Remember the "If Abortion Is Murder" thread?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Your feigned exasperation is noted.

[Rawedge Rim]

I'll hazard the issue of life beginning at conception first. Are gametes somehow not "life" or "alive"? Because if they are alive, life is the continuation of an unbroken chain rather than begun at a discrete moment.

They're not human life. When egg is fertilized by sperm, new human life is created and therefore deserving of constitutional protections.

I see no basis for the assertion that gametes do not represent "human life." They are clearly living human cells.

Perhaps you are relying on the idea of function or viability to escape the dignity accorded to gametes with your initial formula (already subtly changed to "new human life"). That, however, makes the zygote subject to these selfsame issues. Which suggests that "new human life" is an emergent property of a developing cluster of cells rather than a moment where God strikes the womb with a thunderbolt and says 'let there be life'.

Let's put it this way: Cail and myself have repeated numerous times, that a fertized human egg cell, if left unmolested by an outside agency, and barring some condition within the mother's body that precludes further development of the egg, will become a human being, and therefore is deserving of protection under the law.

This does not apply to random cells from a human being, which would require extraordinary intervention (outside of present medical science) to become a human being, and therefore, skin, muscle, bone, etc. cells do not rate thier own specific protections under the law.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

That is not necessarily the case, as there are many instances when the union of gametes does not result in a viable organism, and is naturally aborted by the mother or simply does not develop. Furthermore, the very question of viability ignores the parasitic relationship of the fetus with the mother which allows its development, one attested to by the recently discovered role of viruses in reproduction. It appears that what we think of as sexual reproduction may have take root as a viral infection.

In the interests of fairness, I will step beyond the parsing of your faulty definition and introduce one of my own. Human life as you are intending it to be understood (i.e., a self-sufficient organism entitled to equal ethical and social consideration) cannot exist without both form and substance. In the case of a zygote, it has substance but no form. When it has form commensurate with viability, it is entitled to equal ethical consideration. Let us also apply this to the case of a person in a vegetative state: they possess a form, but have lost their substance. Therefore they are no longer entitled to equal consideration with other humans, and sustaining "agency" can be withdrawn from them.

[aliantha]

That is not necessarily the case, as there are many instances when the union of gametes does not result in a viable organism, and is naturally aborted by the mother or simply does not develop. Furthermore, the very question of viability ignores the parasitic relationship of the fetus with the mother which allows its development, one attested to by the recently discovered role of viruses in reproduction. It appears that what we think of as sexual reproduction may have take root as a viral infection.

In the interests of fairness, I will step beyond the parsing of your faulty definition and introduce one of my own. Human life as you are intending it to be understood (i.e., a self-sufficient organism entitled to equal ethical and social consideration) cannot exist without both form and substance. In the case of a zygote, it has substance but no form. When it has form commensurate with viability, it is entitled to equal ethical consideration. Let us also apply this to the case of a person in a vegetative state: they possess a form, but have lost their substance. Therefore they are no longer entitled to equal consideration with other humans, and sustaining "agency" can be withdrawn from them.

Y'know, when I propounded my stance that a fetus is basically a parasite, people around here were aghast. Glad to hear that science is backing me up.

[rusmeister]

It's a symptom of the continuing polarization of American politics, coupled with the inability of some on both sides to be unable to compromise. We see it with all hot-button issues. 'Abortion is murder, I know this...somehow, and I won't consider any other possibilities because I'm right! The preacher told me so.'

Just responding to one thing, Orlion.
I'll grant that there are plenty of religious believers who cannot offer rational support for their views. But do you think that a believer cannot hold that abortion (as something distinct from involuntary miscarriage) IS murder and have a solid philosophical base for doing so? Do you think I can say nothing other than that God or my preacher/priest said so? (it just seems that that's what abortion defenders reduce ts opposition's arguments to.)

[Rawedge Rim]

That is not necessarily the case, as there are many instances when the union of gametes does not result in a viable organism, and is naturally aborted by the mother or simply does not develop. Furthermore, the very question of viability ignores the parasitic relationship of the fetus with the mother which allows its development, one attested to by the recently discovered role of viruses in reproduction. It appears that what we think of as sexual reproduction may have take root as a viral infection.

In the interests of fairness, I will step beyond the parsing of your faulty definition and introduce one of my own. Human life as you are intending it to be understood (i.e., a self-sufficient organism entitled to equal ethical and social consideration) cannot exist without both form and substance. In the case of a zygote, it has substance but no form. When it has form commensurate with viability, it is entitled to equal ethical consideration. Let us also apply this to the case of a person in a vegetative state: they possess a form, but have lost their substance. Therefore they are no longer entitled to equal consideration with other humans, and sustaining "agency" can be withdrawn from them.

You obviously did not read the entire post, I clearly stated that "that a fertized human egg cell, if left unmolested by an outside agency, and barring some condition within the mother's body that precludes further development of the egg, will become a human being".

The science is irrefutable. You may disagree with my position on the rights of that fertilized egg cell, but you cannot rationally disagree with the natural progression "as I posited it".

