"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"

[Lighthouse]

I just don't understand how someone can look at it as the zygote not having any body parts means it isn't a person.

 

[xAvarice]

You're getting ahead of yourself. If a human zygote is not a human (biological classification) then what is it?

I'd say that yes it is a HUMAN zygote... meaning a zygote from a human, but being from a human doesn't grant you any rights, other wise we'd have some serious sanitary issues.

You already acknowledge this or else you would have to give sperm rights, because they are HUMAN sperm.

So the only rational question is when does something pertaining to a HUMAN deserve legal protection? It would have cost gc nothing to concede that point, I hope that you would not have considered a rational concession a victory? Otherwise it's illustrative of the intellectual problem going on here.

It should not be legal to kill a human without due process.

Because putting rape victims through trial sounds AWESOME, where's the popcorn? -facepalm-

I just don't understand how someone can look at it as the zygote not having any body parts means it isn't a person.

And that's completely understandable... If I didn't know that chickens laid eggs, I'd be completely bewildered by the mention of it... My friend, brother - it's not a matter of what you know, it's a matter of how you know - the method of assaying that you adhere to, that way you may comprehend anything.

 

[gcthomas]

I just don't understand how someone can look at it as the zygote not having any body parts means it isn't a person.

I am sorry the concept is too hard for you, Foghorn. If it makes you feel any better, I don't understand why you would think it WAS a person. No-one here wants to explain their rationale beyond suggesting it is obvious.

Except for WizOz at the moment, who keeps trying to help (thank you)

Wiz: I understand that it is reasonable to classify a zygote in the h.sapiens species for reasons of its origin and potential future. But why does a biological classification system have to constrain morality and value judgements?

I am, in general, against awarding people rights due to their membership of a group, such as giving special rights to indigenous people, specific religions, women, etc. I just don't think that group rights trump individual rights. Placing a zygote in a group that has individuals with rights does not necessarily transfer those rights to the zygote.

What is it about a zygote (or early foetus, or baby, or unborn-human, whatever term you prefer) that makes it worthy of special rights to life that we only award to a tiny proportion of all organisms, such as grown humans, the great apes and a few other species?

Is it a religious or biblically derived viewpoint? Is it a functional or utilitarian view? Does it have special value because of its potential or because of its current state?

 

[WizardofOz]

I'd say that yes it is a HUMAN zygote... meaning a zygote from a human, but being from a human doesn't grant you any rights, other wise we'd have some serious sanitary issues.

You already acknowledge this or else you would have to give sperm rights, because they are HUMAN sperm.

This has been addressed numerous times throughout the thread. Other posters brought up toe nails and skin cells. However, with sperm, toe nails and skin cells, it comes down to composition. A zygote is a new organism whereas the three above are parts of an already existing organism.

As quoted above: "To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization—the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte—usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced."

When Do Humans Begin?

So the only rational question is when does something pertaining to a HUMAN deserve legal protection? It would have cost gc nothing to concede that point, I hope that you would not have considered a rational concession a victory? Otherwise it's illustrative of the intellectual problem going on here.

Indeed. And the only reason I have spent so much time and effort on the point (a human zygote is a human) is because it has been a point of contention since the OP. It seems my intellectual opponents are not willing to concede the most fundamental objective facts about what we're dealing with, biologically speaking.

I may not be able to convince a pro-choicer that (philosophically) a human zygote is a person (arbitrary/philosophical term) but I will not allow them to dispute that a human zygote is a human. It's indisputable IMO and shows that not one point will be conceded by such entrenched individuals.

Because putting rape victims through trial sounds AWESOME, where's the popcorn? -facepalm-

I conceded earlier in the thread that a rape victim will never be forced by law to carry a rapists child. I would certainly hope that they could be convinced to give the child up for adoption to a loving family as it's not the child's fault but I realize that abortion will always be an option for a rape victim.

However, if a woman was raped and didn't find out until week 30 that she was pregnant, would you support allowing her to abort? 40 weeks? etc?

Would you draw a line anywhere in this scenario? After all, she's still a rape victim and sometimes women honestly don't realize that they are pregnant until the abortion demarcation line has passed by.

Apply the same to my earlier inquiry regarding:

Rape/Incest (lamentable I have to write that)

for the sake of the mother's health
including her mental health

a pregnancy that is the result of a crime
such as crimes like rape, incest, or child abuse

the child of the pregnancy would have an ' unacceptable quality of life' such as cases where the child would have
serious physical handicaps,
serious genetic problems,
serious mental defects

social reasons, including:
poverty
mother unable to cope with a child (or another child)
mother being too young to cope with a child

as a way of regulating groups within a population (prison, if pathinogenisis ever arises

Why isn't it OK for a woman to abort during any period of her pregnancy under such dire circumstance?

