Abortion.

[insane]

I'm not arguing a POV here, just dialoguing on some thoughts I had:

 

 

 

Nobody can deny that from a biological point of view, sex serves to reproduce. Luckily however, we aren't just animals

 

 

 

We aren't just animals? Are we "super-animal"?

 

 

 

and so we've created other reasons to have sex. We also take emotions, love and pleasure into account.

 

 

 

We also take commitment and future consequences into account. Like having children in spite of contraception. At least I hope we would take that into account.

 

 

 

Also, people have created other reasons to have sex, like torture and humiliation.

 

 

 

But hey, if you only want sex to have kids, whatever floats your boat. You're missing out.

 

 

 

Even if you are only having sex to have kids, the pleasure is unavoidable. Just like if you are only having sex for pleasure, the children are unavoidable. I'm not really concluding anything, just throwing some thoughts out there, that may or may not make any sense.

[heartless619]

well im very against abortion.

 

sex is for marriage...

 

 

 

'Scuse me? Sex is for reproduction and bonding in a relationship. Sex existed long before marriage or even monogamy did, darling.

 

.

 

 

 

'Scuse me? thanks. Sex is for reproduction. thanks that says it all.

 

so why in the hell would you need to have an abortion? unless raped.

 

because you pretty much explained it your self there..darling, even if you are pro choice...and obviously if a women gets pregnant some time and it was a mistake well...she shouldn't have been bonding with John Doe over there...

 

because she isnt ready to reproduce so...thanks darling you gave me the answer to your own answer

So you're saying that it doesn't matter who you have sex with, because you're reproducing?

 

 

 

no that is only half of it.

 

when you have found a partner and after you have thought about what your doing and taking the right precautions..then sexs for pleasure is alright.

 

 

 

but just out of the blue at some rave with some girl or boy you hardly know..that is not right.

[Ambassadar]

The abortion issue is really easy to break down to it's basic level. Either an unborn baby is a person or it is not. If it is a person then it would be wrong to abort "them". If it is not a person then it is ok to abort "it".

 

 

 

So the true question is how do we define what a person is?

 

 

 

The way I would define what makes a person is to claim that a person has to be separate human life. I feel that is reasonable and covers all of the bases.

 

 

 

Anyone differ or have any thoughts on anything I just posted?

[warri0r45]

The abortion issue is really easy to break down to it's basic level. Either an unborn baby is a person or it is not. If it is a person then it would be wrong to abort "them". If it is not a person then it is ok to abort "it".

 

 

 

So the true question is how do we define what a person is?

 

 

 

The way I would define what makes a person is to claim that a person has to be separate human life. I feel that is reasonable and covers all of the bases.

 

 

 

Anyone differ or have any thoughts on anything I just posted?

 

 

 

Wikipedia:

 

The classical definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual."

 

Going deeper:

 

Some other characteristics used to define a 'person' include personal identity,[2] self-awareness, individuality, and a sense of self that persists through time.

 

I'm not sure I could personally see a conglomeration of cells as having personhood, but that's just me.

 

 

 

The difficulty here, then, is at what point in development does this mass become a person? I think there ought to be a definable limit to abortion in law, as there often is, but as to what exactly that should be based on or where personhood is attained is the difficulty.

 

 

 

As I think all here would agree, it's likely that at no stage during development is a foetus actually aware of it's existance. Taking this into account, I'd personally think it a suitable point to draw the line when pain reception begins to come into play.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Fetal_pain

 

Pain receptors begin to appear in the seventh week of gestation.[52][54]

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm

 

 

Can a fetus feel pain?

 

Many physicians and medical researchers believe that fetuses can begin to feel pain sometime during the third trimester. This is long after:

 

 

 

Essentially all miscarriages occur,

 

Ectopic pregnancies have been dealt with, and

 

After about 99% of abortions are performed.

 

 

 

Some researchers suggest fetuses cannot sense pain, no matter how far along in pregnancy. They believe that pain can only be felt after birth.

 

 

 

Some pro-life physicians believe that fetuses can feel pain much earlier in pregnancy.

 

 

http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf

 

 

Some peripheral nerves and connections within

 

the spinal cord can be functional by 7 weeks, allowing

 

reflex reactions through the sensory and motor nerves

 

communicating within the spinal cord.

 

 

 

It's still not totally clear to me at present. For the moment, I'll go with a general rule of thumb; the earlier, the better. When it gets back to in the hundreds of cells, I personally feel it should be open slather, basically the same I feel about stem cell research.

 

 

 

All of that aside, the mother, being another human life, seperate from me and my opinions in particular, should have no sway from what I happen to personally feel about the issue. It's simply just not my choice. Though, she should have professional help in terms of guiding her through the process if she chooses to do so.

[Ambassadar]

Some other characteristics used to define a 'person' include personal identity,[2] self-awareness, individuality, and a sense of self that persists through time.

