What will it take to change attitudes towards abortion?

[Cail]

A frontier guarded by straw men. We're not discussing replacing an adult's body with a robot.

A strawman is when I've mischaracterized your position to make it easier to defeat. That's not what I'm doing. I'm defining *my* position: no brain, no human. My robot/brain example illustrated this point. You can avoid the question if you want, but it's impossible to call it a strawman. I'm free to define my position any way I wish.

You are refuting my argument with an argument you're making up. That's the definition of a straw man argument.

You have created an arbitrary distinction that works for you. That's fine, but it has nothing at all to do with anything I'm talking about.

Negatory Ghostrider. This is an appeal to emotion, as well as arbitrarily delineating between consciousness and humanity. By your argument, someone in a coma is no longer human. Not buying that one for a second.

Which emotion am I appealing to?

Someone in a coma still has a brain. They quite possibly still have consciousness, despite our inability to detect it through normal means (i.e. communication). Perhaps their consciousness is very much like a fetus with an underdeveloped brain--which, I'm admitting, is human and shouldn't be killed.

However, someone who is brain dead is no longer a living human being.

You have no legal or medical basis for that distinction. It's illegal to kill someone who's brain dead. It's illegal to screw someone who's brain dead. Why? Are you cool with boning a brain-dead.....whatever you want to call it?

You are welcome to show me the medical text that differentiates "human" from "human being", and introduces conscience as a qualifier for the application and/or eligibility for enjoying basic human rights.

Philosophy is also BS here, as it's a subjective field of study.

Do medical textbooks differentiate ethics? Morality? Do they define what it means to be human? You act like this is a scientific question [cue Ron Burgundy, "It's science..."], but this is a moral and philosophical quandary about what it means to be human and what rights we should have. That's a hell of a lot closer to philosophy than medicine.

That's your distinction, not mine. To me, you're human if you're human, and if you're human then you have human rights. This isn't rocket surgery. Philosophy, ethics, and morality don't really have much to do with the fact that humans have human rights.

[

Again, if this is your argument, then newborns, comatose, and severely retarded people aren't people after all.

Every single one of those are conscious, or at least have the possibility of consciousness (which I'm willing to allow).

So do prenatal children. Given the natural progression of human gestation, the longest you'll have to wait is a handful of months. How long would you give a comatose adult before you start pimping it out or killing it?

Additionally, can you point to the part of the Constitution that differentiates between human and human being when it comes to the application and/or eligibility for enjoying basic human rights?

I'm differentiating between human life and human being. Every cell in your body is alive and has your DNA. That doesn't make every cell in your body a human being.

Ahh this chestnut. It sure doesn't, and I've never made that claim. This is as morally disingenuous as equating a baby to a tumor.

Your definition seems to rely entirely upon a group of cells having human DNA. Does this mean 46 chromosomes? What about someone with Down Syndrome? Are they human in your definition? If so, does that mean there is wiggle room in what it means to be human based on DNA? Is it a percentage? Do Neanderthals count? What about when we start tampering with our DNA? Is it okay to abort genetically altered fetuses? How much different does the DNA have to be to allow abortion? Do your medical texts define this percentage?

Again, I'm not going to argue your what-ifs, as they're specious. Since you've failed to divine this from my prior posts, let me state the obvious again. When sperm and egg join to create a new life with new DNA, that's the beginning of human life. At that point, abortion is the murder of a human being.

[You act like this is cut and dry, but it's not. There is room for debate, and that space is defined by philosophical criteria, not medical criteria. Hell, what's so special about humans anyway such that it's not ok to kill them, but perfectly fine to kill and eat animals? Why is our DNA so special? These are ALL subjective, philosophical issues.

It actually is very cut and dry. If you believe in the concept of basic human rights, namely the right not to be killed, then there's really no wiggle room here.

Where the non-medical conversation begins is with the exceptions. Like carving out one for non-consensual pregnancies. Call it justifiable homicide. Or the belief that the mother's wants outweigh the child's rights. Or the legitimacy of selection traits via genetic selection.

