A Compromise on Abortion

Great Debates
261

**

Oh hell. I’ll hold your hand and walk you through it.

  1. B. Lewin, Genes III (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), pp. 9-13; A. Emery, Elements of Medical Genetics (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1983), pp. 19, 93.

  2. William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), pp. 4, 8, 11.

  3. Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994). See also, Bruce M. Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental Biology (St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994), and Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).

(etc…)

I’ll type s-l-o-w-l-y this time. The medical cites that I claimed are the ones listed above (that the author included in her essay). I really didn’t think I actually needed to point out the portions of the essay that are quotes from the cited medical texts.

**

Humor me with a link or a citation? And remember, your cite has to stipulate something to the effect that human life does not begin at fertilization/conception. I’d be happy to read your cite and comment.

**

Nice strawman dude. I didn’t claim that all (or any) embryologist was making a statement about the morality or legality of abortion. There are plenty of pro choice folks (plenty on this board even) who believe that human life starts at conception, but still believe in “a right to choose” abortion at particular points in gestation. You made a medical claim about the nature of the z/e/f. I provided medical cites to the contrary…you still have provided how many actual cites to support your position? Oh yeah…zip. Still.

My claim was that a human life is created at fertilization/conception. I did not claim it was an instantaneous event (another nice strawman there…). It’s actually a process that can take a few hours.

From my linked cite

So fertilization is a “procession of events”. You can look at it a couple of different ways. It is a process so it’s not instantaneous. However, compared to the entire length of gestation, the fertilization stage is “relatively” brief, so one could refer to a “moment of fertilization” relative to the 9 months of gestation.

262

Again I have to state, this is not a medical or scientific debate. A doctor or embryologist using the phrase “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being” does not justify your position. That is not a medical or scientific claim, its a scientist imposing his/her beliefs his/her craft.

If that was your proof I’m a bit disappointed. I have no interest in sifting through the thousands of embryology citations until I eventually find one that says, “A zygote is the START of the process to becoming a human being.” I’m sure there must be one that says “the development and release of an oocyte is the beginning of new human-being.” There are any number of ways to say the same thing. You have chosen to believe that this person (who may be an expert in embryology) is an expert in determining when life begins.

That quote is horribly irresponsible. So there, you’ve made the fallacy of assuming an expert in embryology is an expert in when life begins.

I will not provide a cite for you. I’ve read enough scientific journals to know that where ever there is a stance, there are people to back it up. Pick any stance and you will find an ‘expert’ to make it valid, on either side.

If you don’t believe me, look at the scientists working to prove the Bible correct, and the Bible incorrect. Or look at the scientists working to prove racism is okay. Look at green-house gases, global warming, or nuclear power.

This is not a debate that science can resolve. It becomes an issue of morals, and likewise is a question of whether you have the right to impose YOUR beliefs on me.

263

It’s not a “claim”, it’s a truth. A priori. I can take away all your rights by exercising my right to kill. What right of yours takes away my right to kill, other than your right to kill?

Except under those circumstances that we’re ok with it.

You may choose not to exercise that right, but it’s there.

264

Just so I don’t waste any more time with you, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

I provide numerous cites (some from medical texts, some from tetimony before a Senate subcommittee about this very subject) all stipulating in one way or other that human life begins at conception. The cites include standard medical texts used in a large number of university classes.

I include a cite from Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic and the “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune.

Also…“Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.”

IOW, numerous references from a variety of medical texts stipulating, in one way or another, that human life begins at conception.

You say it doesn’t matter. That all of these medical folks and textbook authors are not making scientific statements, but are “imposing” their beliefs…(I guess you’re assuming that they’re all pro life…eh?) You equate their statements with out of the mainstream scientists who support racism.

You tell me earlier that

I ask you for a link so that I can read this statement that will tell me that “life hasn’t really begun”. You decline…finally later stating that “I will not provide a cite for you…”

I’m reminded of your behavior on the first page of this thread. That’s when you made your original claim of fact…

**

…and when I initially requested a cite. You refused to provide a cite until I agreed with your philosophical viewpoint about abortion.

**

You later started a pit thread to ostensibly “apologize” for your behavior in doing that…and yet, you’re still choosing a similar path.

You’re making a deliberate choice to be intellectually dishonest, just like on the first page of the thread. That’s unfortunate.

265

Shouldn’t a monkey embryo have the same rights as a human embryo then?

What objective difference is there between the two other than the fact that 0.6% of their DNA is not the same?

