secondly, the jump is clear - Keirador considers a seperate organism with human genes to be a "person".

The jump is clear, but there is no link there. That is, even if a zygote is a separate organism - it doesn't follow that killing a zygote is killing a person. The needed link is 'a zygote is a person', which is not a scientific statement.

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.

The argument is not that potential human = human, but that killing a potential human is effectively preventing a human from existance. (I would argue that an embryo is a "potential human" in a direct sense while a sperm is one in a very indirect sense because an embryo, giving the normal course of events, will become a fully working human, while a sperm will remain a sperm.)

Every action you take effectively prevents a human from existence, and creates another in its place. Every time you fail to impregnate a woman you meet you are preventing a potential human from existence. An apple is a potential part of you, so what?

A zygote has a less than equal chance of implanting, etc., down the line of probability to the 99% chance of living past the age of 1 (was much worse in the past). Direct, indirect, blah - not relevant - probability (potentiality) is not an argument IMO. Do you also take responsibility to all your potential actions?

Rationalize what exactly?

Can't you see your hand in front of your face? I guess I was too subtle, let me spell it out.

Rationalize the desire to prevent people from using birth control pills.

Along the lines of 'every sperm is sacred', or the feeling that people should pay for sinful actions (i.e. not everyone goes to heaven, some burn in fire and brimstone).

Anyway, apparently what I heard was misinformation, but it wasn't entirely untrue. Wiki says birth control pills "work primarily by preventing ovulation, but it also makes the uterus less likely to accept implantation of an embryo if one is created. The synthetic hormones thicken the mucus in the cervix making it more difficult for sperm to reach any egg." If the first two methods fail, which is possible, then it would effectively abort an embryo.

Yes, as I said 'when used properly'. I could have spelled it out more but felt there was no need. If there is no ovulation there is no egg. Even the pill is only 99% effective if used properly. Strenuous exercise can also prevent implantation, should we therefore ban female athletes?

Catholic culture supports child molesters... is not entirely untrue either. Just dangerous and disingenuous, as was your bit of misinformation.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

You asked why, and I gave the reason. You talk about women's moral rights, who are you to take away someone's morals rights? Who are you to force hysterectomy's onto women? That's the entire point of "pro-choice", the choice is up to the woman, not to an arbitrary law.

Who are women to take away their children's rights? Who are women to force death on their children? that's the entire point of 'pro-life', the 'choice' women want to make is an immoral self-serving one made at the expense of a helpless baby.

 

[Keirador]

First let me say that Keirador's argument is not fresh at all, I've heard it a million times. It's called an argument from authority. In this case it is not only a logical fallacy, it is also a blatent lie.

Argument from authority is not always a logical fallacy, in fact more often than not it is necessary, as there is too much knowledge for every individual to know. If you reject all information that you personally did not discover, you will come to know very little. I am quite positive that you have accepted tens of thousands of arguments from authority in your lifetime, as you have undergone extensive education, which (apart from lab work) is nothing but argument from authority. Unless you can personally verify everything you've learned in school without appealing to an authority. The only issue is whether or not the authority I appeal to is credible. I will try to gather some citations for you tomorrow.

Even if I allow that a separate organism is created at conception (which I don't), you still have made the jump from there to 'the killing of this person', a non sequitur. One might more reasonably ask: is the destruction of this Zygote justified? There is a specific scientific definition of Zygote.

I have no legal argument against the bolded phrase. The state already finds it acceptable to end lives in some cases, it's not a stretch to include developing humans within the class of people whose lives are not protected.
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?

As for the idea that modern biology supports the opinion that the moment a sperm and egg join to form a diploid zygote that object is human, this is a stretch even beyond the existence of God IMO.

Oh? Then what organism is it? Or do you mean human in some mystical sense, rather than as a member of the human species?

Are identical twins then the same human? What about artificially produced zygotes? Or, in a real twist, what about clones? There is no zygote as such in that case as there were no haploid cells involved. Would a human clone then not be human? Is a sheep clone not a sheep?