Note that I'm not dismissing the concept of intellect or consciousness; just stating that neither the presence nor absence of either determines whether or not it's acceptable to kill someone.

[Fist and Faith]

ExCUSE me? Are you not one of the guys who argued with me for days when I said our intelligence and consciousness is not in the toe??

Ummm...that's not really how all that went.

It certainly is! Z just said:

You can lose any other part of your body and remain you. But not your brain.

That's exactly what I was arguing all along. But, you both disagreed. In your words:

No one is saying that the brain isn't something like the CPU...just that when you say it is where the "I" REALLY "is" you're making a mistake.

And I see Z also responded, so I'll check that out.

[Zarathustra]

Cail, I'm surprised you are doubling down on the strawman criticism.

Straw man: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

I don't think there is anything weak at all about my robot example, and I'm not trying to defeat it. Sure, it's a hypothetical, but not every hypothetical is a strawman--especially if it's a hypothetical that illustrates my position rather than mischaracterizing yours. If I called your position the "clump of cells" position, that would be a strawman. I recognize that you're talking about more than any old clump of cells. Instead, I am quite accurately pointing out that you attribute "human being" to a human organism that has no brain. That's a fact. It's also a fact that you do this for a fertilized egg, but you wouldn't do this for a person who had his brain removed. A fully formed human body without a brain is not a person. It's a body. Yet you say an underdeveloped body without a brain is a person. That inconsistency is what I'm pointing out with my example. You're avoiding it because your position has no possible response to it. It devastates your argument.

[Cail]

Cail, I'm surprised you are doubling down on the strawman criticism.

Straw man: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

I don't think there is anything weak at all about my robot example, and I'm not trying to defeat it. Sure, it's a hypothetical, but not every hypothetical is a strawman--especially if it's a hypothetical that illustrates my position rather than mischaracterizing yours. If I called your position the "clump of cells" position, that would be a strawman. I recognize that you're talking about more than any old clump of cells. Instead, I am quite accurately pointing out that you attribute "human being" to a human organism that has no brain. That's a fact. It's also a fact that you do this for a fertilized egg, but you wouldn't do this for a person who had his brain removed. A fully formed human body without a brain is not a person. It's a body. Yet you say an underdeveloped body without a brain is a person. That inconsistency is what I'm pointing out with my example. You're avoiding it because your position has no possible response to it. It devastates your argument.

No, it's not a fact, it's an uninteresting tangent. An adult human with his brain removed and placed in a robot is a very different circumstance than a developing human child who's brain function increases on a daily basis.


It's illegal to kill, fuck, or marry an adult human body without a brain, living or dead. Why should a developing child be treated with any less dignity?

[Zarathustra]

I think it's a lot more interesting than hypothetically sterilizing every male 16 or older. Head and/or brain transplants will happen this century. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

I think that when considering what it means to be human--a challenge that should be inherently interesting to all humans--it is necessary to consider the most extreme examples possible. How far can we press the concept? What are the bare minimum requirements? What are the upper limits (if any)?

I personally don't know the laws concerning adult bodies without brains. But one thing seems pretty clear: it is not murder to terminate the life of a brainless body. It might be illegal, I'll have to take your word on that, but it's not the same as killing you or me.

I'm differentiating between human life and human being. Every cell in your body is alive and has your DNA. That doesn't make every cell in your body a human being.

Ahh this chestnut. It sure doesn't, and I've never made that claim. This is as morally disingenuous as equating a baby to a tumor.

I'm not equating a baby to a tumor (that's a lot closer to a strawman). I'm making the point that your definition isn't sufficiently clear to distinguish between one group of cells with human DNA and another. What is it about a fertilized egg with human DNA that makes it different from any other human cell(s)? You can take any human somatic cell and make a clone from it, i.e. a fully developed human. You don't need sperm + egg.

So, again, how does your definition protect you against the "clump of cells" argument? Not every cell is a human, but virtually any cell can be turned into a human ... just like the fertilized egg will turn into a human. Therefore, the "potential to become a fully developed human" is not sufficient to label any particular cell(s) a human being.