 

[WizardofOz]

I understand that it is reasonable to classify a zygote in the h.sapiens species for reasons of its origin and potential future. But why does a biological classification system have to constrain morality and value judgements?

Why shouldn't it? This is why I see the pro-choice argument as a sort of special pleading or double standard. You likely apply a standard to all humans not guilty of a crime (all innocent humans, no emotional tug but simply to keep capital punishment out of the debate) but exempt innocent humans X from the standard.

Do you feel that any human not guilty of a crime should have a fundamental right to life? In what other case would you support the killing of a human without due process? The pro-choice argument is special pleading/double standard because it allows the killing of a human without due process only in the case of the unborn.

I realize you are looking at the issue through a UK worldview where abortion isn't as rampant as it is here yet many of your arguments are the same as those who feel that elective abortion should also be legal (as long as it's done by (insert an individual's arbitrary line in the sand)).

I am, in general, against awarding people rights due to their membership of a group, such as giving special rights to indigenous people, specific religions, women, etc.

What group are you talking about? Humans? This isn't affirmative action for minorities that we're talking about here. This is a fundamental right to be allowed to live. I would say that being a member of the human species endows such a fundamental right. You likely agree when you're not excluding only the unborn from the group otherwise deserving of this fundamental right.

That's why I see it as special pleading on your part. You likely feel that all humans not guilty of a capital crime have a fundamental right to life....Unless the human happens to be unborn (rather, <X weeks along in it's development). In what other case would you support the killing of a human not guilty of a heinous crime?

I just don't think that group rights trump individual rights. Placing a zygote in a group that has individuals with rights does not necessarily transfer those rights to the zygote.

I think you're misstating the issue here. When a woman is pregnant, we're dealing with two individuals. What group rights are trumping individual rights? Both are (a) human. The zygote is in a group that has X rights. Why would the zygote be excluded from the rights afforded to every other member of the group?

This also begs the question, does an individual (pregnant woman) have a fundamental right to abort? The zygote is then in a group but is given absolutely no rights, rights afforded to every other member of the group.

Don't you afford the zygote rights anyway? You do if you oppose elective abortion.

What is it about a zygote (or early foetus, or baby, or unborn-human, whatever term you prefer) that makes it worthy of special rights to life that we only award to a tiny proportion of all organisms, such as grown humans, the great apes and a few other species?

If you're opposed to elective abortion then you are conceding that the zygote/fetus does have rights afforded to other members of the group.

Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to abort a zygote for no reason at all? It's a double standard to say a zygote has rights if the woman wasn't raped or isn't in medical peril but has no rights if the woman was.

So, you'll have to ask yourself the same question.
What is it about an unborn-human that makes it worthy of special rights to life that we only award to a tiny proportion of all organisms, such as grown humans, the great apes and a few other species?

:think:

Is it a religious or biblically derived viewpoint? Is it a functional or utilitarian view? Does it have special value because of its potential or because of its current state?

Logical consistency FTW :thumb:
The logic of an individual who considers themselves pro-choice cannot be consistent unless they support that choice up until the delivery of the new human.

 

[WizardofOz]

Let's look again at the list offered by xAvarice's link:

• for the sake of the mother's health including her mental health

Let's focus on the issue of mental health. When else could this be used as justification to kill a human? If a newborn is in the care of such a mother, the child will likely be removed from her care, correct? The mother may be institutionalized and/or receive compulsory therapy. If a pregnant woman is deemed mentally unstable, she isn't forced to abort, she may have her child taken from her as soon as it is born, however.

• the child of the pregnancy would have an ' unacceptable quality of life' such as cases where the child would have
  serious physical handicaps,
  serious genetic problems,
  serious mental defects

Yet, if a child is born with any of the above, we cannot simply kill them. Further, you wouldn't support the aborting of a fetus likely to suffer from any of the above if it is passed X number of weeks along in the pregnancy. Why shouldn't this position be considered a double standard? Why shouldn't a mother-to-be 30 weeks along who finds out her child will have serious defect be allowed to legally abort? The predisposition for defect doesn't change so what does?

To top it off, define "serious". More arbitrary standards. Maybe the child is likely to suffer from Downs Syndrome. Is this likelihood "serious" enough to abort? Autism? Missing a toe?

• social reasons, including: poverty, mother unable to cope with a child (or another child), mother being too young to cope with a child

These are some of the worst rationalizations of all. Why abort because you're poor or not able to cope with raising a child? Should abortion even be an option in this scenario? We don't allow homeless families to kill their babies because they are starving, why should a poor family be allowed to have their baby-to-be killed due to the same perceived problem?

 

[gcthomas]

In what other case would you support the killing of a human not guilty of a heinous crime?

In wartime, the enemy soldier has not committed any crime, but may be lawfully killed.