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Of course I can disagree with your faulty "natural progression," because you are expressly ruling out an entire category of non-viable zygotes that are inherently defective genetically, and either do not develop or develop only to some incomplete and non-viable state. Google is your friend. Once we start sifting zygotes, they lose their *sacrosanct* status.

And it still remains the case that the viability of the zygote / fetus depends upon a parasitic relationship with the mother for the majority of its development. It isn't growing without 'agency' as you suggest. And guess what: the agent has rights too.

[Rawedge Rim]

Of course I can disagree with your faulty "natural progression," because you are expressly ruling out an entire category of non-viable zygotes that are inherently faulty, and either do not develop or develop only to some incomplete and non-viable state. Google is your friend.

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with unviable fertized eggs naturally not implanting in the womb, or spontaniously miscarrying because of conditions related to the egg, or to the female carrying the egg. Nobody (with the possible exception of yourself) gives a rats ass about those.

The concern is over those viable eggs, that if left unmolested will develop into a human baby.

All else is hardly worth the title of "strawman" little less "valid argument."

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

You can bold, underline, and italicize your font all you like, but it can't change the truth that some zygotes are genetically defective and never develop into human beings. And if some zygotes never develop into human beings, how does it follow that all zygotes are sacrosanct human life entitled to equal protection under the law?

[Rawedge Rim]

You can bold, underline, and italicize your font all you like, but it can't change the truth that some zygotes are defective. And if some zygotes are defective, how does it follow that all zygotes are sacrosanct human life entitled to equal protection under the law?

Nobody is arguing that some zygotes are defective and the human body immediately rejects them. This is a "natural" process, that does not require any action from a human being to happen.

An abortion OTOH, rather than a miscarriage, does require human intervention, and that which is being aborted, if left unmolested, will develop into a human being, whether defective or not.

Much different moral position than the one you seem to be lamely attempting to defend.

Frankly, your argument seems to be similar to "Not all black people listen to hip-hop", which may be factual on the surface, but is still a strawman kind of argument.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

RR, you are ignoring the most necessary and unavoidable deduction of this argument.

Some zygotes are defective and never develop into human beings. (You should do some research into birth anomalies, because some of these defective zygotes / fetuses are carried to term or for months anyway.)

Other zygotes develop into human beings.

Therefore, a zygote is not a human being.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

If a zygote may or may not develop into a human being, then human being-ness is developmental rather than simply essential. The only test is whether the zygote develops into a viable fetus. At that point, we can say that the fetus is a human being, but not before.

[Rawedge Rim]

If a zygote may or may not develop into a human being, then human being-ness is developmental rather than simply essential. The only test is whether the zygote develops into a viable fetus. At that point, we can say that the fetus is a human being, but not before.

and on that point I'm done debating, you still are doing the "not all black people listen to hip-hop" argument.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

RR, it really can't be argued that a zygote is a human being at this point, given the proofs I have already offered, so your original statement has been driven out of the park. The only question is when fetal development amounts to human being-ness. I have offered an answer, but you are still trying to beg the question by hanging yet more qualifiers on the zygote: every viable, non-rejected, developmentally sound zygote that would normally be carried to term is entitled to protection. What you are ignoring is all of those qualifiers you are attempting to introduce can only be established (forgive me for shouting, but it seems necessary) RETROSPECTIVELY... i.e., at some point after the processes mentioned have run their course, and the fetus has achieved viability. But, I don't blame you for trying to save face rather than charge the impregnable tautological redoubts that surround my argument.

[DoctorGamgee]

Then I am going to have to ask, Ex2 -- at what point did the Human egg fertilized by a Human sperm cease to be Human? The "your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry" skit is dash cunning, but at what time did those intrinsicly human dna sequences forfeit their humanity?

And while I appreciate your "parasitic" argument, it too is faulty as you are a parasite (as are RR, Cail and I -- or did you grow your own food at 6 months--I sure didn't!). And while you are completely correct that many zygotes do not survive, they are alive until they are dead, as are we all. Perhaps you can convince me I am incorrect about that. Perhaps not.

One day, you and I are going to die. That is a fact. And when we do, it will be because we are no longer viable. How it happens determines whether it is murder or not. We are all nothing more than a collection of cells, despite what we tell ourselves. That is why the answer to the first question will be most telling in summing up your argument. For if, as you seem to posit, that humanity is "developed" and not intrinsic, then it also means it is finite and can perhaps be lost, like a tadpole's tail, and one can become non-human.

I shall await your answer. Peace, my friend.

[Cail]

What this argument comes down to is reality versus sophistry. The sophistry generally comes from people who reach their conclusion (that a woman's right to choose abortion outweighs all other considerations), then fill in the argument to make it so.

It is inarguable that a distinct human life begins at conception. It is also inarguable that some times, through no outside interference, that human life is extinguished. That doesn't make it any less human, or any less alive. But the fact remains that there is nothing else on this planet that will ever mature into a walking, talking human being, other than a fertilized egg.