You'll have to make your definition a little tighter to eliminate calling every cell in your body a human being.

[Cail]

I think it's a lot more interesting than hypothetically sterilizing every male 16 or older. Head and/or brain transplants will happen this century. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Well yeah, the sterilization thing isn't going to happen. And there's an interesting discussion to be had regarding what happens when we start becoming cybernetic. And I suppose that a conversation about the existence of a soul belongs somewhere in there as well.

But those conversations have very little to do with the human gestational process. Without negative intervention, an in utero child's natural developmental process produces the brain and the consciousness that you're placing so much stock in. If the law protects people who's brains and consciousness will never recover, why shouldn't it protect people who's brains and consciousness are still developing and maturing?

I think that when considering what it means to be human--a challenge that should be inherently interesting to all humans--it is necessary to consider the most extreme examples possible. How far can we press the concept? What are the bare minimum requirements? What are the upper limits (if any)?

Again, no argument here. My concern is that we end up down the garden path of what if? rather than what is patently self-evident.

I personally don't know the laws concerning adult bodies without brains. But one thing seems pretty clear: it is not murder to terminate the life of a brainless body. It might be illegal, I'll have to take your word on that, but it's not the same as killing you or me.

Doing what I do, I know an awful lot about what you can and can't do with a dead body.

A person is not legally dead until declared dead by a doctor. Brain death is not somatic death, as the body itself is still alive, albeit being kept so by machine. The law is fuzzy about this, and it varies by state. This is an older article, but it does talk about the complications involved in declaring death.

Regardless, a prenatal child isn't brainless; it's brain is developing over time. If you want to hang your hat on that, then any legal attempt to abort a "brainless" baby could be hamstrung by a few weeks of delay in a courtroom.

Regarding my definition of life, it's perfectly clear, and no "clump of cells" argument can stand. We're not talking about cloning, we're talking about the natural progression of the human gestational cycle.

Edited to add - There's a massive conversation regarding the ethics of human cloning that's to be had. This isn't it, as it's a distinct issue.

[Rawedge Rim]

a few thoughts from a somewhat "Far Right" Catholic:

1. whether it's contraception in the water or nanotech, it is still verbotten to those who wish to remain Catholic. One can argue that the Church is stuck in the middle ages still; but frankly I believe it's idiotic to tell an organization that it needs to change it's stance when membership is 100% voluntary.

2. earlier remark about Catholics allowed to be Masons.....sorry, not permissible at this time. Check Canon Law on subject.

3. While it is still impossible to scientifically test for the existance of a soul, I and billions of others believe in one, and since I really don't know at what point the soul becomes part of the human, I'm defering to conception, so any action whose purpose it is to end a human, even from the moment of conception, is an act of homocide.

4. While I fully admit that having to carry a child to term that resulted from the act of rape is a terrible burden on the rape victim.....it is a burden that has an end, and the trauma of both the rape and bearing the resulting child can be recovered from in time. Killing the child just because of the reason it came into being is permanent, and cannot be recovered from. The child will remain dead no matter how much time and therapy is involved.

5. Similar argument for cases of incest, though in some cases the person may not have any problem with the act itself, just the stigma of having said child as a result of said union.

6. Be careful of under what conditions a human being continues to be a human being. On the surface it sounds great to equate brain function to humaness. It starts with "no brain function no humanity" and it progress' in time, with the best (or worse) intentions, to "reduced brain function", to "unacceptably low brain function". If this happens you definately don't want to be "Charlie" from "Flowers for Algernon".

7. Seems to me that the only person who is being held ultimately responsible for bad judgement or bad luck is the only innocent party involved, which is the unborn child.

8. Back on sterilization; do you really want to have to go to the courts and petition them for permission to have a child? What would be the criteria used to judge the worthiness of a person to be allowed to conceive? The abililty to love the child....okay. But what if we upped the ante to the ability to feed the child only approved healthy foods, dress them the latest fashions, or belong only to approved religions and other organizations (such as the Masons), or the ability to send a kid to medium college? Or maybe you pissed off a local politician and they petition the courts to deny your applicatoin. How about if they decide that one is all you get when you wanted three?