 

 

 

According to this someone that was in a coma couldn't be defined as a person. Heck someone that was knocked unconscious would cease to be a person momentarily. People that are vegetables from an accident wouldn't be a person. There are probably some people with forms of [developmentally delayed]ation that wouldn't be considered people as well under this.

 

 

 

Reasons like this are why I left defining what a person was as "separate human life."

[warri0r45]

Some other characteristics used to define a 'person' include personal identity,[2] self-awareness, individuality, and a sense of self that persists through time.

 

 

 

According to this someone that was in a coma couldn't be defined as a person. Heck someone that was knocked unconscious would cease to be a person momentarily. People that are vegetables from an accident wouldn't be a person. There are probably some people with forms of [developmentally delayed] that wouldn't be considered people as well under this.

 

 

 

Reasons like this are why I left defining what a person was as "separate human life."

 

 

 

Fair enough. Next step is how far back you are willing to class something as a person. To me, calling a cell or group of cells a person seems just as unfitting as not calling a person in a coma a person. Where do you personally draw the line?

[assassin_696]

@ the warri0r Ambassadar debate: I think regarding a human being as a seperate, individual person for me means when they are no longer solely dependent on their mother. That doesn't mean they would like or want their mother, it means their survival would be absolutely possible without their mother. Now I believe the record for keeping a premature baby alive is around 20 weeks, and I think the abortion law in the UK puts the limit at around 24 weeks. I think that's a fair definition, but of course it's tricky because as I said science is getting better at keeping babies alive all the time.

 

 

 

I think in some situations the most loving thing is to have an abortion, rape victims are a no-brainer, but if the child is going to suffer, other children are going to suffer, or the mother's mental health would be affected then an abortion should be readily available.

 

 

 

Go tell a suffering child that they would have been better off aborted, then.

 

 

 

Of course though, if they've grown up and are now living their lives, and are indeed capable of conscious thought and accepting what abortion is (many handicapped children wouldn't be able to) I wouldn't tell them they'd be better off being aborted.

 

 

 

You're applying the principle of "any kind of life is better than no life at all" to those kids, and I don't think it's as black and white as that. Suicide testifies to that, for some people their life is just not worth living. I'm not necessarily saying they're the same children who might have been aborted, but although my life is the most precious gift I have, to others it's a curse.

 

 

 

I don't want to go through many what-ifs, but if a child was going to be brought into a world of pain, and suffering, and might not live beyond its infancy due to horrific disease or the inability of the parents to provide for their child, do you really think you're doing the child a favour by blocking the parents having an abortion? Particularly if the parents already have kids and are overstretched looking after them as it is.

[Ambassadar]

I have looked at this issue from a lot of angles and there is only one way that makes sense to me personally in a logical way.

 

 

 

If a person is "separate human life" then we need to look at this in terms of an unborn baby. Each term must be analyzed and individually checked off before the subject could be classified as a person.

 

 

 

1. Is a fetus at conception life?

 

This question is merely asking if it is alive. Is a fetus at conception a cluster of living cells? Absolutely. Whatever it is, it is alive.

 

 

 

2. Is a fetus at conception human?

 

The cells that make up a fetus are most definitely human. They have human DNA. They grow into a human. It's human, pretty easy answer on this one.

 

 

 

3. Is a fetus at conception a separate entity from the Mother?

 

 

 

If a fetus is separate from the Mother it means it is not a part of the Mother. Is this the case? From the moment of conception an unborn child has different DNA than the Mother. This alone is enough to show it is a separate entity from the Mother.

 

 

 

When we combine points one, two and three then all the qualifications are met to determine that a fetus at conception is a person because it is separate human life. Since it is a person killing them is wrong.

[Ambassadar]

These are some continued thoughts including a lot of questions on the topic...

 

 

 

As an unborn baby grows it develops a separate blood supply, nervous system, etc etc from the Mother. As development continues and less care and shelter are needed for the growing human it's location changes and it is born where it continues to need the same things it needed inside the Mother which is shelter, sustenance, and nurturing in lesser and lesser amounts until it is a grown functional human adult.

 

 

 

It is easy to try to end things right here and claim "No, it can't be separate, it is in the Mother." To this I reply with a question of my own. Should we define who is and isn't a person merely by their present location?

 

 

 

A reply might be "Well what about when it is just a clump of cells and doesn't have a brain or a heart yet?"

 

Does an organ define what is or isn't a person? If I lose my kidneys and need to be on dialysis would that make me not a person? What if I lost my heart and had an artificial heart installed? Am I suddenly not a person?

 

 

 

"Well what about the brain? It's not a person until there is a brain."

 

Why? Because with a brain we can think and that is what makes us human? Well what about the guy that was in a car wreck and is a vegetable? He can't think. Is he not a person?

 

 

 

Another question about the brain is how would you even use this as a gage to determine when that unborn baby becomes a person? What are they when the brain is half developed? Are they half a person? What about when the first cell is formed for the brain? Is that the point they become a person?