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

Please don't use the term 'potential human' to me, as others have aluded to this is not relevant. A lump of stone is a potential automobile, and every day is potentially my last. I put as much stock in potentiallity as I do in free will. They are intellectual concepts that are worth pondering but mean nothing in the real world.

Point out to me where I used the term "potential human". I wasn't aware I was using the term, and will cease immediately if I have been, as I find it a stupid idea. Things are either humans or they are not. According to my ideaology, developing humans are still humans, regardless of their stage of development. I don't consider teenagers to be "potential humans" just because they're not done developing, embryos are no different.

Just because an undifferentiated cell may at some point in the future become part of a brain, that does not make it a brain or even part of a brain.

Again, you seem to be shooting down a claim I never made. I would expect better from a man of your learning than a strawman logical fallacy, I'm quite certain you are smart enough not to have to resort to it.

If you consider an undiferentiated lump of cells human, that's your call. If you think an embryo human, again your call. You could even call a single zygote, a detached limb, or clump of hair, human if you like.
But to think that your definition is any more or less arbitrary than anyone elses is the antithesis of logic and has nothing to do with science.
]It is not that saying that a human is made at the moment of conception is foolish, it is trying to pass that off as a biological fact that is foolish.

Again, the logical fallacy you accuse me of, "argument from authority" is not done so intentionally. If my biology books are wrong, and life begins at some other point, and you have an equally or more valid source for this assertion, I am more than open to your correction.

 

[Fischfang]

Why don't these groups call themselves Anti-Life and Anti-Choice?

 

[Keshik]

Why don't these groups call themselves Anti-Life and Anti-Choice?

Because there's no 10 character minimum!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Why don't these groups call themselves Anti-Life and Anti-Choice?

I would presume that 'Championers of Pragmatic Self-Interest' doesn't sound noble enough to the pro-abortion group, and that 'Knights of the Unborn' sounds too pretentious to the second...

 

[Keirador]

Keirador must feel that an organism is defined solely by its DNA, this is a huge oversimplification IMO, and not useful at all.

Not at all, I know organisms are defined more complexly than that. But it seems to me that most abortion advocates consider a zygote a part of the mother. The simplest way to prove this false is to point out that they have different genetic codes, as (as far as I know) 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.

 

[blackheart]

Who are women to take away their children's rights? Who are women to force death on their children? that's the entire point of 'pro-life', the 'choice' women want to make is an immoral self-serving one made at the expense of a helpless baby.

I would presume that 'Championers of Pragmatic Self-Interest' doesn't sound noble enough to the pro-abortion group, and that 'Knights of the Unborn' sounds too pretentious to the second...

Well gee, when you make statements like this why would anyone doubt your unbiasness or your ability for reasonable debate?

 

[Keirador]

So I take it Keirador considers tumors that have been cut and are sustained in labs for research to be a "person" too?

Small portions of a whole are not the whole. My fingernails are not a person, they are a part of a person. Killing an embryo ends the life of the entire human organism, in my view.

 

[Masquerouge]

Not defending them at all. But as long as only women are the ones who have to carry and give birth to children, its unseemly (at best) for men to vilify women who choose abortions.

Yup.

Actually while reading the article I was amazed at how shameful and humiliating an abortion still is. That said, I felt a bit weird about the "confession' of the baptist girl who's undergoing her THIRD abortion.It's unclear if she's on the pill or not, but I hope it's not because of a lack of sexual education and/or some religious restrictions on condoms/pills.

 

[bad_ronald]

I'll pose this question concerning late term abortions to all:

By the third trimester at the latest, the fetus has a hippocampus (well, two, but let's keep it simple) and an amygdala (dido). The possibility is very high that it has memories (hippocampus) and can experience fear (amygdala). I, of course, recognize that the line that has to be drawn will be in some ways arbitrary, but I'm sure you can see why there must be one (lest male masturbation be considered genocide, or the murder of an infant deemed permissible). Since many here seem to have some knowledge of neuroscience, how can you possibly support late term abortions?

 

[Keirador]

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?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Well gee, when you make statements like this why would anyone doubt your unbiasness or your ability for reasonable debate?

Moderator Action: Trolling removed - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889