[Vraith]

No one is saying that the brain isn't something like the CPU...just that when you say it is where the "I" REALLY "is" you're making a mistake.

And I see Z also responded, so I'll check that out.

Feel free. You can reopen the conversation there so we don't derail this thread.
But what you quoted doesn't mean what you're saying it means.
A computer without an audio card is till a computer...just a DIFFERENT one.
A computer without a CPU [or a CPU that isn't doing what CPU's DO] isn't a computer at all.
[[[loose analogy people, you get the point, don't go all fuckity on what it doesn't do which it isn't intended to do.]]]

[TheFallen]

Good discussion! One that's been had before several times, but absolutely no harm in that.

Cail's position - being absolutist - is easily defined and on its own central tenet logically unassailable. Life begins at the moment of fertilisation simply because from that very moment, barring no mishaps and presuming a normal and natural course of events, the result will be a fully-fledged human BEING. It's about the inevitable potential of becoming. That's undeniable. And yet I disagree.

My (and I believe Z's) position - being relativist - is nigh on impossible to clearly define and thus equally impossible to logically justify in any cut and dried fashion. And yet it makes more sense to me - but I admit that this may be because of moral cowardice and/or deliberately specious reasoning on my part for the sake of convenience. I really don't know.

I am taken with Z's distinction between life and being - his use of the term "Dasein" was particularly appropriate, I think.

Or to use a particularly poor analogy, but one that relates to potentiality not being the same as actuality, if I'd stolen every single paintbrush in Italy back in 1503, can I be held to have destroyed the Mona Lisa? Sure, I'd have prevented it from coming into being - but is that as morally reprehensible as setting fire to the finished masterpiece?

Damn but on this one, it's hard to see where reasonable justification ends and sophistry starts...

[Zarathustra]

Regardless, a prenatal child isn't brainless; it's brain is developing over time. If you want to hang your hat on that, then any legal attempt to abort a "brainless" baby could be hamstrung by a few weeks of delay in a courtroom.

Ok, that's a good rebuttal to my argument. However, barring courtroom delays, isn't there some period where we can say there is no brain? It's not a "developing brain" from day 1, surely.

Regarding my definition of life, it's perfectly clear, and no "clump of cells" argument can stand. We're not talking about cloning, we're talking about the natural progression of the human gestational cycle.

Edited to add - There's a massive conversation regarding the ethics of human cloning that's to be had. This isn't it, as it's a distinct issue.

But I could have just as easily said, "This isn't a discussion about comatose people, retarded people, etc. You are doing the same thing I'm doing: pushing the boundaries of my definition by bringing up cases that have nothing to do with abortion, but point to areas where my definition would (seemingly) encounter problems. That's why I bring up cloning. Your definition seems murky because you'll admit on the one hand that human cells with human DNA are not human beings in one case--despite the fact that they could potentially develop into human beings--but are human beings in the case of a fertilized egg. The issue of technology required to coax human cells into developing into a human can't be the distinguishing factor, because sometimes pregnancy and the viability of the fetus depends upon technology, too.

So, without getting into the ethics of cloning, I'm curious how you distinguish these two cases. "A group of cells with human DNA that will develop into a human" isn't specific enough.

Listen, as I've said, I used to draw the line at conception, too (which is probably rare for atheists). I'm not a zealot when it comes to this line. My mind is open. I changed it once, I can change it again.

Damn but on this one, it's hard to see where reasonable justification ends and sophistry starts...

Robots, cloning, nanobots, Mona Lisa ... we're obviously not worried about sophistry here. Why limit a good discussion with such concerns?

[Skyweir]

Again nice post TF

You have astutely captured the dilemma of the pro choice perspective. Yet I suspect you, nor perhaps anyone, can truly assist the pro life POV

.. particularly RRs Catholic sensibilities .. coz it would seem sexual abstinence is the sole viable option on the table. However, that does not, nor will it ever reflect reality. I feel certain that there are even Catholics who have and will continue to engage in pre and extra marital sexual Congress. So seems abstinence is not only unrealistic but hypocritical to boot.