 

 

 

Then we get back into the zygote argument of "Oh well it's just a few cells and it isn't complete so it's not a brain." Ok, then do we say that it isn't a person until there is a complete brain in the unborn baby? So it isn't a person until that last cell falls into place and suddenly it is a person? Is it not a person the split second before when that one cell is missing? I mean it's only one cell. Oh wait, now we are doing the zygote argument in reverse. If one wants to claim that a few cells in existence isn't enough to qualify as being a person then the same applies for just a few cells that aren't in existence yet. The lack of them wouldn't be enough to claim it isn't a person.

 

@ the warri0r Ambassadar debate: I think regarding a human being as a seperate, individual person for me means when they are no longer solely dependent on their mother. That doesn't mean they would like or want their mother, it means their survival would be absolutely possible without their mother.

 

So maybe we can say that an unborn baby isn't a person until it can survive on it's own outside of the Mother's body. Isn't this just a function of scientific technology at the time? Can we define who is or isn't a person merely by how advanced our techno gadgets are at that moment?

 

 

 

What about the instant a new machine is developed that suddenly makes us able to keep babies alive 25 weeks before the due date instead of 20? Instantaneously are all the babies in the world that fall into that age range suddenly not a lump of cells and suddenly they are people? Two seconds before that machine was invented were they not people? What if a guy murdered a pregnant woman 1 second before that machine was invented? Should he only be charged with one murder? What if he murdered that pregnant woman 1 second after that machine was invented? Should he now be charged with two murders?

 

 

 

To sum it all up there is only one way I can see to adequately answer all of these questions. That is to say that from the moment of conception that little bit of matter is a person because it is separate human life. The only things that unborn child requires to become a full grown adult is shelter, sustenance, and nurturing which are the exact same things that child will need when it is a one week old infant or a crying little five year old that just skinned his knee while slipping on some ice outside in the snow and needs to come inside to Momma(nurturing) who will make sure he is warm(shelter) and has some hot chocolate to drink(sustenance).

[warri0r45]

I have looked at this issue from a lot of angles and there is only one way that makes sense to me personally in a logical way.

 

 

 

If a person is "separate human life" then we need to look at this in terms of an unborn baby. Each term must be analyzed and individually checked off before the subject could be classified as a person.

 

 

 

1. Is a fetus at conception life?

 

This question is merely asking if it is alive. Is a fetus at conception a cluster of living cells? Absolutely. Whatever it is, it is alive.

 

 

 

2. Is a fetus at conception human?

 

The cells that make up a fetus are most definitely human. They have human DNA. They grow into a human. It's human, pretty easy answer on this one.

 

 

 

3. Is a fetus at conception a separate entity from the Mother?

 

 

 

If a fetus is separate from the Mother it means it is not a part of the Mother. Is this the case? From the moment of conception an unborn child has different DNA than the Mother. This alone is enough to show it is a separate entity from the Mother.

 

 

 

When we combine points one, two and three then all the qualifications are met to determine that a fetus at conception is a person because it is separate human life. Since it is a person killing them is wrong.

 

 

 

As killing people is wrong, killing a zygote would be wrong according to your definition of what constitutes a person. I can make a logical case, too. It's all in how i manipulate definitions:

 

The classical definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual."[1]

 

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1][2] Compared to other living organisms on Earth, humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection.

 

So a person must be both a human being and an individual. According to this definition of a human being, a zygote can not be a human as it is not bipedal nor does it have a developed brain. Therefore, a zygote is not a person. Is my interpretation reasonable? In everyday use of the word 'person,' would you not always refer to a bipedal animal with a developed brain? This brings me back to the idea that the word 'person' in everyday use being applied to a zygote is unfitting, just as not calling those in a coma 'people' is unfitting. Why then do we see it fit to call those in a coma 'people'? Is it because they are bipedal with a developed brain like everything else we call 'people'? Or is the term 'person' more a term of familiarity then an actual definable object?

 

 

 

The point being is that your case is indeed logical, it's just that based on the conventional use of what we would call a 'person' compared to your definition, it's not so flash in my opinion. The thing here is that what constitutes a person is subject to huge philosophical interpretation.

 

 

 

The best I can do to show you why we use the word 'person' in the sense that we do and not for an object such as a zygote is that when looking at someone in a coma, it's like looking into a mirror. We recognise that this thing is one of us. What we call a person seems to be no more than a subconcious acknowlegement of that which is most familiar. It's far more familiar than the term 'homo sapien' or indeed even the word 'human.' This could be why someone such as myself would hear the word 'person' being applied to a cell and scratch my head.

[Ambassadar]

I can make a logical case, too. It's all in how i manipulate definitions:

 

Quote:

 

The classical definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual."[1]

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1][2] Compared to other living organisms on Earth, humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection.

 

 

 

So a person must be both a human being and an individual. According to this definition of a human being, a zygote can not be a human as it is not bipedal nor does it have a developed brain.

