Remember the "If Abortion Is Murder" thread?

[DoctorGamgee]

Actually, Ex2, you have made my point for me. It makes a Human Zygote and therefore has not reliniquished its humanity. And from the first splitting of the cells, it is already developing into a human being. When you ask "how do we distinguish which zygote will develop into a human being" one can't help but wonder, "As opposed to a Hippo or a Chihuahua?" Afterall, you have admitted it is human, and therefore if it is not dead, it is being human. Therefore, if it is alive an human (which you have clearly stated) than any outward affect on this human entity which results in its death ends a human life. And as such, where the fertilization occurs -- Womb, Lab, backseat of a 57 Chevy, they are all living humans until they die.

So the question then becomes does the Mother's rights supercede the rights of the unborn child. That can certainly be debated, and should be. But while the unborn is stripped of its humanity, like Slaves in the 1700s or Jews in Auschwitz, one cannot have that discussion.

[Orlion]

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.)

More specifically, I was responding to the idea that miscarriage could in any way, shape, or form be investigated. Are there people with a philosophically valid argument that abortion is murder? Sure. I disagree with them, but I don't see those people jumping the gun and casting even the slightest bit of totalitarian policing of miscarriages. The only people who seem to do this are the 'cover ears, scream as loud as possible' that zygotes are somehow human and that cancerous growth isn't... la, la, la, let's kill puppies because we siphon money into the military because it's more important to kill then preserve sentient life.'

Hell, Cail seems to believe that by merely trespassing onto a property is forfeiting your life, even if the person cowers and begs for it or runs away without attacking. If people can be so cavilier about adult human life, how can I take them seriously when they say, " this non-conscious thing developing here? It has a right to life, and we shouldn't take it away.'" I can't take such people seriously.

With my rant out of the way, I'll answer you more specifically: you didn't even cross my mind when I wrote that.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Actually, Ex2, you have made my point for me. It makes a Human Zygote and therefore has not reliniquished its humanity. And from the first splitting of the cells, it is already developing into a human being. When you ask "how do we distinguish which zygote will develop into a human being" one can't help but wonder, "As opposed to a Hippo or a Chihuahua?" Afterall, you have admitted it is human, and therefore if it is not dead, it is being human. Therefore, if it is alive an human (which you have clearly stated) than any outward affect on this human entity which results in its death ends a human life. And as such, where the fertilization occurs -- Womb, Lab, backseat of a 57 Chevy, they are all living humans until they die.

So the question then becomes does the Mother's rights supercede the rights of the unborn child. That can certainly be debated, and should be. But while the unborn is stripped of its humanity, like Slaves in the 1700s or Jews in Auschwitz, one cannot have that discussion.

You are neglecting the meaningful distinction between human life as in living human tissues and a human being. My hand is human life but can it be said to possess equal dignity with any other human being, myself included? Gametes themselves are also alive both separately and when joined into a zygote. From zygote to human being is a path that is fraught with genetic peril, many never develop or develop incompletely even though they may be carried to term. Therefore some zygotes never actually become "human beings". Are you seriously proposing that a wad of tissue that will never develop into a viable fetus ought to be accorded rights equivalent to the mother? I note that you have also neglected the case of zygotes and embryos produced outside the body. I'll repeat the question: are these to be treated as deserving equal consideration to any other human being? Why or why not?

[rusmeister]

The truth is incredibly simple, and I'm not going to debate anyone on it. All of the defense of abortion is a a web of sophistry based on self-interest. The goal is so that people can get rid of an inconvenience. All of the talk about extreme and crazy situations - the exceptions - ignores the overwhelming rule that most cases really are about personal selfishness, whether it is the more banal kind like wanting a better life in economical terms, or simply a desire to be free to hang out with friends and party, and it comes in the wake of a radically wrong attitude toward sex, as if it were a mere joy button to be pressed at will, and then all of the efforts to remove the natural consequence, which is the primary purpose of the sex act.
All of the talk about people who "can't afford to have kids", the "surplus population" (which I hereby declare us all to be - please report to your local disintegration chamber and remove a burden from the world!), gametes and tissue and everything else is a smokescreen for that.
So yes, it is murder, and not just because "God or my preacher said so", but because it is the deliberate killing of human life. It takes a deliberate act. It doesn't happen spontaneously (and if it does, we're not talking about abortion).

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Why do I feel like a cowboy hat wearing preacher in a pink convertible Caddy just blew by me at 60, dousing me with an enormous, dirty mud puddle as he went, then once past launched into a tire squealing power slide to return my way again, hurling a hard-bound library size Good Book into my gut with a thud as he drives away, the sound of slogans shouted from a bullhorn gradually receding in the sunset.