Abstinence has never been, nor will ever be a effectual counter to abortion. So lets put that out there.

So whats left, contraception or abortion. Out of the two, contraception would seem to be the lesser philosophical evil.

Z, Cail and TF have addressed some of the key issues with abortion. And although I am more persuaded by Z and TFs arguments .. kudos to both of you btw .. I believe Cail identifies a number of significant issues that no one has yet adequately countered.

So contraception. As has been pointed out there are and would be intractable obstacles from a legal perspective with notions of mandated contraception .. obviously.

So the solution rests entirely on education and voluntary use of contraceptives ... as we have now

Abortion numbers are declining as people embrace voluntarily safe sex practices, carrying condoms, taking the pill, IUDs etc. Having parents support and teach their children about safe sex, like Hashi did with his daughter.

I think doing these things will further reduce the numbers of women seeking abortion, until it is no longer even a thing

[Rawedge Rim]

Again nice post TF

.. particularly RRs Catholic sensibilities .. coz it would seem sexual abstinence is the sole viable option on the table. However, that does not, nor will it ever reflect reality. I feel certain that there are even Catholics who have and will continue to engage in pre and extra marital sexual Congress. So seems abstinence is not only unrealistic but hypocritical to boot.

It reflects reality, and is 100% effective when utilized (works for STD's also, but that's another discussion),but I do agree that there are not enough people willing to abstain until ready for children. Don't see how it's hypocritical at all. Some folks are abstinent, some aren't, and some who weren't warn those who haven't made a decision that way (same way a current or former smoker may warn a non-smoker about the hazards of smoking).

Abstinence has never been, nor will ever be a effectual counter to abortion. So lets put that out there.

So whats left, contraception or abortion. Out of the two, contraception would seem to be the lesser philosophical evil.

Abstinence from murder has never been, nor ever will be an effectual counter to killing. So lets put that out there. Nor will asking for abstinence from stealing be a counter for theft.

Funny though, seems like abstinence from alcohol and drugs and gamblingdoes seem to be a counter for that abuse.

Having said the above, IF one puts a gun to my head and has me pick one, then certainly contraception is a better choice than abortion 100% of the time. But it's like saying that drinking sugar free coke is better than drinking regular coke. (and there is some argument about that)

Z, Cail and TF have addressed some of the key issues with abortion. And although I am more persuaded by Z and TFs arguments .. kudos to both of you btw .. I believe Cail identifies a number of significant issues that no one has yet adequately countered.

So contraception. As has been pointed out there are and would be intractable obstacles from a legal perspective with notions of mandated contraception .. obviously.

So the solution rests entirely on education and voluntary use of contraceptives ... as we have now

Abortion numbers are declining as people embrace voluntarily safe sex practices, carrying condoms, taking the pill, IUDs etc. Having parents support and teach their children about safe sex, like Hashi did with his daughter.

I think doing these things will further reduce the numbers of women seeking abortion, until it is no longer even a thing

All of those things have been available even prior to RvW, and that did not reduce the numbers of abortions, primarily because of the side effects of various birth control pills, IUDS, Norplants, etc., condom failure, or the unwillingness to use one, or irresponsibility of the young and not so young concerning using the above for "safe sex".

It was changing societies views on abortion that has lowered the number of procedures, and restricting when it is permitted.[/b]

[Fist and Faith]

So, without getting into the ethics of cloning, I'm curious how you distinguish these two cases. "A group of cells with human DNA that will develop into a human" isn't specific enough.

In Scenario 1, the group of cells WILL, if left alone, if nature takes its course as it does literally countless times every day with countless species, develop into a human. That is the function of that group of cells.

In Scenario 2, the group of cells will absolutely definitely NOT develop into a human. Not without specific, intentional interference by humans who have that exact goal in mind, and are using knowledge and technology developed for that exact reason.

Do you really see no difference?

I doubt anyone sees spilled blood, or a severed finger, or someone spitting, and thinks it's murder to NOT try to make clones.

Do you have any moral issue with someone digging up a turtle nest on the beach and crushing the eggs?