 

 

 

According to this definition a six month old baby wouldn't be a person either since it only has the potential rather than the actual ability to be bipedal until it develops further which is the exact same situation an unborn child is in.

 

 

 

In everyday use of the word 'person,' would you not always refer to a bipedal animal with a developed brain?

 

Nope, see above statement. Another way this wouldn't work is what about people that were born with brains that weren't fully developed and that would never fully develop. Even if they lived to be adults could we never consider them people? I went into brains a good bit in the post above this one btw if you haven't read it yet.

 

 

 

The thing here is that what constitutes a person is subject to huge philosophical interpretation.

 

Feel free to come up with a better definition than the one I suggested. The one above falls apart when you apply it to infants and people who's brain didn't completely develop.

 

 

The best I can do to show you why we use the word 'person' in the sense that we do and not for an object such as a zygote is that when looking at someone in a coma, it's like looking into a mirror. We recognize that this thing is one of us.

 

Does appearance define who is a person or not? White people used to think black people were one step up from an ape because they looked so different. Does that mean those black people weren't people? What about severely deformed people? If you took a tiny fetus out of it's mother's womb and looked at it under a microscope it would probably look a lot more human than some unfortunate [developmentally delayed]ed freakishly deformed person that was missing half their face and had a mangled gnarled body.

 

 

 

What we call a person seems to be no more than a subconcious acknowlegement of that which is most familiar. It's far more familiar than the term 'homo sapien' or indeed even the word 'human.' This could be why someone such as myself would hear the word 'person' being applied to a cell and scratch my head.

 

Eh... never thought I would see the day when you fell back on your feelings instead of logic and science to make a point. :P

[assassin_696]

I think although your reasoning is probably sound, we have to draw a line between potential and reality.

 

 

 

A zygote, of course, has the potential to grow up into a human being, a seperate entity. But what about sperm? Are they sacred as well, since fused with an egg they have the potential to form millions of individual entities. Fast forward a few years into more advanced science and what about even skin cells? Technically they contain a copy of our DNA, so if we could subject them to some kind of artificial meiosis and fusion with an egg are they sacred as well?

 

 

 

I know it's not the best argument, because i'm arguing against a degree of logic, but I think as warri0r has said we have to remove the emotion and apply a degree of common sense. Lots of things have the potential to create human life but we don't get as twitchy about them as we do about an unborn zygote. The fact is that an aborted baby doesn't feel pain, is never conscious so is never aware of it's "loss". Yes, you're killing a bunch of cells which has the ability to grow up into a human being, but if it wasn't for the mother of that zygote those cells wouldn't be there at all, so shouldn't it ultimately be her choice? It was her choice to create those cells after all.

[RayOxide]

My thoughts on abortion are:

 

 

 

1. Pro. If the woman doesn't want the baby, it's used to help others.

 

2. Pro. It helps someone if an abortion happens. So duh. Abortions help.

 

3. Pro. Helps the overpopulating world.

 

 

 

See, in my eyes, no cons >.> :-w

[Ambassadar]

I think although your reasoning is probably sound, we have to draw a line between potential and reality.

 

Agreed. I am not arguing potential of human life. I am saying the present reality of everything is that a fetus is already a person.

 

 

 

But what about sperm? Are they sacred as well, since fused with an egg they have the potential to form millions of individual entities. Fast forward a few years into more advanced science and what about even skin cells? Technically they contain a copy of our DNA, so if we could subject them to some kind of artificial meiosis and fusion with an egg are they sacred as well?

 

 

 

A sperm isn't separate human life.

 

 

 

Is it separate?

 

yeah

 

 

 

Is it human?

 

No, It doesn't have enough chromosomes to be human and so is missing half the genetic code to be a human.

 

 

 

Is it life?

 

3: Yes it is living.

 

 

 

Result: Not a person

 

 

 

Fast forward a few years into more advanced science and what about even skin cells? Technically they contain a copy of our DNA, so if we could subject them to some kind of artificial meiosis and fusion with an egg are they sacred as well?

 

Seperate human life test on skin cells

 

 

 

Human?

 

Yes human DNA.

 

Life?

 

Yes the skin cells are alive.

 

Seperate?

 

No, same DNA as the person they were taken from.

 

 

 

Result? Not a person

 

 

 

The fact is that an aborted baby doesn't feel pain, is never conscious so is never aware of it's "loss".

 

 

The person in the coma is in the same situation. Would it be ok to kill them as well?

 

 

 

Yes, you're killing a bunch of cells which has the ability to grow up into a human being, but if it wasn't for the mother of that zygote those cells wouldn't be there at all, so shouldn't it ultimately be her choice?

 

I'm not saying a zygote shouldn't be killed because of it's potential to be a human being. I am saying a zygote shouldn't be killed because it IS a human being. You haven't disproved my reasoning for calling it a human being yet.

