"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[alwight]

1) A zygote is the beginning of new human life.

Depends again on what exactly is meant here by "human life".
Life organically of human origin? Yes.
A human person? Not imo.
All new human lives start with a zygote, most zygotes however do not become a new human life.

 

[gcthomas]

I've made two factual statements. Can you dispute them?

1) A zygote is the beginning of new human life.
2) The lives of innocent humans should be protected by law.

You have used two different meanings of the word human, and the rhetorical trick is essential to your argument.

In (1) you use it an an adjective, to describe the nature of the 'life', as in a human life, where life is the noun. I agree a zygote is living tissue and has human origins, so the statement is true in that limited sense.

In (2) you use human as a noun which has a different meaning, as in a human, an individual person, so it does not lead logically from the first statement.

I can agree with the first statement AND the second, but that does not lead onto believing that the zygote must be protected as a human.

Please. I have answered the same question over and over, with a rationale and justification. I don't expect you to agree, but I am somewhat surprised that you cannot even understand what I am saying in clear English, unless you do understand but think that playing word games will win the argument without having to justify your own position.

 

[WizardofOz]

Depends again on what exactly is meant here by "human life".
Life organically of human origin? Yes.
A human person? Not imo.
All new human lives start with a zygote, most zygotes however do not become a new human life.

You're attempting to make "human" and "person" mean the exact same thing. A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like human fetus or human baby) and is human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo).

A human (adjective) zygote is a living human (noun). This is factually and etymologically indisputable.

Or, if it's not human, what is it? Please classify it for me.

You have used two different meanings of the word human, and the rhetorical trick is essential to your argument.

See above. A human zygote is human (noun and adjective). If it's not human, what is it? Please classify it for me.

In (1) you use it an an adjective, to describe the nature of the 'life', as in a human life, where life is the noun. I agree a zygote is living tissue and has human origins, so the statement is true in that limited sense.

In (2) you use human as a noun which has a different meaning, as in a human, an individual person, so it does not lead logically from the first statement.

You, too, are trying to make the term "human" indistinguishable from the term "person". You're using them interchangeably.

Or, what is the difference between a "person" and a "human" (2)?

I can agree with the first statement AND the second, but that does not lead onto believing that the zygote must be protected as a human.

It is a human but shouldn't be protected as a human, because?.....

Please. I have answered the same question over and over, with a rationale and justification. I don't expect you to agree, but I am somewhat surprised that you cannot even understand what I am saying in clear English, unless you do understand but think that playing word games will win the argument without having to justify your own position.

I am positing concise definitions not left to the whims of individual (see arbitrary/subjective) philosophy. Playing word games would attempting to base the debate what constitutes "personhood".

It's a semantic wild goose chase.

 

[gcthomas]

It is a human but shouldn't be protected as a human, because?.....

That is the exact opposite of what I said, even with the extended definition of my terms.

To avoid any complex or subjective terms at all so you will understand:

The early foetus does not qualify for human rights due to a lack of the physical properties I require for those rights to be meaningful in their application.

A later stage foetus might.

The exact transition from the former to latter state is unclear, but it cannot be earlier than 18 weeks.

It might be much later, but not earlier. This earliest limit is specific and precise. It is not arbitrary, but is based on the development of the foetus. The choice of using development stage is a personal decision, but one that is reasoned and reasonable.

The choice of day zero is reasonable but arbitrary, based as it is on a particular and not universally held biblical interpretation.

 

[WizardofOz]

To avoid any complex or subjective terms at all so you will understand:

The early foetus does not qualify for human rights due to a lack of the physical properties I require for those rights to be meaningful in their application.

A later stage foetus might.

The exact transition from the former to latter state is unclear, but it cannot be earlier than 18 weeks.

Lets have a closer look at a 17-week-old fetus then, a human whom you feel can be indiscriminately killed, and the physical properties they possess.

What your baby looks like -- 17 weeks

source

15 to 20 weeks

It might be much later, but not earlier. This earliest limit is specific and precise. It is not arbitrary, but is based on the development of the foetus.

Of which fetus? Each one develops at different levels/speed. You might be allowing a 17-week-old fetus to be killed that is more developed than an 18-week-old fetus that you feel should be protected.

What is the major difference you perceive between a fetus that is 18 weeks along versus one that is 17 weeks and 6 days along? How certain are you that this perceived difference is significant enough to declare one not worth protecting while declaring the next worth protecting?

Explain how your value judgement isn't special pleading. All innocent human life should be protected by law, unless.....because....

The choice of using development stage is a personal decision, but one that is reasoned and reasonable.

