Sure would, buddy. And I’d still go with any of my friends who chose to have an abortion and wanted me to go with them. Why would I do it? Well, like I said before, the welfare of the breathing, thinking, feeling person standing in front of me takes precedence over the welfare of the non-sentient fetus inside her.
Oh, what a load of crap. You know as well as anybody else with half a brain that “slaughter” has a very negative connotation. If you weren’t looking for something emotionally charged, you would have used a more clinical term.
I also find it very odd that you can talk about other people being emotional based on words on a screen, and yet condemn other posters for doing the exact same thing. Constancy, thou art a jewel.
Good, a straightforward answer. And I respect it, because it is logical. I have a little rule that I have forgotten: Never fault anyone for being logical. So, it’s cool.
Now, the trouble I am having with this (I am narrowing it down) is that I believe that my argument is logical too. It just is coupled with my extreme sanctity for life, so it produces what all you think is an emotional basis.
I guess this debate should be more along the lines of, “Do you fault the person who believes differently than you on the abortion issue?”. I think neither of us should think the other inferior in any way. Neither POV is emotional, especially the pro-abortion choice. And neither is non-foundational, correct? You have your technical foundation, I have my sanctity of life foundation… what makes one or the other superior?
I know this seems like a change of stance, but that’s why I come in here, to gain an understanding (just like some religious threads I have started under my lost name Fuel.) It just took me awhile to realize that the reason I was debating was not because I thought you all were wrong, but that I didn’t think I was wrong either.
Nope. The word “slaughter” carries some pretty heavy negative connotations.
I don’t have to. You have implicitely stated so yourself:
You are implying that, while you are normally logically-oriented, you are not logically-oriented when it comes to abortion.
I just call 'em like I see 'em. Maybe I’m wrong, but you are definitely coming across as being more heavilly swayed by emotion than by logic in this debate. Doing so is a detriment in a debate, and I’m sinply trying to point out that you seem to be emotional, even if you aren’t really.
I am unimpressed by your “standard cite”. You and the author of this piece are essentially creating a circular argument, defining a fertilised ovum as a human being and then using that definition to knock down a variety of pro-choice “myths”.
But unless you are willing to state exactly what defines a human being, without reference to the process of conception, then you haven’t advanced the argument at all. Sure something happens at conception, but something happens at a great many points in human fetal development (and beyond), but is the moment of conception the only choice for the start of “life”?
Consider the following issues:
- Does the key moment come as soon as the sperm and egg touch, or only when the zygote rids itself of half the mother’s DNA? Why?
- If one conception = one life, how are we to account for the “extra lives” generated by identical twins, created post-conception? And if genetic composition is the defining factor, does that make identical twins half-people?
- What of the fertilized ova which do not go full-term naturally (up to 75%)? Should we weep for these (many of which currently go unnoticed)?
- What of the prospect of cloned individuals? Since there would be no moment of conception associated with these embryos, would human clones be people at all? If so, why?
- What about the test for cystic fibrosis which sacrifices one cell of a two-cell embryo, but allows the remaining cell to be reimplanted and develop into a baby. Murder? Each cell has the potential to be an individual human, so…
- Suppose you separate a two cell embryo (to generate identical twins), but then recombine them? Have you murdered a twin?
The argument still seems incoherent to me, and no amount of hand-waving of this kind
will make the grey area black and white.
Cheers
Tom
That’s true. But when I meant that I wasn’t being logical, that doesn’t necessarily mean I am being emotional. Yes, it could be construed that using sanctity of life is utilizing an emotional argument, but I thought you meant I was being emotionally moved by this debated, and in return not being able to have a useful debate, which I believe is NOT that case here. (My heart rate is at rest and I bring no other baggage to this table like past personal experiences. I am not emotionally stirred, I guess you could say.)
Your point is justified though.
Well tell you what…here are the cites that stipulate that a unique human life is created at conception… (these of course are not the only cites out there…but at least I provided some…)
-
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.
-
William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), pp. 4, 8, 11
-
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)
I’ve seen plenty of posters in this thread who have said …It’s not human until viability…or it’s not a human until brain activity…or (pick your own arbitrary point). Would anybody (including you) care to back up any of those claims with medical cites?
**
Yes although “moment” is of course a relative term…it’s not a “moment” in the sense of a split second.
**
See above…the process of fertilization (which occurs over several hours) is the “moment” recognized as the start of a new human life by the cites provided above. Again…if you (or anyone else) has standard embryologic cites to the contrary, (as opposed to philosophical arguments) I havent seen them
**
Nice red herring, I never claimed that only one life can be created at conception. I used the term “unique human life” earlier…because folks were discussing this in terms of “a life”…Nothing from the cite runs contrary to multiple zygotes…
**
Gosh I don’t know. Is human reaction your litmus test for “human life”? Many folks have funerals for miscarriages…I assume therefore that you would consider THOSE organisms to be human…right? (if you’re using the argument of human response)
**
Last time I checked…we were discussing human life in terms of, for lack of a better descriptor “natural conception”…so thats what I was basing my response on.
But…to address your point, apparently you didn’t read the cite I provided very carefully…
FWIW, I’m opposed to a great deal of cloning and related procedures for similar reasons.
**
To be honest, I’m not real familiar with this test…I did google and found this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1027076.stm
Is that the test you’re referring to? I don’t see a mention of working with a “two cell embryo”
**
Thanks but I’ll pass on the hypotheticals. I’ve played the game before…as soon as one provides an answer…than the “hypothetical” is tweaked some more. And pardon me for thinking that “seperating two cell embryos and then recombining them” doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the specific topic at hand.
One can play these hypothetical games with lots of situations…and create lots of fun plots of sci fi books in the process.