Why would the zygote be excluded from the rights afforded to every other member of the group?

Because it is in that group for one reason (reason of continuity from fertilised zygote to birth), and you use its membership for another (award the rights of the born to the zygote). What DOES the zygote have in common with (other?) humans? Not foul limbs, not a digestive system, not fingerprints, brain waves, not a hears, not, in fact any differentiated tissue of any sort. It has one similarity (Unique DNA identifiable as human in origin) and everything else is different.

Why not put it in a biological group of "All Mammalian Zygotes" and award them all the same rights? They are biologically and functionally indistinguishable.

This also begs the question, does an individual (pregnant woman) have a fundamental right to abort? The zygote is then in a group but is given absolutely no rights, rights afforded to every other member of the group.

Don't you afford the zygote rights anyway? You do if you oppose elective abortion.

I don't afford the zygote rights at all, but consider that its removal is distasteful to many reasonable people, so the law should give some consideration to their feelings. But that is a small concession, and there will be others who can override that protection (ie mothers in US, doctors in UK) in specified circumstances.

If you're opposed to elective abortion then you are conceding that the zygote/fetus does have rights afforded to other members of the group.

Non sequituer. I can stop my children stomping on caterpillars, but that doesn't mean I've given the caterpillars rights.

Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to abort a zygote for no reason at all? It's a double standard to say a zygote has rights if the woman wasn't raped or isn't in medical peril but has no rights if the woman was.

That's arguable, but not my argument. Making the whole issue black and white will mean pro-lifers win and pro-choicers lose, or vice versa. There will always be a range of opinion, so avoiding the extreme case decision seems sensible.

So, you'll have to ask yourself the same question.
What is it about an unborn-human that makes it worthy of special rights to life that we only award to a tiny proportion of all organisms, such as grown humans, the great apes and a few other species?

I asked first! Try to be specific.

Logical consistency FTW :thumb:
The logic of an individual who considers themselves pro-choice cannot be consistent unless they support that choice up until the delivery of the new human.

No, not true. A third trimester foetus has most of the characteristics of a born human, so should have similar rights. A zygote has little in common, so has no rights. The rights can increase gradually as it ages, with it being given more dignity and respect as it becomes closer to a fully developed and extant human.

 

[mighty_duck]

All organisms biologically human should have a fundamental right to life.

Why?

Seriously, this is the crux of the problem. Even if it seems obvious to you, please try to answer this without assertion or another question (ie "why wouldn't they?") - use an actual argument.

Now, you'll see why we must be precise. An individual with an opinion contrary to mine can and have taken my above statement to make it mean toe nails and skin cells.

So, it is more precise to state that a human should have a fundamental right to life. A skin cell is not a human. A toe nail is not a human.

A zygote is a human, biologically speaking.

However, an individual in favor of the death penalty will say that not all humans have a right to life; rapist, murderers, etc have forfeited this right.

Therefore, it is the most precise statement I can present: all innocent humans have (or should have) a fundamental right to life.

This is an ethical statement based on what is biologically factual. There is no "quick switch". This is the argument I've presented all along.

While I understand your rationale*, it is important to keep the language neutral, otherwise we are prone to error.

A skin cell or toe nail clipping or sperm, while human, are not an organism. So your first quoted statement stands. We can replace "innocent" with "who hasn't committed a heinous violent crime", or omit it altogether if my side promises not to use the "pro-life but pro-death penalty, hahaha" non-argument.

I am talking about science here. Science is the premise of my argument. Scientifically (biologically) speaking a human zygote is a human. All innocent humans should have a fundamental right to life.

Science isn't the premise of your argument, it is one mean to classify a group. There are other means, even using biology.

The premise of your argument needs to be "why should we afford THIS group rights, and why should those rights trump the rights of a woman for personal bodily sovereignty".

You've glossed over this part, which is really the most important part.

I pose to the individual with an opinion contrary to mine, "why should all innocent humans not be given a fundamental right to life?"

This is answered by the more fundamental question, "who should we give rights to"?


My answer involves people with sentience, feeling, thought, consciousness etc. I have a lot of empathy for these people - when they are hurt, I am in a very real way hurt. This is true regardless of the DNA of the person involved. Their humanity is an easy indicator most of the time, but not the actual reason we care about them.

Most mentally healthy people in our society naturally feel the same way.

The zygote has none of those things, and should not be protected. Certainly not at the expense of a woman's right over her own body.

If that is your standard, then you're allowing for elective abortion. If you're against elective abortion, what qualifiers would you be willing to add to your standard as quoted above?

Even if I find the practice of abortion-as-birth-control objectionable,
I don't think the law should step in until some time in the second trimester.

And there are levels of protection available without granting full person rights to a zygote.