Now (as I've said before), if you believe that a woman has the absolute right to do what she wants with her body and anything inside of it, then I'll disagree with you. I'll tell you that you're valuing the "rights" of the mother over the rights of the child. You'll agree that's the case, and we can move on.

But there is simply no basis in reality that human life (deserving of basic human rights) isn't created until there's a magical journey through the birth canal. Or an abdominal incision. At 9 months. Or 8 months. Or 7 months. Or whatever.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Ah, I see that Cail the Greatly Exasperated has overcome his fit of pique and has resumed conversing. So I'll assume for the time being that he actually wants to have a conversation, instead of issuing edicts with which there can be no argument.

But the fact remains that there is nothing else on this planet that will ever mature into a walking, talking human being, other than a fertilized egg.

The fact also remains that there is nothing else on this planet that will ever mature into a walking, talking human being, other than a viable fetus.

Sophistry is ever marked by emotional appeals, facts ignored or obfuscated, oversimplification, style over substance. Show me one instance of sophistry by yours truly on this thread. If you manage that task I will return the favor, though with less difficulty, I imagine.

Afterwards, busy yourself with the inescapable logic I have already provided. To wit: it is arguable that a distinct human life begins at conception. The reason: many provided examples of biological failure post-conception. The conclusion: the moment of conception produces a zygote that may or may not yield a human being with the "agency" of the mother; the issue can only be decided via subsequent experience. And we are talking about "human beings" not simply "human life." Even a gamete is "human life" but I don't see anyone parading around singing "Every Sperm Is Sacred."

Bottom line, a syllogism requires tautology, and tautology cannot survive exceptions. What you are left with becomes an inductive argument; dressing it up as deduction merely proves that you are begging the question.

[Cail]

Ah, I see that Cail the Greatly Exasperated has overcome his fit of pique and has resumed conversing. So I'll assume for the time being that he actually wants to have a conversation, instead of issuing edicts with which there can be no argument.

Namecalling? Other than the fact that's a Violation of the Rules & Guidelines stickied at the top of the forum, it's about as weak as an argument gets.

Stay classy Ex......

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Ah, I see that Cail the Greatly Exasperated has overcome his fit of pique and has resumed conversing. So I'll assume for the time being that he actually wants to have a conversation, instead of issuing edicts with which there can be no argument.

Namecalling? Other than the fact that's a Violation of the Rules & Guidelines stickied at the top of the forum, it's about as weak as an argument gets.

Stay classy Ex......

Several hundred pages have been devoted to the explanation of everyone's position(s) on this issue. I have no interest in further discussing this with you until you've done your homework, nor do I have any interest in playing childish semantic games, nor do I have any interest in discussing/debating the involvement (or non-involvement) of any god or God in the process.

Look, Cail, I responded to the thread with some ontological questions about the nature of life addressed to no one. You appeared to take them up. How am I baiting you in any of that? Cail ain't the great white whale, man.

Indeed, how are you?

Yeah. Is this: meant to convey something other than great exasperation with my "childish" games and the fact that I haven't 'done my homework'? Doesn't seem very fitting in retrospect, now does it, after huge holes have been blown in your argument with readily available scientific information.

Now fly to the four winds.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Then I am going to have to ask, Ex2 -- at what point did the Human egg fertilized by a Human sperm cease to be Human? The "your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry" skit is dash cunning, but at what time did those intrinsicly human dna sequences forfeit their humanity?

And while I appreciate your "parasitic" argument, it too is faulty as you are a parasite (as are RR, Cail and I -- or did you grow your own food at 6 months--I sure didn't!). And while you are completely correct that many zygotes do not survive, they are alive until they are dead, as are we all. Perhaps you can convince me I am incorrect about that. Perhaps not.

One day, you and I are going to die. That is a fact. And when we do, it will be because we are no longer viable. How it happens determines whether it is murder or not. We are all nothing more than a collection of cells, despite what we tell ourselves. That is why the answer to the first question will be most telling in summing up your argument. For if, as you seem to posit, that humanity is "developed" and not intrinsic, then it also means it is finite and can perhaps be lost, like a tadpole's tail, and one can become non-human.

I shall await your answer. Peace, my friend.

I think you make my point for me. Human sperm and human egg produce a human zygote, which is remarkable only for its combination of donor DNA. This DNA combination typically runs its course in the womb and the zygote either develops into a human being or does not -- many intermediate or otherwise indeterminate states are possible and well documented. The question then becomes, how do we distinguish which zygote will develop into a human being? And the answer is obviously that it becomes a viable fetus. A fetus becomes a human being via its process of development, it doesn't start out that way.

Let me ask you a corollary question: what about human zygotes produced in the lab? Are they also human beings entitled to equal ethical consideration? Or does that only occur in the womb?

The point about fetal parasitism is not to justify abortion until the age of majority, it is to emphasize that the fetus exists not in a self contained vessel but only with the context of the mother, who also has rights vis-a-vis the pregnancy. And I really think Roe v. Wade got it about right when discussing the way those rights work.