266

Wow, I almost believed you. I did a little research and found THAT YOU STOLE ALL OF THAT FROM http://www.prolifeinfo.org/upl39.html
or
http://www.roevwade.org/upl39.html

You have chosen to only listen to the part of the senate committee that said what you agreed with. The statement that “it is in a lot of text books in universities” is not valid. I have seen enough errors in university text books to know including mathmatical formulas with minus signs where there should be a plus sign (first year calculas text book widely used acrosst the country).

I’m saddened that you found a few comfortable cites and have hidden yourself behind them.

Scientists disagree, that’s what we do. And all too often scientists over step their bounds when their morals get involved.

You are going to encounter a very shocking realization when cloning becomes more common. You will have ‘new life’ begin without a sperm and an egg, with out a genetic difference. You also have yet to consider twinning, not the traditional sence, but the current ability to INDUCE a zygote to twin.

Your long held belief that egg and sperm make human are going the way of the flat world believers.

I’d also like to point out that your cites are horribly out of date, that senate subcommittee meeting was in 1981, loooooong before medical genetics had a clue compared to today.

Well, you are pointing to a few hours in a nine month span, why stop there? Why not compare the nine month span to a human living 80 years? Perhaps the process of ‘becoming human’ takes nine months and NOT 3 hours.

What I had hoped you would learn from this is that if you want to take a stance, any stance, you will be able to find sites that back it up. For example
http://www.innova.net/~mlabar/When%20does%20life%20begin.htm

There are you happy, you have your precious cite?

267

Hey dumbass, before accusing me of stealing something, you may wish to pull your head out and notice…

that…

I…

linked…

to…

the…

exact…

web site…

that you are accusing me of “stealing from”

Use the little scroll thing on your pc and scroll up to the post where I posted this…that’s it, you can do it Sparky!!

You’ll notice that the word here is a fucking link to the exact web site that you accused me of stealing from.

Nice job Sparky…I think you’ve covered all the fucking bases now, INCLUDING slander. Your mom must be proud. :rolleyes:

268

So to support your pro-life views, you provided us a link to a pro-life site? Well done.

So in that theme, here are all the cites you’ll ever need.

So in JThunder fashion, have you got any cites that AREN’T abortion related?

269

So to support your pro-life views, you provided us a link to a pro-life site? Well done.

So in that theme, here are all the cites you’ll ever need.

Now in JThunder fashion, have you got any cites that AREN’T abortion related?

270

Because direct personal insults are not appropriate for GD, I apologize to the mods for my use of the term “dumbass” (and similar statements) in my previous post.

The rest of my comments about the accusation of plagiarizing work from other sources, stands.

271

False analogy. What I asked for were precedents for the claim that personhood begins at birth. That is, I asked for evidence that this so-called “definition” was recognized prior to the pro-choice attempts at justifying abortion.

Obviously, this is NOT the same as insisting that only non-abortion-related articles should be cited.

Moreover, the articles to which beagledave linked cited medical texts and medical testimonies. In other words, it may have been a pro-life website, but it referenced sources that were not abortion-related.

272

Are you trying to insinuate some contradiction, Julie? Because there is none.

In my first statement, I said that the law places limits on bodily rights, and that these limits are justified. I did NOT claim this is justified by virtue of being law. Those are two entirely different statements.

Get it? “This is the law, and it happens to be just” is NOT semantically equivalent to saying “This is just because it’s the law.” ERGO, there is no contradiction.

Let me know if you need this explained again.

273

Here’s something that I would love to see, and this will anger ever religious person out there:

I’ve got it below in spoiler fashion, so select at your own risk:

I mentioned this a few pages back, before an abortion flip a coin. Do this as a national standard with whitnesses and documentation. As I said, if its heads no abortion, tails you go through with it. If God disagrees, there would never be an abortion

274

Well, JThunder, I gave you something that wasn’t abortion related.

Lots of something. Admittedly, they aren’t things I may agree with, but they’re certainly cites about being judged human.

And you dismissed my lovely Aristotle out of hand. Can’t imagine why. Still waiting for your perspective on things.

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, play the game, put your money on the table…

275

Are you trying to insinuate some contradiction, Julie? Because there is none.**
[/quote]

Oh, so if you say the law is justified, you can use the law to defend your position, but if others say the law (as in Roe v. Wade) is justified, you say that they have to prove that it’s justified. If it’s justified without the law, why are you bringing the law into it? Why mention the law if you don’t think it bolsters your position?

Oh, and then you say you want a precedent for legally defining when personhood begins that doesn’t reference the abortion debate. Again with the law. It seems you think the law’s position can be used to support your own case, but no one else’s.