Sure, based on your definition of reasoned and reasonable.

How about adoption? Isn't this a more reasoned and reasonable decision? Why not support it as such?

The choice of day zero is reasonable but arbitrary, based as it is on a particular and not universally held biblical interpretation.

What bible verse(s) are you referring to? Please quote them so the pro-life atheists on TOL can better explain the strawman you're presenting.

 

[Stripe]

Nope. Wrong again. Try reading: it helps the flow of a discussion if you pay attention to what has been written. (If you think otherwise, I'd be pleased if you would link to my offending post)

the real date should not be before 18 weeks.

All you do is post some vague disagreement so you can dodge the challenge made against you.

At about 20 weeks you think personhood begins. But even after that date you will not do a thing to stop the execution of what even you confess to be tiny children.

 

[alwight]

Depends again on what exactly is meant here by "human life".
Life organically of human origin? Yes.
A human person? Not imo.
All new human lives start with a zygote, most zygotes however do not become a new human life.

You're attempting to make "human" and "person" mean the exact same thing. A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like human fetus or human baby) and is human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo).

No I’m not, quite the opposite in fact. I simply say that there are two contextual ways to consider it or indeed fudging it, rather as you perhaps try to do more than me. Are we talking about a human as a person or biological matter of human origin? I suspect that indeed it’s you rather than me who would like to confuse them and don’t really want there to be that quite distinct difference. Perhaps for the sake of not wanting to permit easy access to the thin end of the “pro-choicer’s” wedge, as you might see it, am I wrong?

A human (adjective) zygote is a living human (noun). This is factually and etymologically indisputable.

Or, if it's not human, what is it? Please classify it for me.

Well I’m seeing that you still want to fudge it.
Do you actually mean “a” human or a human zygote?
The latter imo means being of human origin but does not actually imply “a” human person while the unqualified former may well usually suggest that.
We perhaps should be clearer exactly what the context actually is each time, are you game?

 

[WizardofOz]

Semantic gambit

Semantic gambit

Are we talking about a human as a person or biological matter of human origin?

Does human = person? What is the difference between a "human" (in your first example) and a "person"? Are they somehow interchangeable?

When does the "biological matter of human origin" become a "human"? Does it ironically occur at the exact same time that the matter is first considered a "person"? Or, is there a threshold the matter crosses from a human to a person and or vice versa?

It's quite a web we're weaving to determine when a living human (organism, can we agree on that description at least?) should be given legal protection against bring electively killed without recourse or due process of any kind.

Do you actually mean “a” human or a human zygote?

The latter imo means being of human origin but does not actually imply “a” human person while the unqualified former may well usually suggest that.
We perhaps should be clearer exactly what the context actually is each time, are you game?

You're arguing that there is a difference between a human and a human person? :AMR:

A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like a human fetus or a human baby) and is a human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo).

If it's not human, what is it? Is it's not a human, what is it?

I am game for your starting by answering those questions.

Will you insist that a human zygote is not yet human? Or, will you insist that a human zygote is not yet a human? Because either will just make me chuckle.

It's philosophical semantic dribble.

 

[gcthomas]

Lets have a closer look at a 17-week-old fetus then, a human whom you feel can be indiscriminately killed, and the physical properties they possess.

What your baby looks like -- 17 weeks

Of which fetus? Each one develops at different levels/speed. You might be allowing a 17-week-old fetus to be killed that is more developed than an 18-week-old fetus that you feel should be protected.

What is the major difference you perceive between a fetus that is 18 weeks along versus one that is 17 weeks and 6 days along? How certain are you that this perceived difference is significant enough to declare one not worth protecting while declaring the next worth protecting?

Explain how your value judgement isn't special pleading. All innocent human life should be protected by law, unless.....because....



Sure, based on your definition of reasoned and reasonable.

How about adoption? Isn't this a more reasoned and reasonable decision? Why not support it as such?



What bible verse(s) are you referring to? Please quote them so the pro-life atheists on TOL can better explain the strawman you're presenting.

The differences between a 17 week and an 18 week foetus are incremental. Can you not have a nuanced discussion, so have to try to make everything a black and white statement? Why do we think a lad 1 day short of his 17th birthday is not mature enough to have a raft of rights, buy a day later we let him fight and die in the army? What sudden difference has happened in him? Incremental changes. The 18 year date for adulthood is not entirely arbitrary, since we don't give adult freedoms to five-year-olds. Why can you not apply the same reasoning in this thread?