Should someone who punches a pregnant woman in the stomach because he wants her to miscarry, and she does miscarry because of the punch, be charged with nothing more than if he had punched a guy in the stomach?

[Zarathustra]

Do you really see no difference?

Yes, I see a difference. That difference is the source of my reductio ad absurdum: they are vastly different scenarios that both lead to humans. So how can Cail say one is human and the other is not? Does this difference mean a clone is not a human? When does it become a human? When the egg is artificially fertilized with the DNA from another cell? But if a sperm cell isn't necessary, then the union of sperm and egg isn't the definitive criterion.

Also, does this difference mean that any human produced by the artificial fertilization of an egg isn't really human? "Test tube babies" aren't human? If they are, then why not clones? And if clones are, then why aren't the cells that form them originally?

Do you have any moral issue with someone digging up a turtle nest on the beach and crushing the eggs?

Other than the unnecessary conversion of order into chaos? No. I think life and order are better than death and destruction. But I don't think this value system necessarily implies any moral or ethical view. I think morality and ethics only define interactions between humans, and everything else in the environment only matters in relation to humans, since we are the most important and fantastic thing we know of in this universe ... and we are the ones who make up morality. Without us, there literally is no right and wrong.

Should someone who punches a pregnant woman in the stomach because he wants her to miscarry, and she does miscarry because of the punch, be charged with nothing more than if he had punched a guy in the stomach?

If there is a brain, it's murder whether the mother or some gut puncher does it. If there is no brain, then he is guilty of assaulting the mother and destroying her fetus. While that isn't murder, it's still pretty damn bad and should be punished with consequences specific to that. It's worse than the destruction of mere property, worse than merely assault, but still not murder. Within our laws, I'm sure we could carve out some punishment between those extremes in proportion to the crime.

[Cail]

4. While I fully admit that having to carry a child to term that resulted from the act of rape is a terrible burden on the rape victim.....it is a burden that has an end, and the trauma of both the rape and bearing the resulting child can be recovered from in time. Killing the child just because of the reason it came into being is permanent, and cannot be recovered from. The child will remain dead no matter how much time and therapy is involved.

Lots of good discussion here, but I want to address this point again, because it is the chink in my armor.

RR is absolutely correct in his position here. The reason I can't in good conscience agree with it is due to the lack of consent. I would bet, that in a conversation over a few cocktails, the difference in his position and mine is his faith. As I've said in numerous conversations, I can't lean on faith to inform me of any of my sociopolitical opinions. Abortion is the taking of a human life, period. In this one instance, I consider it justifiable homicide based solely on the fact that the conception wasn't consensual.

Zar, there is a point where there is no brain, but this is a distinct difference from a traumatic brain injury in an adult. In that case, there's no hope of recovery. In the case of a prenatal child, the brain will develop given time. The difference is potential, or hope, if you will.

And given that pregnancy is 100% preventable.....I don't see the need for abortion.

[Avatar]

IThat embryo is a human being in every sense of the word--it isn't some other species--

Surely not in every sense of the word? Biologically, yes, but not psychologically or socially or intellectually nor even, at that early stage, physiologically.

--A

[Skyweir]

mmm... interesting value add Av ..

It really isnt in EVERY sense of the word, is it

I think Cails point re rape victims is totally on point. And I fully agree with that perspective.

RR your points about abstinence are noted but you probably know I wasnt referring to the literal efficacy of abstinence in preventing pregnancy. Cos yeah .. affective. LOL

My point is that its not a reasonable expectation of young or old today.

And I truly think there are a suite of reasons abortion rates are declining .. that include education, greater openness with regard to sexuality, masturbation and more effective parenting .. as we no longer belong to the generation that broadly refused to discuss sexuality at all, let alone contraception .... and better and more comprehensive understanding of abortion.

And FistnFaith .. although I dont agree with your perspective .. your last post was brilliant and hilarious .. touche .

But I think Av has introduced some additional points that have not been addressed. Kudos anyhoo

[TheFallen]

Z, let's clarify here.