Still, how about the recent decision in New England (can’t remember the state) in which the court said that the fetus was a part of the woman’s body, like a fingernail, when a man appealed his assault conviction saying that his assault was against the person of the fetus rather than the pregnant woman.

There ya go. Not an abortion ruling. Not a person. And if I actually thought it worthwhile, I’d find a link to the ruling.

Julie

276

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Certain laws are justified; others aren’t. The “law” is not some monolithic, all-or-nothing entity. It is perfectly reasonable to hold that laws against causing bodily harm to other peole are justified, whereas Roe v Wade is not. In othe words, no inconsistency here.

Oh, for pity’s sake. Are you even reading this thread?

I am not the one who brought up law in this discussion. Rather, it is emacsknight who did, when he said,

In other words, emacsknight said that the government allows a mother to decide all aspects of a child’s life. I was merely pointing out that this simply isn’t so. In other words, I’m not the one who brough this topic up!

jsgoddess, it’s obvious to me that you’re cherry-picking what pro-lifers say, in an attempt to find some contradiction or point to attack. This makes it easy to exclaim “Why are you introducing this ridiculous topic???” when in truth, it is your fellow pro-choicers who brought the matter up.

Again, it’s obvious that you’re not paying attention to the discussion at hand. I asked for a precedent. I did not ask for a legal precedent. In other words, my challenge was not based on any assumptions regarding the validity of the law.

Next times, before you get all haughty about such things, make sure that you get the facts right.

And not a precedent. Do you even understand the meaning of the term?

From dictionary.com:

In other words, a precedent must occur before its antecedents, if it to be used in establishing the validity of a practice.

The court ruling in question might not have been abortion-related per se, but it was made in consonance with the Roe v Wade ruling. Ergo, it would be circular reasoning to point to this and say, “Aha! So that justifies abortion!” No. The abortion ruling came before the court case which you mentioned, and so the latter can not be used to justify the former.

And, since I suspect that you’ll twist my words again, let me emphasize something here. I am not saying that a mere precedent (legal or otherwise) would be sufficient to decide the matter of personhood. It is, however, a necessary condition, albeit insufficient unto itself. Remember that if a pro-choicer says “By definition, personhood begins at birth!” then they must be able to provide at least some evidence that there definition had been formulated before the desired conclusion had been arrived at.

277

Actually, Thunderous One, ‘antecedent’ and ‘precedent’ could be described as synonyms - depending on context.

One could argue that ‘antecedent’ could be seen in an evolutionary sense. In the way that the old conundrum:

“Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

could be answered “An earlier form of chicken.”

This earlier form would not be ‘precedent’ but, rather, ‘antecedent’.

278

None of which were relevant. Not a single one of them offered a definition personhood, which is the specific matter being discussed. In fact, one of them even said,

…which is precisely what the pro-choicers here have been saying repeatedly, and with great emphasis!

Moreover, I asked for precedents – that is, definitions which were established prior to the pro-choice claim that personhood begins at birth. Citing opinions on the cloning issue doesn’t count, since these opinions were formulated in recently, in the wake of the pro-choice claim. In fact, there is no indication that any of the sites to which you linked establish any manner of precedent…

Quite simply, because he did not address the issue of personhood. Aristotle said that infants are not human beings, and that we have no obligation to them. This is not the same as addressing personhood.

And even if it did, it would actually contradict the pro-choice claim, since Aristotle was referring to fully born infants. So if you hold Aristotle to be authoritative, and if you maintain that he was speaking of personhood, then this would actually be fatal to the pro-choice definition!

279

Yes, you are right in that I was using the wrong word. My error.

The point remains though. If one wishes to establish a precedent, then one must cite a definition which pre-dates the claim in question. It does no good to definitions (or worse – mere actions, such as the aforementioned court ruling) which occured long after the fact.

280

This is true, if human beings are not persons, pookie.

But I’m afraid that Aristotle wouldn’t have been talking about such a strange english word at all, as he was speaking in greek. As such, I’m afraid such minor quibbles really don’t matter at all.

So, you say that a zygote has “qualities that confer distinct individuality”? Like being a college activist?

I’m afraid that word doesn’t mean what you think it means, or you’re just playing semantic games. Not to mention using a word coined out of the est era of the 1960s, and asking for a cite previous to that. I’m sorry, but you just can’t play that game here.

So, you want something that has nothing to do with abortion, that has to do with at what point a set of cells, which we didn’t know about before, golly, modern medicine, becomes human?

Done.

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:Ah0XLB_uMVgJ:www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/personho.htm+personhood&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

How’s that? So, before a embryo is concious, it has no personhood.

Either that, or you’re a Jainist.