Adoption is a good alternative to elective abortions. Obviously. But I am not arguing for elective abortions, which are technically illegal in the UK, but for abortions for medical reasons.

On the biblical interpretation: since almost all the anti-abortion crowd are Christian groups, then the bible is what they have in common. If your position is not indicated by the bible, then why not explain the reasons for not allowing abortions at all. WHY do you believe that a week old foetus should be considered fully human?

All we have had here is arguments of the form "of course it is and you'd be cruel/evil/stupid not to agree". If you have any further non-rhetorical justifications, try explaining them. I am interested in reasoned opinions.

 

[Stripe]

The differences between a 17 week and an 18 week foetus are incremental.

You spelt "arbitrary" wrong.

Can you not have a nuanced discussion, so have to try to make everything a black and white statement?

Nuances serve only to help you hide from the truth. At conception what we have is a living human person. To you, however, personhood means nothing. Even after your arbitrary line you would still ignore babies killed in the womb.

Why do we thing a lad 1 day short of his 17th birthday is not mature enough to have a raft of Rita, buy a day later we let him fight and die in the army? What sudden difference has happened in him?

There's nothing wrong with fighting in the army. There is something wrong with abortion.

Incremental changes. The 18 year date for adulthood is not entirely arbitrary, since we don't give adult freedoms to five-year-olds. Why can you not apply the same reasoning in this thread?

You're not qualified to judge what is reasonable.

Adoption is a good alternative to elective abortions. Obviously. But I am not arguing for elective abortions, which are technically illegal in the UK, but for abortions for medical reasons.

No such thing.

There is never a need to stop delivery in order to kill.

On the biblical interpretation: since almost all the anti-abortion crowd are Christian groups, then the bible is what they have in common. If your position is not indicated by e bible, then why not explain the reasons for not allowing abortions at all. WHY do you believe that a week old foetus should be considered fully human?

Oh, you want to hear the facts behind conception again?

Very well. At conception the two parts from mother and father unite to form a new human individual. He has his own DNA, his own gender and all the parts required to grow into an adult. All he needs is time, sustenance and protection.

This is the only rational point for the term "personhood" to begin for new people. Anything else is just arbitrary with made up delineation factors.

All we have had here is arguments of the form "of course it is and you'd be cruel/evil/stupid not to agree". If you have any further non-rhetorical justifications, try explaining them. I am interested in reasoned opinions.

Rubbish.

You're devoted to see babies killed in the womb.

 

[alwight]

Are we talking about a human as a person or biological matter of human origin?

Does human = person? What is the difference between a "human" (in your first example) and a "person"? Are they somehow interchangeable?

When does the "biological matter of human origin" become a "human"? Does it ironically occur at the exact same time that the matter is first considered a "person"? Or, is there a threshold the matter crosses from a human to a person and or vice versa?

It's quite a web we're weaving to determine when a living human (organism, can we agree on that description at least?) should be given legal protection against bring electively killed without recourse or due process of any kind.

How long is a piece of string? A dog will have a personality, is it a person? A “person” afaic is specifically about the concept we usually apply to a human being but not to human tissue, but there is imo just not enough context in “Does human = person?” to make a sensible comment about it. Do you want to fudge it?
Why don’t you just tell me specifically whether you think a human person exists in each zygote? Can we not agree that there is no physical or biological reason at least to conclude that a personality; that we might both understand to be a human personality, has any means to exist in the context of a zygote?

Do you actually mean “a” human or a human zygote?

The latter imo means being of human origin but does not actually imply “a” human person while the unqualified former may well usually suggest that.
We perhaps should be clearer exactly what the context actually is each time, are you game?

You're arguing that there is a difference between a human and a human person? :AMR:

No I’m clearly not if you are using the context of “a” human (being) as here, which you now seem to be switching to, while other times you seem to want to interchange, fudge and blur what we are actually talking about.
Isn’t this contextual issue actually something fairly obvious, unless you perhaps don’t want to be clear? :think:

A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like a human fetus or a human baby) and is a human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo).

If it's not human, what is it? Is it's not a human, what is it?

I am game for your starting by answering those questions.

Will you insist that a human zygote is not yet human? Or, will you insist that a human zygote is not yet a human? Because either will just make me chuckle.

It's philosophical semantic dribble.

Then make it clear, rather than fudging it, by what specifically you mean by “human” then I may be able to separate a human person from say a human toe nail clipping for you.
But if it helps, I think a human zygote has much in common with any other such human organic material which too is often naturally disposed of, but nothing at all in common with a person.

 

[gcthomas]

This is the only rational point for the term "personhood" to begin for new people. Anything else is just arbitrary with made up delineation factors.