I've been drive by proselytized.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

BTW, I like this idea that I'm somehow motivated to believe one way or another. I've never been personally affected by this issue. Indeed in my younger days I used to believe that if there was doubt about life beginning at conception, then the stakes demanded that we presume that it does. However I have come to learn that the science simply doesn't support such a conclusion, and that is what has guided me to my current position on the matter.

[DoctorGamgee]

Ex2, my friend, I did not neglect anything. The Gametes are indeed alive, and of the millions of sperm in the average ejaculate, many of these living beings will die. And every month that a woman doesn't conceive, she too will pass an egg, which was alive at one point, but no longer is. A zygote, however, is a new creation made of the mixture of the two gametes. It is no longer just an egg and a sperm, but something more as it has a new combination of DNA, and you acknowledge that it is alive and human.

You wish to bequeath it's particular status of being a "Human Being" after it has reached a specific level of maturiy, which, if one follows your stated logic, means it isn't a human until then. I would say that as long as the being is human, it is a human being. Whatever name you give to the tissue -- Zygote, Fetus, Child -- it is still human.

Now I totally agree with you that many zygotes don't make it to term. And when this occurs, there is indeed a loss of life. The tissue is dead. And you ask a telling question: "Are you seriously proposing that a wad of tissue that will never develop into a viable fetus ought to be accorded rights equivalent to the mother?" It presupposes that it has been determined that it will never develop into a viable fetus and begs the question of whether you are "seriously proposing that a wad of tissue that will certainly develop into a viable fetus ought not to be accorded the right to live?"

The hand analogy doesn't ring true, as a hand is a part of a human being while the zygote is an entire entity. And I have answered your question, though I gather you don't like it, so I'll repeat it. where the fertilization occurs -- Womb, Lab, backseat of a 57 Chevy, they are all living humans until they die.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

The Gametes are indeed alive, and of the millions of sperm in the average ejaculate, many of these living beings will die. And every month that a woman doesn't conceive, she too will pass an egg, which was alive at one point, but no longer is.

So I guess every sperm is sacred.

DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate...

[Avatar]

Ah, I see that Cail the Greatly Exasperated has overcome his fit of pique and has resumed conversing.

Ok, give it a break. Discuss the issue at hand, not other people. And if you can't, then rather don't say anything. I'm not interested in getting in the middle of some pissing contest, so let's not have the contest at all. Thank you. Let's have a little consideration for each other.

Pliss, really good to see you back.

--A

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

[Edited to just let it all go.]

[Prebe]

Why do I feel like a cowboy hat wearing preacher in a pink convertible Caddy just blew by me at 60, dousing me with an enormous, dirty mud puddle as he went, then once past launched into a tire squealing power slide to return my way again, hurling a hard-bound library size Good Book into my gut with a thud as he drives away, the sound of slogans shouted from a bullhorn gradually receding in the sunset.

I've been drive by proselytized.

*vomiting with laughter*

I like your argumentation in this thread, which is a much more eloquent (and much more entertaining) version of the exact same arguments that I have put forth a few times. I've never been down the retrospective aisle yet though, and it is always refreshing to see new material.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Thanks, Prebe, this argument is novel to me and I'm curious where it will lead. Although the path is apparently well-trod we can always try it again! Maybe something different might happen. Or is that the definition of insanity?

[Prebe]

Or is that the definition of insanity?

No, closer to the definition of "not having had that argument here before". I've started referring to myself as "gratuitously baby-slaughtering" which apparently makes most people happy. I gave up on the "Human life"/"human being" discussion some time ago; to such a degree in fact, that I conceded the point of "human life starts at conception" because I have realized, this time certainly not being an exception, that the closer you get to picking a principal argument apart the more unpleasant it gets.
I found that I really didn't care that some people justify their anti-abortion stance this way. To me it has been more important to highlight the advantages from a less principal point of view, and to ignore the oppositions principal arguments. Even if you can demonstrate that those principles can be ripped apart or - in the best case - rests on something not really scientifically defined such as a "human being".

[rusmeister]

Why do I feel like a cowboy hat wearing preacher in a pink convertible Caddy just blew by me at 60, dousing me with an enormous, dirty mud puddle as he went, then once past launched into a tire squealing power slide to return my way again, hurling a hard-bound library size Good Book into my gut with a thud as he drives away, the sound of slogans shouted from a bullhorn gradually receding in the sunset.