 

 

 

Another thing is since Mothers create children they should have the ultimate right to kill them if they don't want them? Why should anything change when the child was outside the Mother vs. inside them? Should a mother be able to kill a child one minute before she gives birth to that child? If it is ok then you are going against your argument that a person should be defined as when they can live outside the mother's body which you said is the 20th week thing. If you say it's not ok then you are going against your point above where Mom's should have the ability to kill unborn children if they see fit because it would hinge on "viability outside the mother" rather than just on her right due to her creating the fetus.

 

 

 

 

 

but I think as warri0r has said we have to remove the emotion and apply a degree of common sense.

 

I'm not the one debating using emotion. Everything I have said is straight science and straight logic. It appears you just disagree so far because of your own emotions. Why? Because my arguments go against your feeling of how things should be even though logically and scientifically the argument makes sense.

 

 

 

I am all for removing emotion from this debate. Propose an argument that is more logical and more scientific than the one I presented or disprove it using logic and science. Saying things like "I can't call it a person because it doesn't seem right calling a group of cells a person" is falling back on emotion for a defense. (Not trying to personally attack you Warrior, just trying to make a point to Assassin)

 

 

 

Sorry if I sound like a [puncture] the way I am wording it but I didn't really know how to make the point I was trying to make without putting it that way.

[Faux]

I think although your reasoning is probably sound, we have to draw a line between potential and reality.

 

 

 

A zygote, of course, has the potential to grow up into a human being, a seperate entity. But what about sperm? Are they sacred as well, since fused with an egg they have the potential to form millions of individual entities. Fast forward a few years into more advanced science and what about even skin cells? Technically they contain a copy of our DNA, so if we could subject them to some kind of artificial meiosis and fusion with an egg are they sacred as well?

 

 

 

I know it's not the best argument, because i'm arguing against a degree of logic, but I think as warri0r has said we have to remove the emotion and apply a degree of common sense. Lots of things have the potential to create human life but we don't get as twitchy about them as we do about an unborn zygote. The fact is that an aborted baby doesn't feel pain, is never conscious so is never aware of it's "loss". Yes, you're killing a bunch of cells which has the ability to grow up into a human being, but if it wasn't for the mother of that zygote those cells wouldn't be there at all, so shouldn't it ultimately be her choice? It was her choice to create those cells after all.

 

 

 

To be fair, it's not exactly the same. Leave the sperm alone and what will happen? Nothing. Leave the zygote alone and what will happen? Baby

 

 

 

Still, I'm pro-choice. I don't want to force people to have kids they don't want to have.

[warri0r45]

I can make a logical case, too. It's all in how i manipulate definitions:

 

Quote:

 

The classical definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual."[1]

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1][2] Compared to other living organisms on Earth, humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection.

 

 

 

So a person must be both a human being and an individual. According to this definition of a human being, a zygote can not be a human as it is not bipedal nor does it have a developed brain.

 

 

 

According to this definition a six month old baby wouldn't be a person either since it only has the potential rather than the actual ability to be bipedal until it develops further which is the exact same situation an unborn child is in.

 

 

 

In everyday use of the word 'person,' would you not always refer to a bipedal animal with a developed brain?

 

Nope, see above statement. Another way this wouldn't work is what about people that were born with brains that weren't fully developed and that would never fully develop. Even if they lived to be adults could we never consider them people? I went into brains a good bit in the post above this one btw if you haven't read it yet.

 

 

 

The thing here is that what constitutes a person is subject to huge philosophical interpretation.

 

Feel free to come up with a better definition than the one I suggested. The one above falls apart when you apply it to infants and people who's brain didn't completely develop.

 

 

The best I can do to show you why we use the word 'person' in the sense that we do and not for an object such as a zygote is that when looking at someone in a coma, it's like looking into a mirror. We recognize that this thing is one of us.

 

Does appearance define who is a person or not? White people used to think black people were one step up from an ape because they looked so different. Does that mean those black people weren't people? What about severely deformed people? If you took a tiny fetus out of it's mother's womb and looked at it under a microscope it would probably look a lot more human than some unfortunate [developmentally delayed] freakishly deformed person that was missing half their face and had a mangled gnarled body.

 

 

 

What we call a person seems to be no more than a subconcious acknowlegement of that which is most familiar. It's far more familiar than the term 'homo sapien' or indeed even the word 'human.' This could be why someone such as myself would hear the word 'person' being applied to a cell and scratch my head.

 

Eh... never thought I would see the day when you fell back on your feelings instead of logic and science to make a point. :P

 

 

 

After pondering your responses, I can only respond thusly: =D>

 

 

 

It's hard to argue against much of your responses so I'll not be stubborn or hasty without giving some of these issues due thought.