Rubbish.

You're devoted to see babies killed in the womb.

It is always fun to see your legalistic rhetorical fourishes. The trick of trying to paint me as a despicable, irrational monster just so that you don't have to properly address the issues is politically common. (Just look at how that trick was used to turn Saddam Hussain from a US ally into a monster to be destroyed, or how the Nazis managed to get the Jews treated as subhuman for the gas chambers)

If you have followed my posts, and actually tried to understand what I write instead of looking for chinks to attack, then you'd know I do not like the idea of abortions, that I don't support elective abortions, that I'd like to see more adoptions of full term babies, but that I am in favour of contraceptives to reduce population growth and unwanted babies.

But, I do not agree that there are good reasons to stop medically indicated abortions.

My view is the predominant one in many countries. If anyone wants that to change, telling the doctors and legislators they are crazy and irrational will get you nowhere, so my side wins, and has won, by default.

How will you change tactics to achieve what you want, Stripe? Any ideas at all?

 

[Stripe]

It is always fun to see your legalistic rhetorical fourishes. The trick of trying to paint me as a despicable, irrational monster just so that you don't have to properly address the issues is politically common. (Just look at how that trick was used to turn Saddam Hussain from a US ally into a monster to be destroyed, or how the Nazis managed to get the Jews treated as subhuman for the gas chambers)

Yeah, well Saddam actually was a genocidal tyrant and the Nazi treatment of the Jews was based upon denying personhood.

Sound familiar?

If you have followed my posts, and actually tried to understand what I write instead of looking for chinks to attack, then you'd know I do not like the idea of abortions, that I don't support elective abortions, that I'd like to see more adoptions of full term babies, but that I am in favour of contraceptives to reduce population growth and unwanted babies.

As nice and reasonable as you can make yourself sound, it is all made completely irrelevant by the fact that you support a mothers right to terminate he baby in even one situation.

And you do. Even after you confess personhood, you still think women should be allowed to kill their babies.

But, I do not agree that there are good reasons to stop medically indicated abortions.

What? :AMR:

My view is the predominant one in many countries. If anyone wants that to change, telling the doctors and legislators they are crazy and irrational will get you nowhere, so my side wins, and has won, by default.

As irrational as your argument is, I bet it worked well against Bonhoeffer as well.

How will you change tactics to achieve what you want, Stripe? Any ideas at all?

Tactics are irrelevant in a discussion of what is true. The truth remains true no matter how undiplomatic I am and no matter how many people disagree with me.

You need to try a rational argument. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

And you do. Even after you confess personhood, you still think women should be allowed to kill their babies.

You have claimed I 'confess personhood' a lot of times now. Can you link to where I have done that? I have never said it, and you should stop writing what is not true. I expect you to have the integrity to retract untrue statements.

And you are continuing the rhetoric, referring to a foetus as a baby, when the word baby usually has the meaning of a young infant. Of course no one can agree to kill their babies, so that should obviously extend to unborn babies. why don't you argue without the politicians' rhetorical tricks?

It is interesting that you say tactics are irrelevant. Surely achieving the objective is the priority. It is not, then, speaking truth that should be what you aim for, but convincing others of your idea of he truth. At the moment, what I see from you is a mix of rhetoric and assertion. It doesn't help your position that Christians in different places and times have had a variety of positions of the value of a foetus, some of which closely match mine.

Are you really happy to argue to score points without worrying about the likelihood of being convincing?

 

[mighty_duck]

WoO,

The last few pages seem to be going in circles with the definition games. While it may seem to you that all this "person" business is nothing but legalistic sophistry, I feel it is you who are the one engaged in the very thing you would accuse us of.

To make it simpler, here are the people we want to give rights to:

Here is something we don't want to give rights to:

Please convince us that we should change our minds regarding the last one.
So far, your argument has been: everyone you care about belongs to group X. A Zygote also belongs in group X - therefore you should care about a zygote. This is at best a logical fallacy, and at worst linguistic trickery. Either way, it is unconvincing.

 

[Stripe]

Please convince us that we should change our minds regarding the last one.

Actually, you are determined to keep legal abortion of children well after they would be easily recognizable as babies.

You just choose to focus on pictures of babies at very early stages when you think appearance gives your position credence.

Atheists are always judging a person based on how they look.

 

[gcthomas]

Actually, you are determined to keep legal abortion of children well after they would be easily recognizable as babies.

You just choose to focus on pictures of babies at very early stages when you think appearance gives your position credence.