So the folks that think “human life” occurs at some later point in time (viability…brain functioning…sentience…leaving the birth canal…third trimester yadda yadda) …you have no problem with a lack of embryological cites for that reasoning?
The cites are very pretty, but of course, the “argument from authority” is no argument at all. That others share your view does not make it correct. I see no reason to back up my views with cites for the same reason. However, I note in passing that since abortion is legal and embryo research is carried out daily, evidently there are many, many scientists who do not regard an embryo as more than a ball of cells.
You have avoided my primary thrust which is that your argument is circular. I would be interested to hear your response.
Some quick rebuttals.
No, I wouldn’t care to pick an arbitrary “life” point. Legislators are forced to do that, but it is necessarily a simplification. When is a fetus a human? When is a child an adult?
My argument re: clones was rebutted by you with a simple assertion. I’ll put the point again. If the creation of a genetically unique “potential human” is the single qualifier for “personhood” then clones don’t make the cut (since no such moment of creation exists for them). Or if they do, why?
Cystic fibrosis. This from the site you saw. “From the embryos, one cell was carefully removed for testing to see whether or not it carried the CF gene. The technique leaves a hole in the side of the embryo but does not prevent the embryo growing into a healthy human being.” Now reread my argument. The total number of cells is not relevant.
Unwise. Today’s hypothetical is tomorrow’s science.
Cheers
Tom
No, people think that a person whose rights need to be protected develops later. Such as when there’s a brain.
Using general terms like “human life” clouds the issue. A zygote, embryo etc is without any debate human (species membership, check the DNA) and living (cells functioning, presumably growing). So is a tumour. So is my left kidney. Big whoop. I’m not going to cry over a tumour being removed, and that’s alive and human to the same extent. I would probably be pretty upset about my kidney being removed, but I still don’t think it’s a person. Nor is the tumour, and that’s more unique since it’s mutated away form my basic DNA.
The only difference is that an embryo MIGHT become a person, if the actual existing person hosting the process wants it to. (And is lucky enough for the process to work, of course.)
**I think perhaps you underestimate the amount of actual thought that goes on in my head each day; I’m sorry if you feel that my pointing out what I perceived as a flaw in your debating method was an unnecessary sidetrack; I’m just trying to help - when you allow emotion to control you in a debate, it clouds your view of the facts, you can end up making statments or claims that are difficult to defend and ultimately you can find yourself arguing in support of a caricature of your real views.
I’m not ‘pointing fingers’ (at least not in an accusatory manner) - that’s another emotionally-charged statement
Whatever made you say that? By what basis are you able to divine my thoughts?
So, you couldn’t think of any reason why I might say that?
This is a perfect example of why I don’t need to address any other part of your post… because you obviously are not thinking enough here, just the normal knee-jerk posting I see here much too often.
See, when you see this forum from my POV (from the minority POV, but not counting this thread), the shortcomings of peoples reading-to-empathizing skills are overwhelmingly apparent. They’re all smart, but they just double-click a little too soon.
But what do I know, I only have 100 posts… (get it?)
I’m trying to understand what sort of cite you could possibly be looking for. Of course a zygote is living tissue with a unique, human, DNA pattern, we’re not all incredibly stupid here.
We get it. It has human DNA. It is alive. It will become a person. Restating these facts is not going to change our views because we already know them.
The question is: When do you assign personal rights to it? When do you give it personhood? When do you restrict the rights of the mother in response to it’s rights?
Medical texts do not answer THAT question. We answer it through our morality, ethics, and personal beliefs.
The way I figure it is, if the fetus can survive on its own, outside the womb, it wouldn’t be fair to let a doctor abort it. Before then, I think women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies.
What if the thing not only can’t stand up for itself, but has no WILL to WANT to have anyone stand up for it?
The probability of something one day coming to have interests in the future is irrelevant. It doesn’t have interests when you act now, so you can’t be violating them. If you do want to claim that we need to consider the POTENTIAL interests of a being in wanting to have been alive as a being with interests, then this argument applies just as well to the unconcieved as it does to the unborn.
These are the key issues in response to your own OP: you’d do well to address them directly.
Uh, Bob Cos your post was also preceded by Haus’, where he talked about the ‘little guy’ as well. Abortion debating would be lifted up a notch if in fact every time some anti-abortion person started waxing poetic about the ‘little guy’ he also had to make reference to the mother so as to not leave her out of the conversation. If you read enough anti-choice discussion about the ‘baby’ you lose sight of the mother entirely, because she’s simply never mentioned.
This is the technical answer, but essentially the answer is that it is relevant, to some arbitrary degree. We humans have brains, not computer chips, so why not use your brain?
Again, like I said, I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer to this debate, but there are different angles that one must look at this from and it seems like some of you don’t agree with me on my “no correct answer” opinion.
I don’t think I understood a single word of hauss’s previous post.
Cheers
Tom
Now, now Tom… my post had the rest of the thread’s info implied. “Read” is the key word here.
I mean sanctity of life has no quantifiable relevance (a computer chip wouldn’t know what to do with it), so no one wants to try and apply it… but in reality it ought to be applied intuitively with our brains.
In case you didn’t catch on, I am proposing that some of you are thinking like robots… which is a good thing 99% of the time, but not now. That’s for GQ and about 95% of GD, this thread being among the 5%.
Cheers to you too Tom. You are a genuine credit to the board, when you read and reflect before posting.
Oh yeah, forgot to say that you don’t get spoonfed here, Tom.
I think “technical” means logical, but “essential” means -
whatever hauss is basing his position on. I don’t want to say “emotion”, because he has already denied that (with what credibility, I leave to others to judge).
Regards,
Shodan
But I have no clue as to what his next one means.
Regards,
Shodan