You (presumably) have no issue with Cail's chosen and very clearly stated definition. A fertilised human embryo is an unmistakably distinct and defined thing.

So you've got no issues with the "what" - even though you (and I) don't agree with that as an establishment point for the start of human rights.

Your issues seem to revolve around the "why just that?" part - and yes, I absolutely acknowledge your use of reductio ad absurdum (big fan here).

Not that this is necessarily an issue for this particular thread, but I'd suspect that Cail would say that a cloned human acquired the exact same rights at the exact same point - namely from the point when, if things went along their planned course without mishap, the result would be a fully-fledged human being.

Again I'm drawn to note the comparative ease of definition and thus justification for absolutists, compared to the nightmarish difficulty of the same for relativists (like me). Black and white is so much simpler.... but it doesn't mean that a black and white view is necessarily correct...

...or indeed incorrect for that matter. Hell, WTFDIK.

[Fist and Faith]

Do you really see no difference?

Yes, I see a difference. That difference is the source of my reductio ad absurdum: they are vastly different scenarios that both lead to humans. So how can Cail say one is human and the other is not? Does this difference mean a clone is not a human? When does it become a human? When the egg is artificially fertilized with the DNA from another cell? But if a sperm cell isn't necessary, then the union of sperm and egg isn't the definitive criterion.

Also, does this difference mean that any human produced by the artificial fertilization of an egg isn't really human? "Test tube babies" aren't human? If they are, then why not clones? And if clones are, then why aren't the cells that form them originally?

You are not comparing equal things. You are comparing the fertilized egg with the, say, severed finger. You should be comparing the fertilized egg with the cells of said finger that have been worked on and are now growing into a human. Or you should be comparing the egg & sperm with the severed finger. If you don't compare equal things, you could say it's murder to split a carbon atom, since it is so important to life. I don't want to speak for Cail, but I suspect he would agree with me that, after the finger's cells have been tinkered with, and there is a clump of cells that is indistinguishable from a fertilized egg and is developing in the ways that humans develop, it is human.

Do you have any moral issue with someone digging up a turtle nest on the beach and crushing the eggs?

Other than the unnecessary conversion of order into chaos? No. I think life and order are better than death and destruction. But I don't think this value system necessarily implies any moral or ethical view. I think morality and ethics only define interactions between humans, and everything else in the environment only matters in relation to humans, since we are the most important and fantastic thing we know of in this universe ... and we are the ones who make up morality. Without us, there literally is no right and wrong.

I agree that we are the most important and fantastic think we know of in the universe. (And we will not find anything more important, even if we find something more fantastic.) But I think we are worthless filth if we treat other life with disdain. (Which was clearly what was happening in my scenario. I obviously wasn't talking about scenarios where some disease was in the nests in the area, and they all had to be destroyed; or we were building a hospital on the site, so anything there was necessarily being destroyed; etc. I was talking about somebody crushing eggs because it's fun.) Yes, like many other species of life, we live off of other life. We eat other life. And, when it comes to us or them, we are more important. But other life forms can't comprehend the concepts of this conversation. They can't consider whether or not it's morally wrong to treat other life with disdain. Only we can. And, IMO, it is wrong to do so. I think these kinds of questions are a very big, important part of what it means to be human, and I find much more worth in us when they are answered one way than when they are answered another way. The aliens in Independence Day answered this question the wrong way. They were evil.

Should someone who punches a pregnant woman in the stomach because he wants her to miscarry, and she does miscarry because of the punch, be charged with nothing more than if he had punched a guy in the stomach?

If there is a brain, it's murder whether the mother or some gut puncher does it. If there is no brain, then he is guilty of assaulting the mother and destroying her fetus. While that isn't murder, it's still pretty damn bad and should be punished with consequences specific to that. It's worse than the destruction of mere property, worse than merely assault, but still not murder. Within our laws, I'm sure we could carve out some punishment between those extremes in proportion to the crime.

OK. I disagree, but you are consistent.

[Cail]

I honestly haven't thought about human cloning and how human rights work with clones. Someone should start a thread about that, because I literally have no clue what I think about that.