---------------------------------

*Your honor, we've heard that the defendant on multiple occasions knowingly and willfully misrepresent reality - it is quite evident that his wife's pants DO make her posterior appear larger. There was also the embarrassing flatulence incident when he testified. I would also point to the dates on his birth certificate and his parents' marriage certificate.
Based on factual evidence, I move to henceforth refer to the defendant as "the stinking lying bastard."

 

[xAvarice]

• social reasons, including: poverty, mother unable to cope with a child (or another child), mother being too young to cope with a child

These are some of the worst rationalizations of all. Why abort because you're poor or not able to cope with raising a child? Should abortion even be an option in this scenario? We don't allow homeless families to kill their babies because they are starving, why should a poor family be allowed to have their baby-to-be killed due to the same perceived problem?

Killing a baby earns you prison time, and rightfully so. Absolute strawman, this place will keep the crows away.

This has been addressed numerous times throughout the thread. Other posters brought up toe nails and skin cells. However, with sperm, toe nails and skin cells, it comes down to composition. A zygote is a new organism whereas the three above are parts of an already existing organism.

Sperm is an organism, as is an egg... this has to be one of the worst methods of evading reason via wordplay I've ever come across.

However, if a woman was raped and didn't find out until week 30 that she was pregnant, would you support allowing her to abort? 40 weeks? Etc?

I'm going to answer this question at the bottom, bear with me.

Why isn't it OK for a woman to abort during any period of her pregnancy under such dire circumstance?

Under dire circumstances? Well, you could not accuse me of inconsistency, if it puts the mother's health in danger I would always save the mother's life over a baby, however it would be the mother's option.

No, not true. A third trimester foetus has most of the characteristics of a born human, so should have similar rights. A zygote has little in common, so has no rights. The rights can increase gradually as it ages, with it being given more dignity and respect as it becomes closer to a fully developed and extant human.

This is my answer to Wizard too, but I disagree with you on this gc, I'd never give something gradually/incrementally increasing rights... At the point that the limit for abortions is drew, then I support endowing the fetus with human rights, (although there may need to be special considerations granted case by case, we'll see what you can come up with and I'll consider it.)

 

[Lighthouse]

I'd say that yes it is a HUMAN zygote... meaning a zygote from a human, but being from a human doesn't grant you any rights, other wise we'd have some serious sanitary issues.

You already acknowledge this or else you would have to give sperm rights, because they are HUMAN sperm.

So the only rational question is when does something pertaining to a HUMAN deserve legal protection? It would have cost gc nothing to concede that point, I hope that you would not have considered a rational concession a victory? Otherwise it's illustrative of the intellectual problem going on here.

Human spermatozoa, on it's own, will not develop into that which you would consider a person. Neither will a human ovum. The two must come together to create the human zygote, which then has the ability, and is coded, to do so.

And that's completely understandable... If I didn't know that chickens laid eggs, I'd be completely bewildered by the mention of it... My friend, brother - it's not a matter of what you know, it's a matter of how you know - the method of assaying that you adhere to, that way you may comprehend anything.

The issue is that I cannot comprehend being so devoid of reason, or so wilfully ignorant [choosing to deny the obvious].

Not only does it have the code but it also has the ability to develop all of those things, and will if not aborted, either naturally or intentionally [which is unnatural].

When you were a zygote you had the coding and ability to eventually develop into what you see when you look in the mirror, or at least in pictures since the reflection is reversed from reality.

I am sorry the concept is too hard for you, Foghorn. If it makes you feel any better, I don't understand why you would think it WAS a person. No-one here wants to explain their rationale beyond suggesting it is obvious.

See above.

 

[mighty_duck]

When you were a zygote you had the coding and ability to eventually develop into what you see when you look in the mirror, or at least in pictures since the reflection is reversed from reality.

When you were an ovum you already had your mitochondria, cell wall, and other things. All you were missing was half your DNA.

That doesn't sound right, does it? That's because the ovum WASN'T you, it was a necessary biological predecessor to you.

That's how we feel about the zygote.

 

[gcthomas]

The issue is that I cannot comprehend being so devoid of reason, or so wilfully ignorant [choosing to deny the obvious].

What you cannot comprehend is how someone might not agree with you. That is a character shortcoming, Foghorn, that you will have to come to terms with yourself. I can't help you, I'm afraid, if you can't see the nuances in a complex discussion, and can only see the shallow, surface features.

:wave:

 

[alwight]

Human spermatozoa, on it's own, will not develop into that which you would consider a person. Neither will a human ovum. The two must come together to create the human zygote, which then has the ability, and is coded, to do so.

Likewise a zygote must come together with a human uterus to implant itself in, so as to come together with nutrients and the right sustained environment until it can survive until it takes the first breath of air. Even then, without the "coming together" with on-going support and succour, this new (yes) person remains helpless to fend for itself and needs many more such "coming together(s)" to ultimately finish the job of independent life.