I've been drive by proselytized.

Because you have such preconceptions of what an argument that abortion IS murder must be reduced to. When you start quoting my own religion back at me, and showing that I am wrong from that (ie, that you KNOW what it is that I believe and that it is 180 degrees from any "cowboy hat wearing preacher in a pink convertible Caddy" - it is practically the opposite) then I'll know that you understand my position - and there won't be any talk about such preachers, as a bonus. There will be genuine understanding.

[deer of the dawn]

The section about investigating the cause of prenatal death appears to already be part of the law; the bill does not introduce that section (it's not underlined to indicate new verbage).

I agree with Ex2 that life begins at conception. That's science. When does that life become "human"? Is it ever anything else??

"A person's a person, no matter how small"

[deer of the dawn]

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.

I part ways with Ex2 when he gets here. Following this argument to its logical ramifications would mean that newborns are not viable humans as they are completely dependent for survival and development on a mother or other 'outside agency'.

And, let's keep ad hominem arguments out of what is otherwise a good discussion!! Or I'll hit you over the head with my 25-lb Bible!!

[Cail]

....life begins at conception. That's science. When does that life become "human"? Is it ever anything else??

I don't believe that it is, nor do I believe that there's any sensible alternative. IOW, is that living thing non-human before it becomes human?



Edited to add -

Hell, Cail seems to believe that by merely trespassing onto a property is forfeiting your life, even if the person cowers and begs for it or runs away without attacking. If people can be so cavilier about adult human life, how can I take them seriously when they say, " this non-conscious thing developing here? It has a right to life, and we shouldn't take it away.'" I can't take such people seriously.

That wasn't at all what I said in the other thread, nor is it what I believe. There is also an enormous difference between an adult who is responsible for the consequences of his actions, and a child in the womb.

[DoctorGamgee]

The Gametes are indeed alive, and of the millions of sperm in the average ejaculate, many of these living beings will die. And every month that a woman doesn't conceive, she too will pass an egg, which was alive at one point, but no longer is.

So I guess every sperm is sacred.

DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate...

Nicely done, Ex2. It was late and my statement should be changed to say that "many of these living tissues will die" which separates them from the Zygotes of the next sentence. I would not, however, change the song as it is simply brilliant. Well played and keeps me on my toes.

I kept thinkng about your Hand argument last night and wondered, 'Would we be having this train of thought if we were Starfish?" A starfish arm is not a starfish, just as a hand is not a person. But a starfish arm can grow an entire new starfish, which is unlike the severed human hand but very much like a zygote.

It seems where we differ is that it is my contention that while the human zygote is alive its humanity is intrinsic and yours that its humanity must be earned/conferred at some later stage in development. I base this on the statements you make about Zygotes. If I am incorrect please tell me where and how. And I hope that I have not given you any personal jabs.

[Prebe]

I agree with Ex2 that life begins at conception. That's science.

I'm afraid Ex is going to disappoint you there. If I have read his posts correctly, he states that "It can be argued, that life starts at conception...".
Leaving aside the fact that "life" in itself is very tough to define, let's all stick to the concept "human life" which is, incidentally, also very difficult to define in any non-emotional way. Pretending that it IS easy to define is blatantly ignoring (or not understanding) all of the excellent posts that Ex2 has made.

The problem for both sides in this debate is that they either think or pretend that emotions do not matter when we are talking willful termination of pregnancy. They do, and they should. That makes it a damned sight more difficult to discuss though. One of the reasons for this is that once you admit that collective emotional parameters sometimes have to be taken into account while legislating (we are human, remember, not robots), you can't avoid implying that those on the other side are in some way callous, insensitive or downright murderous or misogynists.

I have chosen to run that risk.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Why do I feel like a cowboy hat wearing preacher in a pink convertible Caddy just blew by me at 60, dousing me with an enormous, dirty mud puddle as he went, then once past launched into a tire squealing power slide to return my way again, hurling a hard-bound library size Good Book into my gut with a thud as he drives away, the sound of slogans shouted from a bullhorn gradually receding in the sunset.

I've been drive by proselytized.

Because you have such preconceptions of what an argument that abortion IS murder must be reduced to. When you start quoting my own religion back at me, and showing that I am wrong from that (ie, that you KNOW what it is that I believe and that it is 180 degrees from any "cowboy hat wearing preacher in a pink convertible Caddy" - it is practically the opposite) then I'll know that you understand my position - and there won't be any talk about such preachers, as a bonus. There will be genuine understanding.

No, I think it's more about the fact that you stated that you "weren't going to debate anybody."