 

 

 

I'm prepared to concede you can define a zygote as a person and can clearly see you've thought about this far more than I have. The rationale in my protest was merely that I find it difficult to comprehend a lumping in of zygotes and someone such as you or I under the blanket term of 'person.' Perhaps I'll try and explain why I don't feel a zygote is a person at a later date in better terms or indeed see If I can define person in a more all inclusive way than you have.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

At the end of the day 'person' is a term, and I think you'll agree one that you've made encompass a broad spectrum of life. Perhaps if I started talking about a horse you'd see why I'm having difficulty here. A horse, you say? Yes, the thing in the order of micrometers in size, roughly spherical, it has a cell wall made of phospholipids, a nucleus containing 64 chromosomes and a few mitochondria, among other various structures. But what about the thing with 4 legs and a mane that can gallop? Well, it looks like I'm talking about 2 different things. First is a horse zygote and the other is a fully developed adult horse.

 

 

 

Could I not define what you would include under the term 'person' as a human zygote, differentiate it from a human and then ask is it wrong to kill a human zygote? Dosen't quite have the same oomph as asking is it wrong to kill a person. Especially seeing as the connotation you get when saying 'person' is someone like you or I where as the connotation when saying 'human zygote' is a rather mechanical cell.

 

 

 

Can you recognise the difficulty I'm having here in recognising the disparity of killing a baby or a man to killing a cell or a group of cells? The disparity is between those which feel pain, bleed and have an emotional reaction where a cell has none of these things. There is no harm in killing a cell or bunch of cells while there is in killing a baby or a man, thus why I have no disagreement with abortion, especially in the earlier stages or with a pill, or indeed no disagreement with something such as stem cell research.

 

 

 

Do you have any other means to argue your case of abortion being wrong from the zygote level apart from a definition of zygotes as people and then extrapolating that to killing people being wrong, therefore killing zygotes is wrong?

[assassin_696]

I think although your reasoning is probably sound, we have to draw a line between potential and reality.

 

Agreed. I am not arguing potential of human life. I am saying the present reality of everything is that a fetus is already a person.

 

 

 

But what about sperm? Are they sacred as well, since fused with an egg they have the potential to form millions of individual entities. Fast forward a few years into more advanced science and what about even skin cells? Technically they contain a copy of our DNA, so if we could subject them to some kind of artificial meiosis and fusion with an egg are they sacred as well?

 

 

 

A sperm isn't separate human life.

 

 

 

Is it separate?

 

yeah

 

 

 

Is it human?

 

No, It doesn't have enough chromosomes to be human and so is missing half the genetic code to be a human.

 

 

 

Is it life?

 

3: Yes it is living.

 

 

 

Result: Not a person

 

 

 

 

 

 

My argument wasn't that a sperm is a person, more that lots of things have the potential to develop into people given the right kind of situation. A zygote inside a mother is the kind of potential that it needs to grow into a person, on its own (or even with science) it cannot for the first 20 weeks or so.

 

 

 

The fact is that an aborted baby doesn't feel pain, is never conscious so is never aware of it's "loss".

 

 

The person in the coma is in the same situation. Would it be ok to kill them as well?

 

 

 

Yes, you're killing a bunch of cells which has the ability to grow up into a human being, but if it wasn't for the mother of that zygote those cells wouldn't be there at all, so shouldn't it ultimately be her choice?

 

I'm not saying a zygote shouldn't be killed because of it's potential to be a human being. I am saying a zygote shouldn't be killed because it IS a human being. You haven't disproved my reasoning for calling it a human being yet.

 

 

 

See above, for me a zygote is not an individual entity and so cannot claim to have the same rights as a fully developed, conscious, self aware human being.

 

 

 

Another thing is since Mothers create children they should have the ultimate right to kill them if they don't want them? Why should anything change when the child was outside the Mother vs. inside them? Should a mother be able to kill a child one minute before she gives birth to that child? If it is ok then you are going against your argument that a person should be defined as when they can live outside the mother's body which you said is the 20th week thing. If you say it's not ok then you are going against your point above where Mom's should have the ability to kill unborn children if they see fit because it would hinge on "viability outside the mother" rather than just on her right due to her creating the fetus.

 

 

 

In response to the bold, once the child is outside the mother's body it is a seperate individual human being, capable of surviving on its own with help and guidance. I don't think it's right that a mother should be able to have a last minute abortion at all, like I said I think the current limit is very sensible.

 

 

 

The same applies to comatose patients, they are capable of surviving (barely) with science, and for a period of their lives they were genuinely independent (the period depending on their age).

 

 

 

but I think as warri0r has said we have to remove the emotion and apply a degree of common sense.

 

I'm not the one debating using emotion. Everything I have said is straight science and straight logic. It appears you just disagree so far because of your own emotions. Why? Because my arguments go against your feeling of how things should be even though logically and scientifically the argument makes sense.

 

 

 

I am all for removing emotion from this debate. Propose an argument that is more logical and more scientific than the one I presented or disprove it using logic and science. Saying things like "I can't call it a person because it doesn't seem right calling a group of cells a person" is falling back on emotion for a defense. (Not trying to personally attack you Warrior, just trying to make a point to Assassin)

 

 

 

Obviously the definition of what constitutes a person is what it's hinging on at the moment. If you regard a zygote, a conglomeration of cells and chromosomes that has the full potential to develop into what we'd call a human being a person then that's fine, but I wouldn't.