Your position imo is simply an arbitrary dogmatic conclusion that something magical suddenly happens at conception, when really the "magic" is for me anyway in the development of a CNS, to the point at which a person could arguably be said to exist, rather than just giving an honorary title of "person" doled out at conception for no particularly good reason that has ever been explained to me.

 

[WizardofOz]

In what other case would you support the killing of a human not guilty of a heinous crime?

In wartime, the enemy soldier has not committed any crime, but may be lawfully killed.

Even a declaration of war is due process of sorts. It's a stretch of a comparison (zygote to soldier) as an armed soldier is a legitimate military target whereas unarmed noncombatants are not.

Why do you think it is considered wrong or unlawful to target noncombatants? :think:

I'll gladly rephrase. In what other scenario would you support the killing of a human not guilty of a heinous crime or not involved in warfare?

Why would the zygote be excluded from the rights afforded to every other member of the group?

Because it is in that group for one reason (reason of continuity from fertilised zygote to birth), and you use its membership for another (award the rights of the born to the zygote). What DOES the zygote have in common with (other?) humans?

DNA.

It is thereby in a group (human) that is otherwise nearly universally granted a fundamental right to life.

Why not put it in a biological group of "All Mammalian Zygotes" and award them all the same rights?

Quite simply because my classification is more precise. Why not put a human fetus in a biological group of "all mammalian fetuses"? It's kind of a silly inquiry when you think about it.

Else, embryogenesis vs. human embryogenesis.

They are biologically and functionally indistinguishable.

Absolutely false. A human zygote has 46 chromosomes. Even a chimpanzee, our closet relative has 48.

They are absolutely biologically and functionally distinguishable. The "single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes".

I don't afford the zygote rights at all, but consider that its removal is distasteful to many reasonable people, so the law should give some consideration to their feelings. But that is a small concession, and there will be others who can override that protection (ie mothers in US, doctors in UK) in specified circumstances.

Then you offer no opposition to elective abortion as you earlier claimed. If a zygote has no rights then women can abort them anytime for any elective rationalization.

Do you afford a twenty three week old fetus any rights or can they be terminated anytime for any reason as well?

Non sequituer. I can stop my children stomping on caterpillars, but that doesn't mean I've given the caterpillars rights.

If it is illegal to abort fetus X then fetus X has a legal right not to be killed. Do eight month old fetuses have any rights?

Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to abort a zygote for no reason at all? It's a double standard to say a zygote has rights if the woman wasn't raped or isn't in medical peril but has no rights if the woman was.

That's arguable, but not my argument. Making the whole issue black and white will mean pro-lifers win and pro-choicers lose, or vice versa. There will always be a range of opinion, so avoiding the extreme case decision seems sensible.

Well, thats my argument and you've just dodged it. Simply, should elective abortion be legal or illegal and why?

I asked first! Try to be specific.

I've answered repeatedly. All humans, whether born or unborn should have a fundamental right to life.

No, not true. A third trimester foetus has most of the characteristics of a born human, so should have similar rights. A zygote has little in common, so has no rights. The rights can increase gradually as it ages, with it being given more dignity and respect as it becomes closer to a fully developed and extant human.

There are no "gradual rights" as it is either legal or illegal to abort any given fetus. Either they have a right to life or they do not. There is nothing gradual about it.

 

[WizardofOz]

Why?

Seriously, this is the crux of the problem. Even if it seems obvious to you, please try to answer this without assertion or another question (ie "why wouldn't they?") - use an actual argument.

Logical consistency as not to hold a double standard or special plead the unborn out of rights possessed by every other member of their species.

Why should it be legal to kill a fetus X weeks old but illegal to kill a fetus X+Y weeks old?

Or, it should be legal to kill a human not guilty of a crime or involved in warfare if....

While I understand your rationale*, it is important to keep the language neutral, otherwise we are prone to error.

A skin cell or toe nail clipping or sperm, while human, are not an organism.

My point was more that you're declaring a zygote an organism and a skin cell not.

A skin cell can divide and respond to stimuli. And if you don't accept a skin cell itself, there are immortal cell lines from human cells. HeLa is the most famous but there are many others. They would certainly also be considered organisms and they have human DNA.

I am choosing my words carefully for good reason.

The premise of your argument needs to be "why should we afford THIS group rights, and why should those rights trump the rights of a woman for personal bodily sovereignty".

They're in the same group (human). Also because allowing "bodily sovereignty" of human X to trump the life of human Y isn't exactly an equitable trade as far as the scales of justice tip. Especially, if the pregnancy occurred due to behaviors human X engaged in.