Atheists are always judging a person based on how they look.

You spend all your time telling us what we think. Any thoughts of your own?

 

[WizardofOz]

The last few pages seem to be going in circles with the definition games.

Exactly what I have tried to avoid.

While it may seem to you that all this "person" business is nothing but legalistic sophistry, I feel it is you who are the one engaged in the very thing you would accuse us of.

By trying to avoid the semantic black hole, I am guilty of steering the conversation toward it? Explain.

To make it simpler, here are the people we want to give rights to:

Here is something we don't want to give rights to:

If I recall correctly, Alate had the earliest line drawn at 8 weeks.
Here is a embryo/fetus at 8 weeks.

Does the appearance of it define it? Does the appearance make it less human? I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Because it doesn't look human enough to you, it still is unequivocally human or a human or whatever description you'd like to designate. If you feel it is not human or a human, what is it?

1 to 9 weeks

Right around 50 seconds: "your baby's brain and spinal cord are visible....and his heart begins to beat".

Prior to 9 weeks, you have a living human with a brain, spinal cord, circulatory system and a beating heart. Not good enough though?

Or, do you think that it should be given legal protection at 9 weeks? It not, why shouldn't it?

Please convince us that we should change our minds regarding the last one.

If "all innocent human life should be protected by law" isn't convincing, then nothing will be, for you at least.

So far, your argument has been: everyone you care about belongs to group X. A Zygote also belongs in group X - therefore you should care about a zygote. This is at best a logical fallacy, and at worst linguistic trickery. Either way, it is unconvincing.

Yes. They are all human whether you want to admit it or not. They are all living humans, whether you want to admit it or not. I cannot make you care about a zygote just like I cannot make gcthomas care about a 17-week-old fetus or make Alate care about a 7-week-old embryo.

What fallacy? What linguistic trickery? It is what it is; it is a living human.

Explain the fallacy and / or trickery rather than vaguely alluding to them :e4e:

 

[WizardofOz]

The differences between a 17 week and an 18 week foetus are incremental. Can you not have a nuanced discussion, so have to try to make everything a black and white statement? Why do we think a lad 1 day short of his 17th birthday is not mature enough to have a raft of rights, buy a day later we let him fight and die in the army? What sudden difference has happened in him? Incremental changes. The 18 year date for adulthood is not entirely arbitrary, since we don't give adult freedoms to five-year-olds. Why can you not apply the same reasoning in this thread?

Think carefully about these absolutely terrible comparisons. Life and death is black and white (what's the grey area?). A seventeen year old that cannot join the army still has a fundamental right to life.

Adoption is a good alternative to elective abortions. Obviously. But I am not arguing for elective abortions, which are technically illegal in the UK, but for abortions for medical reasons.

So all abortions should be illegal other than when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? Is that your position, or are you feeding me some "feel goodery"?

On the biblical interpretation: since almost all the anti-abortion crowd are Christian groups, then the bible is what they have in common. If your position is not indicated by the bible, then why not explain the reasons for not allowing abortions at all. WHY do you believe that a week old foetus should be considered fully human?

You're the only one who is bringing the bible into the conversation. Ask a pro-life atheist why it's a strawman, I'm not wasting my time addressing why the bible has nothing to do with our conversation.

In order for the concept "fully human" to exist, the concept "partially human" must also exist. There is no such thing as "partially human". All humans are "fully human". This should really go without saying. Either an organism is human or it is not.

Or, if a fetus is not "fully human", it is partially human and partially what? Complete the pie chart of the "partially human" fetus.

All we have had here is arguments of the form "of course it is and you'd be cruel/evil/stupid not to agree". If you have any further non-rhetorical justifications, try explaining them. I am interested in reasoned opinions.

Quote me making that argument.

 

[WizardofOz]

No I’m clearly not if you are using the context of “a” human (being) as here, which you now seem to be switching to, while other times you seem to want to interchange, fudge and blur what we are actually talking about.
Isn’t this contextual issue actually something fairly obvious, unless you perhaps don’t want to be clear? :think:

Then make it clear, rather than fudging it, by what specifically you mean by “human” then I may be able to separate a human person from say a human toe nail clipping for you.
But if it helps, I think a human zygote has much in common with any other such human organic material which too is often naturally disposed of, but nothing at all in common with a person.

A human zygote is both human (adjective - just like a human fetus or a human baby) and is a human (noun - primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo). What is unclear? A toe nail clipping or a skin cell is not a primate of the family Hominidae of the genus Homo. A human zygote is.

If it's not human, what is it? Is it's not a human, what is it?