 

 

 

Your argument is very logical, very precise and I can't fault you for that at all. But I just find that's it's perhaps motivated by a deeper emotion, which is your very high regard for human life. I too think human life is precious, but I think that someone's quality of life is just as important, and that's why I'm pro-choice, and incidentaly pro-euthanasia. I really do feel that the quality of life of the parents, other children and unborn child must be taken into account, and I don't think that it's always fair, or right to bring a child into a world where it won't have the full richness of life.

[Kant]

Of course though, if they've grown up and are now living their lives, and are indeed capable of conscious thought and accepting what abortion is (many handicapped children wouldn't be able to) I wouldn't tell them they'd be better off being aborted.

 

 

 

You're applying the principle of "any kind of life is better than no life at all" to those kids, and I don't think it's as black and white as that. Suicide testifies to that, for some people their life is just not worth living. I'm not necessarily saying they're the same children who might have been aborted, but although my life is the most precious gift I have, to others it's a curse.

 

 

 

I don't want to go through many what-ifs, but if a child was going to be brought into a world of pain, and suffering, and might not live beyond its infancy due to horrific disease or the inability of the parents to provide for their child, do you really think you're doing the child a favour by blocking the parents having an abortion? Particularly if the parents already have kids and are overstretched looking after them as it is.

 

 

 

Suicide doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t attest to that. The people that commit suicide are assuming that no life at all is better, and they really donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know that. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a false dilemma in that one of the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅchoicesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[warri0r45]

Of course though, if they've grown up and are now living their lives, and are indeed capable of conscious thought and accepting what abortion is (many handicapped children wouldn't be able to) I wouldn't tell them they'd be better off being aborted.

 

 

 

You're applying the principle of "any kind of life is better than no life at all" to those kids, and I don't think it's as black and white as that. Suicide testifies to that, for some people their life is just not worth living. I'm not necessarily saying they're the same children who might have been aborted, but although my life is the most precious gift I have, to others it's a curse.

 

 

 

I don't want to go through many what-ifs, but if a child was going to be brought into a world of pain, and suffering, and might not live beyond its infancy due to horrific disease or the inability of the parents to provide for their child, do you really think you're doing the child a favour by blocking the parents having an abortion? Particularly if the parents already have kids and are overstretched looking after them as it is.

 

 

 

Suicide doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t attest to that. The people that commit suicide are assuming that no life at all is better, and they really donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know that. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a false dilemma in that one of the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅchoicesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[assassin_696]

Maybe, but I think you and I both know that there are far worse things in this world than dying.

[Kant]

2) What did I get emotional over?

 

 

 

An argument insane made in response to an early post of assassin's. He told assassin to "go tell a suffering child that they were better off aborted". You responded by saying "less emotion please". The fact that you got emotional thinking about someone telling a child that they were better off aborted says nothing about the argument. It is very logical that if you truly believe that the child would be better off aborted that you should have no problem telling them that. But of course, you and I both know that it is illogical to tell someone that their experience is worse than death when we really have no idea what they're going through and what death is like. Assassin's argument is a false dilemma in that both choices from his POV are made from ignorance. He doesn't know what the child is going through, and he doesn't know what death is like.

 

 

 

 

 

Thus why I'd rather let the mother do the assuming and weight it up herself. We can speculate, assume, argue and put forth our views all we like but the child concieved not being mine, It's not my position to tell her what to do or assume my beliefs or views on what's right and wrong have devine rights over hers.

 

 

 

But the mother doesn't know either. The mother doesn't know what the child is going through and the mother doesn't know what death is like. Thus the mother supposedly being able to make the choice is another false dilemma. This is why suicide doesn't make any sense either. It is another false dilemma, but at least the person committing suicide understands one aspect of the choice - they know what it will take to keep living, whereas nobody else does.

 

 

 

Maybe, but I think you and I both know that there are far worse things in this world than dying.

 

 

 

No; you and I both assume that there are far worse things in this world than dying. We can only assume, and that's what makes this entire abortion debate one big false dilemma. That's my entire point.

[warri0r45]

Maybe, but I think you and I both know that there are far worse things in this world than dying.

 

 

 

He was talking more about what happens after you die. Any such scenario, if one exists, is an assumption and thus could be anything from non-existant up to beyond any imaginable agony or ecstacy. The assumption in relieving one from a potentially horrid life via abortion is that it's worse than what may be beyond death.

 

 

 

It's a fair cop.

 

 

 

But then the same could be said of those who assume they have the right of telling a mother to abort or not, which I'm not suggesting is anyone here. It's ultimately her choice and me saying it's wrong is based on my subjective belief. How and why should my subjective belief have precedent over her subjective choice? The difference is that she's the one in the predicament, not me.