Human Y exists because human X engaged in sexual activity but human Y can be killed because human X really doesn't want to carry human Y around for nine months.

Yeah, that's justice. lain:

This is answered by the more fundamental question, "who should we give rights to"?

Not "rights" but a fundamental right to remain alive. Who should we give this right to? Humans. White ones, black ones, small ones, tall ones, old ones, young ones

My answer involves people with sentience, feeling, thought, consciousness etc. I have a lot of empathy for these people - when they are hurt, I am in a very real way hurt. This is true regardless of the DNA of the person involved. Their humanity is an easy indicator most of the time, but not the actual reason we care about them.

Most mentally healthy people in our society naturally feel the same way.

The zygote has none of those things

Neither does a person in a coma or a persistent vegetative state, yet we cannot simply kill them (actively kill as opposed to allowing to die ie letting nature run its course).

Are you implying that you care if a fetus X weeks old is aborted but don't care if fetus X-Y weeks old is? When fetus X is hurt, are you in a very real way hurt? I think you're using an emotional device this time around.

and should not be protected. Certainly not at the expense of a woman's right over her own body.

A woman has a right over her body until she doesn't - your position.

Even if I find the practice of abortion-as-birth-control objectionable,
I don't think the law should step in until some time in the second trimester.

And there are levels of protection available without granting full person rights to a zygote.

If the law doesn't step in until the second trimester, how will elective abortion be prevented? What "levels of protection" are possible without legal protection?

 

[mighty_duck]

Logical consistency as not to hold a double standard or special plead the unborn out of rights possessed by every other member of their species.

What is inconsistent about choosing any other identifier (viability, heartbeat, working cerbral cortex, birth, etc. etc.).

Why should it be legal to kill a fetus X weeks old but illegal to kill a fetus X+Y weeks old?

The same reason it would be legal to kill an ovum that had a sperm enter it one second before the gametes fuze, but not one second later.

The same reason it is illegal to drink one day before your 21st birthday, but legal afterwards.

Or, it should be legal to kill a human not guilty of a crime or involved in warfare if....

They don't have a working cerebral cortex.

On the other end of life, we call that brain death.

I am choosing my words carefully for good reason.

Touche'.

Alright, let's try to find some acceptable term, even if it is "Group X" which includes zygotes, embryos, babies women and even Scientologists, but does not include skin cells, nail clippings or sperm, and is not a euphemism for a person. It can't be that hard to find neutrality right?

They're in the same group (human). Also because allowing "bodily sovereignty" of human X to trump the life of human Y isn't exactly an equitable trade as far as the scales of justice tip.

Wrong! There are millions of people whose lives depend on bone marrow transplants, blood donations, partial liver transplants etc.

We exchange lives for personal bodily sovereignty all the time.

Especially, if the pregnancy occurred due to behaviors human X engaged in.

Human Y exists because human X engaged in sexual activity but human Y can be killed because human X really doesn't want to carry human Y around for nine months.

Yeah, that's justice. lain:

I'll concede that the behavior of X should factor in as soon as you admit that abortion in cases of rape are something the state should not interfere in (not as a compromise with us pro-choicers, but as a true moral stance).

Not "rights" but a fundamental right to remain alive. Who should we give this right to? Humans. White ones, black ones, small ones, tall ones, old ones, young ones

I'll ask again. Why?

I'm not being coy here, the answer is important, and non-trivial.

Neither does a person in a coma or a persistent vegetative state, yet we cannot simply kill them (actively kill as opposed to allowing to die ie letting nature run its course).

People in comas and PVS still have a working cerebral cortex. In cases they don't, they are pronounced brain dead.

Are you implying that you care if a fetus X weeks old is aborted but don't care if fetus X-Y weeks old is? When fetus X is hurt, are you in a very real way hurt? I think you're using an emotional device this time around.

For most people, our morality is ultimately based on our empathy (or lack thereof).

I care more about a X week old fetus than I do about an X-Y fetus. And until they achieve my definition of personhood, I care more about the mother's wishes than I do about their existence.

If the law doesn't step in until the second trimester, how will elective abortion be prevented? What "levels of protection" are possible without legal protection?

Through education, availability of birth control, decrease in poverty, government assisted counseling etc. IOW all the things right wing so-called pro-lifers fight against.

 

[WizardofOz]

Killing a baby earns you prison time, and rightfully so. Absolute strawman, this place will keep the crows away.

Which of my questions do you feel was an absolute strawman?

This has been addressed numerous times throughout the thread. Other posters brought up toe nails and skin cells. However, with sperm, toe nails and skin cells, it comes down to composition. A zygote is a new organism whereas the three above are parts of an already existing organism.

Sperm is an organism, as is an egg... this has to be one of the worst methods of evading reason via wordplay I've ever come across.

