Remember the "If Abortion Is Murder" thread?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

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"

That's interesting as I have yet to make that argument.

[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.

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!!

This is of course a slippery slope argument. The typical remedy is to show that the supposed extreme ethical consequences are not, in fact, inevitable. And it is clearly the case that fetal gestational parasitism is highly distinguishable from the dependence of an infant. An infant can live so long as it is nourished and cared for, anyone could assume this burden not just the mother, so the infant is not inherently dependent on the mother. A fetus that has not achieved viability cannot live outside the mother, and is inherently dependent on the mother. In addition, the burden of the commitment of internal physical resources is a good deal more invasive and burdensome to the mother than mixing up some formula.

[deer of the dawn]

That's interesting as I have yet to make that argument.

Sorry, I read all the posts and misread something you said. (When you said you would "hazard" the argument that life begins at conception.)

In addition, the burden of the commitment of internal physical resources is a good deal more invasive and burdensome to the mother than mixing up some formula.

Clearly, you have never carried a baby or gotten up at 3am to feed one. Pregnancy is burdensome, but a lot neater than an infant.

Your perception of human life as being an unindividuated continuation of biological functions certainly sounds rational and may in fact be scientific. But it completely lacks any heart or soul. How can there can be any common ground for argument between those who value individual human beings for their worth, value, and inherent dignity and those who merely see us as random expressions of chemicals and biological processes?

[Orlion]

Your perception of human life as being an unindividuated continuation of biological functions certainly sounds rational and may in fact be scientific. But it completely lacks any heart or soul. How can there can be any common ground for argument between those who value individual human beings for their worth, value, and inherent dignity and those who merely see us as random expressions of chemicals and biological processes?

Emphasis for what I'm responding to. To me, chemical and biological processes fill me with awe. They're amazing in how they interact with each other and the physical mechanics of the universe... so much so that for the vast majority of my life, I've believed if there were a God, it'd be a product of these processes, not the creator of them. That's how awesome these processes are to me.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

It's always nice to be maligned after carrying an argument to a successful conclusion. Peace be upon you.

Edit: DOTD, I will entertain your argument if you can establish that a zygote is somehow sentient.

[Rawedge Rim]

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.

Dude:

Some zygotes will be rejected by the mother's womb, regardless of viability, due to hormonal changes, blood chemistry, etc.

Some fetus's will miscarry, for the same reasons.

Some fetus's that come to term will die either shortly before or shortly after going through the birth canal.

Some babies will not get past the first year. Some children will not make it to adulthood, and some adults will not make it to thier senior years.

Despite this FACT, for the purposes of morality, they should still be treated as human, and deserving of the protections that modern science can convey.

Not much by modern science can save a zygote that the human body has rejected, and maybe not the fetus either, but we can, without any breakthrough in medical science, not interfere negatively in the development of the zygote or fetus.

As for your argument about the human hand being human: it's human tissue, that is correct, but without massive human intervention (which at this point is beyond current medical science), that human hand will remain just a hand, and will not develop into anything more.

A zygote, generally, barring rejection or human intervention, will in fact develop into a human being.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

That is factually incorrect. Some zygotes, without the intervention of the mother's biochemistry, never develop into viable beings of any kind. Maybe if I have time I'll link some articles, but this information is readily available using Google.

[Vraith]

In many ways agree with what O said.
But, in addition to that, what if the heart and soul you think is missing is actually the result of/an emergent property explicit in, those reactions?
While there is evidence that brain chemistry affects what/how one thinks, there is also evidence that what/how you think affects brain chemistry.
So what if a soul doesn't give worth/value/dignity to mere chemical processes...what if mere chemical processes naturally give birth to worth/value/dignity, and the soul [even if it isn't some immortal spirit or essence].

[[Syl]]

Your perception of human life as being an unindividuated continuation of biological functions certainly sounds rational and may in fact be scientific. But it completely lacks any heart or soul. How can there can be any common ground for argument between those who value individual human beings for their worth, value, and inherent dignity and those who merely see us as random expressions of chemicals and biological processes?

Emphasis for what I'm responding to. To me, chemical and biological processes fill me with awe. They're amazing in how they interact with each other and the physical mechanics of the universe... so much so that for the vast majority of my life, I've believed if there were a God, it'd be a product of these processes, not the creator of them. That's how awesome these processes are to me.

I was thinking the same thing. In fact, I filled up a page in my notebook on the same subject. And we're not just chemical processes, but historical ones. We're little swirling eddies of historical forces, looping in and spinning out of greater ones. It's all culture, but culture changes with time and place. Beyond pure ethnocentrism, if there is a true moral code out there, we can't just suss it out of our own. Problems of scale.

[Lord Mhoram]

I feel like this whole thread is the Kevin's Watch version of a social experiment, and Plissken is the sadistic psychologist in charge of conducting it. We are all chimps for his amusement.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I feel like this whole thread is the Kevin's Watch version of a social experiment, and Plissken is the sadistic psychologist in charge of conducting it. We are all chimps for his amusement.

Greetings, LM. Nice to see you in these parts again.

[deer of the dawn]

Ex, I am sorry if you felt maligned, that was not my intent. I feel no enmity. Indeed, I only aspire to be a worthy opponent. I am not an intellectual, but I do know what I believe and I know a lot about why I believe it. But I don't have it all figured out, nor hope to in this life.

[Lord Mhoram]

I feel like this whole thread is the Kevin's Watch version of a social experiment, and Plissken is the sadistic psychologist in charge of conducting it. We are all chimps for his amusement.

Greetings, LM. Nice to see you in these parts again.

Likewise, Ex! I wondered where you'd been when I was more active. I'm thinking of dipping my toes into here again soon.

[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.

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

I'm NOT. Debating, ex. I'm only stating. I know that my faith is a hundred miles from the nearest televangelist preacher you describe. YOU don't know that yet. It's not a personal failing, but it is a "hole" in knowledge that needs to be filled. Your idea of the "preacher" will disappear as soon as you learn enough about Orthodox Christianity.

[Rawedge Rim]

That is factually incorrect. Some zygotes, without the intervention of the mother's biochemistry, never develop into viable beings of any kind. Maybe if I have time I'll link some articles, but this information is readily available using Google.

Ok, what is the point you are trying to make with this factiod?

the quote from my post was "Some zygotes will be rejected by the mother's womb, regardless of viability , due to hormonal changes, blood chemistry, etc."

As you can see, if you choose to do so, it's not a contradiction to your constant point that some zygotes don't make it. It's an irrelavant point you are making unless you would like to fill in the blanks.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Some zygotes never develop yet are carried to term, and never rejected by the mother. I encourage you to research the issues further.

[Rawedge Rim]

Some zygotes never develop yet are carried to term, and never rejected by the mother. I encourage you to research the issues further.

And your point????????????????????

[Cail]

And exactly what does sentience have to do with anything?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Cail, sentience is a quality that is suggestive of "being" if not necessarily dispositive.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

RR, the point is that some zygotes never become human beings because of a lack of intrinsic potential to develop. And it has nothing to do with the womb environment or being rejected by the mother, etc. If some zygotes do not have the intrinsic potential to become human beings, then tautologically speaking zygotes are not human beings. Therefore human being-hood occurs later or emerges via development, the matter must be considered empirically. So in sum, we can say without equivocation that zygotes do not warrant equal ethical consideration as human beings. Is that clear enough yet?

PS Could you please edit some of those question marks into nothingness?