[warri0r45]

2) What did I get emotional over?

 

 

 

An argument insane made in response to an early post of assassin's. He told assassin to "go tell a suffering child that they were better off aborted". You responded by saying "less emotion please". The fact that you got emotional thinking about someone telling a child that they were better off aborted says nothing about the argument. It is very logical that if you truly believe that the child would be better off aborted that you should have no problem telling them that. But of course, you and I both know that it is illogical to tell someone that their experience is worse than death when we really have no idea what they're going through and what death is like. Assassin's argument is a false dilemma in that both choices from his POV are made from ignorance. He doesn't know what the child is going through, and he doesn't know what death is like.

 

 

 

 

 

Thus why I'd rather let the mother do the assuming and weight it up herself. We can speculate, assume, argue and put forth our views all we like but the child concieved not being mine, It's not my position to tell her what to do or assume my beliefs or views on what's right and wrong have devine rights over hers.

 

 

 

But the mother doesn't know either. The mother doesn't know what the child is going through and the mother doesn't know what death is like. Thus the mother supposedly being able to make the choice is another false dilemma. This is why suicide doesn't make any sense either. It is another false dilemma, but at least the person committing suicide understands one aspect of the choice - they know what it will take to keep living, whereas nobody else does.

 

 

 

Maybe, but I think you and I both know that there are far worse things in this world than dying.

 

 

 

No; you and I both assume that there are far worse things in this world than dying. We can only assume, and that's what makes this entire abortion debate one big false dilemma. That's my entire point.

 

 

 

I generally try and keep my emotion to myself and avoid bringing it up in arguments. If 'less emotion please' is the most emotional thing you can get out of me here, I think I'm doing alright. :wink: If an argument is designed to give you an emotional response, as I feel Insane's was, I'll probably give you a gentle comment such as 'less emotion please.' If you feel an argument I've made was an intended emotion-jerker, please feel free to pull me up too.

 

 

 

And yes, the mother knows no better than you or me. It's not about her being able to make the choice accurately. It's about me not making it for her because it is logically hers to make and not mine.

[assassin_696]

That might be true, but the fact is we take our chances, we have to. Now, what happens after death is ultimately a mystery, but as far as we're aware it's nothing, it's just non-existence, very much like what it what before we're born.

 

 

 

We could keep people alive in this world for as long as possible on the basis that there is a hell, and we're all going there, but I think all the evidence points towards a simple permanent lack of consciousness.

 

 

 

And so even if we are making an assumption it is one that's based on some kind of evidence. Perhaps it is a gamble, but it's a relatively safe bet in my mind.

 

 

 

We can speculate and philosophise all we like about being and nothingness, but we have to look at the facts, and this there is no evidence of an afterlife in this world. And this life can be full of cruelty and suffering.

 

 

 

I also think it's unfair to say the mother doesn't know what the child is going through, chances are she does, and even if she doesn't it can be worked out.

[Barihawk]

I don't see how the argument that "the mother created it, she decides what to do with it."

 

 

 

If a mother smothered her one day old baby because she could not support it, or if it were to have some debilitating condition, she would get the majority of her life in prison and be publicly crucified by media.

 

 

 

If a mother has her child killed one day before it's born, it's somewhat alright?

 

 

 

A zygote is a human being. We were all Zygotes. Did you magically turn from "non-human" to "human" by leaving the womb? We have evidence now of fetus' displaying heartbeats at only 3 weeks. Of sucking their thumbs at 6 (which if that is not a human behavior, you need an examination).

 

 

 

This sounds more like a debate on eugenics. Find out your kid is not going to be born healthy, so you go ahead and "spare" him a lifetime of misery. Sounds noble, doesn't it?

 

 

 

My brother died a day after he was born. I spent SIX WEEKS in ICU without a natural heartbeat. 22 years later, I am healthy as can be with no outstanding medical conditions. And yes, my family was doing very badly monetarily back then.

 

 

 

There are alternatives to abortion. You make every adoption center sound like freaking Oliver Twist. They are not. Most adopted children in this nation find loving parents, many don't even know about their adoption.

 

 

 

Lets say couple A: A college couple where the girl gets knocked up after a drunken binge. Couple B: A middle-aged married couple, the wife is barren.

 

 

 

What scenario makes more sense to you? Couple A having their child killed in the womb because they don't want to take care of it? They don't wish their parents to know? Or for the girl to bring it to term, put it up for adoption and Couple B having the chance for a child.

 

 

 

My argument summed up in one point: There are alternatives. Be more careful with sex, use better protection, "GROW UP" about pregnancy and deal with it (most mothers would not turn their backs on their daughters because they were pregnant), or heck, raise the child yourself!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I have gotten emotional in this post. Abortion is single-handedly the only thing in this world that makes me white-knuckle pissed off. If someone would like to offer counterpoints, I'd love to cool down and answer. Hell, I could even do polls for you.