You've missed the crux of the argument, obviously. A zygote is the very beginning of a new individual human. Sperm is a part of an already existing individual human. A zygote has unique DNA whereas sperm shares the same DNA as its host.

Under dire circumstances? Well, you could not accuse me of inconsistency, if it puts the mother's health in danger I would always save the mother's life over a baby, however it would be the mother's option.

Sure, if removing the fetus is absolutely the only way to save the life of the mother, it must be done (obviously by her discretion).

But, that's not what I asked. I asked about a rape victim first discovering she was pregnant late in the term of pregnancy. Why isn't it OK for her to abort during any point of her pregnancy?

 

[WizardofOz]

What is inconsistent about choosing any other identifier (viability, heartbeat, working cerbral cortex, birth, etc. etc.).

You're inconsistent when it comes to a human being killed. In what other scenario (other than possibly capital punishment or war) are you OK with the legal and intentional killing of a human?

You're likely consistent in all aspects save abortion. Your possible qualifiers do not change the nature of what is taking place.

The same reason it would be legal to kill an ovum that had a sperm enter it one second before the gametes fuze, but not one second later.

One second before, a new human hasn't begun. It also really isn't an issue so much as the method that might do the killing is. That is, what unnatural means could possibly prevent the fusion from taking place? :think:

A woman could never be charged with a crime unless it could be proven that there was a pregnancy to begin with.

They don't have a working cerebral cortex.

On the other end of life, we call that brain death.

Do medical professionals take deliberate action to purposely kill an adult without a working cerebral cortex? See the difference? If an adult doesn't have a working cerebral cortex you may have to take action to allow that person to naturally die, such as removing a feeding tube or otherwise "take someone off life support". In an abortion, deliberate action is taken to unnaturally kill that human.

It's a rather significant difference.

Touche'.

Alright, let's try to find some acceptable term, even if it is "Group X" which includes zygotes, embryos, babies women and even Scientologists, but does not include skin cells, nail clippings or sperm, and is not a euphemism for a person. It can't be that hard to find neutrality right?

I am not sure what you think is wrong with "a human" (noun, rather than human (adjective) skins cells) but whatcha got? Even if "human" and "person" can be similar in meaning, if we can agree that 'what is a "person"' is a subjective (philisophical) question whereas 'what is a "human"' is an objective (biological) question then it should be easy to know what the other is referring to.

I'm honestly open to better terms if any can be found.

Wrong! There are millions of people whose lives depend on bone marrow transplants, blood donations, partial liver transplants etc.

We exchange lives for personal bodily sovereignty all the time.

Once again, there is an extremely significant difference between what you're comparing that you don't seem to be considering.

With bone marrow transplants, blood donations, partial liver transplants etc., the donor consents to be a donor. We don't even allow medical professional to take organs, etc from the deceased unless the deceased consented to such in life.

I'll concede that the behavior of X should factor in as soon as you admit that abortion in cases of rape are something the state should not interfere in (not as a compromise with us pro-choicers, but as a true moral stance).

I've previously conceded that a rape victim will never be forced to carry the child to term. However, the state does theoretically interfere if the fetus is past the point of being able to abort. It's not like the deadline is extended if the pregnant individual is so due to rape.

How the woman got pregnant does nothing to define what is being aborted.

I'll ask again. Why?

For the same reason someone cannot walk up to you, kill you, and not be held criminally culpable. Not being killed is a fundamental liberty that all humans should be afforded. Why? Preservation of human life I suppose. I feel like my answers to this question are littered all over my posts in this thread.

I feel that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "unalienable rights" for all humans.

An individual cannot pursue happiness without liberty and cannot have liberty without life.

People in comas and PVS still have a working cerebral cortex. In cases they don't, they are pronounced brain dead.

And they naturally cease to live. No one intentionally kills them.

For most people, our morality is ultimately based on our empathy (or lack thereof).

But is our empathy or lack thereof worth more than a life?

I care more about a X week old fetus than I do about an X-Y fetus. And until they achieve my definition of personhood, I care more about the mother's wishes than I do about their existence.

Do you care about a fetus or do you feel like at some point along you should care due to a physical attribute or two? If it was proven that the cerebral cortex didn't sufficiently function until 40 weeks would you oppose aborting a 39-week-old fetus?

I do appreciate your honesty. Your above quote is probably a (if not the) fundamental difference in our views.

 

[mighty_duck]

You're inconsistent when it comes to a human being killed. In what other scenario (other than possibly capital punishment or war) are you OK with the legal and intentional killing of a human?

You're likely consistent in all aspects save abortion. Your possible qualifiers do not change the nature of what is taking place.

This is a circular argument. you assume that preservation of "human organisms" (my term) is important, and therefore preservation of "human organisms" is important.

Replace that with preservation of "people with functioning cerebral cortexes", and you would still be likewise consistent.

Consistency itself isn't a reason to choose a particular standard.

One second before, a new human hasn't begun. It also really isn't an issue so much as the method that might do the killing is. That is, what unnatural means could possibly prevent the fusion from taking place? :think:

How about stem cell research?
It doesn't make much of a difference. With any standard you choose, there will be a second before and a second after.

Do medical professionals take deliberate action to purposely kill an adult without a working cerebral cortex? See the difference?

Actually, they do. People pronounced brain dead can be harvested for organs- thereby causing their complete death.

With a person with an active cerebral cortex, you can't do that, even if the person consents.

If an adult doesn't have a working cerebral cortex you may have to take action to allow that person to naturally die, such as removing a feeding tube or otherwise "take someone off life support". In an abortion, deliberate action is taken to unnaturally kill that human.

How is removing a feeding tube different from cutting the umbilical cord and letting "nature take its course"?

I am not sure what you think is wrong with "a human" (noun, rather than human (adjective) skins cells) but whatcha got? Even if "human" and "person" can be similar in meaning, if we can agree that 'what is a "person"' is a subjective (philisophical) question whereas 'what is a "human"' is an objective (biological) question then it should be easy to know what the other is referring to.

I'm honestly open to better terms if any can be found.

Post-zygotial homo-sapien? :help:

Once again, there is an extremely significant difference between what you're comparing that you don't seem to be considering.

With bone marrow transplants, blood donations, partial liver transplants etc., the donor consents to be a donor. We don't even allow medical professional to take organs, etc from the deceased unless the deceased consented to such in life.

That was EXACTLY my point!
Even though it might costs someone's life, we protect the rights of people to maintain their bodily sovereignty.

I've previously conceded that a rape victim will never be forced to carry the child to term.

You've reluctantly conceded to it as a compromise. Are you changing your position that it is actually immoral of us to prevent a rape victim from getting an abortion?

How the woman got pregnant does nothing to define what is being aborted.

Agreed.

For the same reason someone cannot walk up to you, kill you, and not be held criminally culpable. Not being killed is a fundamental liberty that all humans should be afforded. Why? Preservation of human life I suppose. I feel like my answers to this question are littered all over my posts in this thread.

I feel that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "unalienable rights" for all humans.

An individual cannot pursue happiness without liberty and cannot have liberty without life.

Sorry to push the point, but it is key.
You didn't present an argument, except to repeat your assertion over and over. It is something we usually take for granted (and that's probably a good idea), but it is interesting to investigate why we believe as we do.

But is our empathy or lack thereof worth more than a life?

Um, what?

Do you care about a fetus or do you feel like at some point along you should care due to a physical attribute or two? If it was proven that the cerebral cortex didn't sufficiently function until 40 weeks would you oppose aborting a 39-week-old fetus?

If a baby is born without a cerebral cortex, I would be deeply saddened for the expectant parents, but the child itself never felt pain, never had a thought. It was never a person.

I do appreciate your honesty. Your above quote is probably a (if not the) fundamental difference in our views.

Likewise. :cheers:

 

[Lighthouse]

When you were an ovum you already had your mitochondria, cell wall, and other things. All you were missing was half your DNA.

That doesn't sound right, does it? That's because the ovum WASN'T you, it was a necessary biological predecessor to you.

That's how we feel about the zygote.

It wasn't me until the spermatozoa and the ovum came together and there was the zygote.

I know how you feel. You're in error, and not on the side of caution.

What you cannot comprehend is how someone might not agree with you. That is a character shortcoming, Foghorn, that you will have to come to terms with yourself. I can't help you, I'm afraid, if you can't see the nuances in a complex discussion, and can only see the shallow, surface features.

:wave:

I can comprehend that people disagree perfectly fine; what I cannot comprehend is people's willingness to be so callous as to wilfully consider the early stages of human development as not being a person, or even a human.

And the "nuances" are nothing more than your excuse to pass the buck.

Likewise a zygote must come together with a human uterus to implant itself in, so as to come together with nutrients and the right sustained environment until it can survive until it takes the first breath of air. Even then, without the "coming together" with on-going support and succour, this new (yes) person remains helpless to fend for itself and needs many more such "coming together(s)" to ultimately finish the job of independent life.

And that makes it OK to kill it?

It appears that in grasping for straws you drew the short one.

Your position imo is simply an arbitrary dogmatic conclusion that something magical suddenly happens at conception, when really the "magic" is for me anyway in the development of a CNS, to the point at which a person could arguably be said to exist, rather than just giving an honorary title of "person" doled out at conception for no particularly good reason that has ever been explained to me.

How is your position not arbitrary, or dogmatic? And what good reason have you ever given for it?