And to get back to the OP, I specifically asked for the fish.
As I’ve pointed out before, it’s a lovely game of semantics, but saying that “life” began 3 billion years ago lends nothing to the discussion. The question is when an individual life begins.
The fertilized egg grows into a new human being, the unfertilized egg does not. Saying that the two are exactly the same is awfully small-minded.
And the point where it is defined as a human being is most definitely a scientific question. The difference between, say, a frog and a walrus is determined scientifically, not politically. Same with the difference between a cell and a person.
The difficulties are not irrelevant, but that does not mean that they are equal.
This is a topic for another time.
The earth was formed before you became a person (that’s assuming that you did become a person, which evidently is incredibly difficult to determine). Eggs are fertilized and babies born every day - we’re there to see it. Determining when the planet was formed requires the formation of hypotheses on events that nobody saw. We’ve seen conception.
If I asked you what color my car is and you responded, “I don’t know, but it’s not orange,” would that be a logical answer? If you don’t know what color it is, how can you possibly determine what color it is not?
I don’t claim to have perfect knowledge, I claim to have reached the only rational conclusion. You claim to have perfect knowledge that I’m wrong, but nothing more than that.
Granted. But the presence of a person is central to my debate, while the absence of a person is central to yours.
That wasn’t my point, anyway. You counter that it’s ok to set an arbitrary point for the beginning of life because a law about theft and larceny is arbitrary. My point is that no matter what the law says, it’s still theft, murder is still murder, etc. If all written laws disappeared tomorrow, murder would be no more acceptable than it is now. In other words, the arbitrary nature of some legislative act has nothing at all to do with the beginning of life.
As I stated above, that’s the crux of the argument. Also, it does not assume that a fertilized egg is a person. I stated, “Defending abortion as a simple medical procedure designed to rid the body of a parasite or as a simple matter of choice (i.e. convenience) imposes morals on a human (or even under your definition, a future human) who has no say in the matter and will not be able to develop his or her own moral concepts. It is placing the opinions and desires of one person as more important than the very existence of another person.” Adopting your argument that a fertilized egg is not a person, it is still a future person. You are preventing the growth of a human being - if there was no abortion, a human being would exist - to satisfy selfish notions.
This is yet another red herring. Hitler and his associates didn’t think it was wrong to exterminate Jews, but they were forced to live (and die) by someone else’s views. Certain Mormon sects see nothing wrong with polygamy, but they’re forced to live by others’ views. Many pedophiles see nothing wrong with sexual acts with children, but they, too, are forced to live by someone else’s views.
“Choice,” freedom from oppression, a woman’s right to her own body, etc. are mere diversions. Anybody thinking clearly can see that.
The fertilized egg grows into one or more human beings in the case of identical siblings, or into part of a human being in the case of chimeras.
Are identical twins parts of a single human being? If not, then fertilization cannot be the point where “a human being” is created, because identical twins are created by a split that is significantly later than fertilization.
Hitler in 102, not bad.
Also, feel free to declare victory. I’m making a tactical withdrawal in the face overwhelming boredom and tautology.
I mentioned his name, yes. Was what I said untrue? Once again, the red herring rears its ugly head.
And AGAIN. Is there any argument against me besides semantics? I said that “life” begins at conception, which then prompted some asinine discussion of the origins of life in the world. To avoid that, I said “human being,” which apparently renders my argument meaningless because I left off the possibility of plurality. There are plenty of retorts to the words involved, but none to the logic.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the proverbial alien visiting Earth. Say the alien was curious about humanity and began asking questions.
Q: So each human has always existed and always will?
A: No, people are born and then die.
Q:Born? What happens there?
A: Well, basically, a man and woman have sex, the woman becomes pregnant, and nine months later a baby is born.
Q:So, this baby is a new person?
A: Yes
Q: And this new person was created when the woman became pregnant?
A: No, no, no. It was created later.
Q:But it didn’t exist before she became pregnant, right?
A: Right, but it still doesn’t exist after she becomes pregnant.
Q: Then when does it begin to exist?
A: At some indeterminate point after conception.
Q: But doesn’t it make sense that it comes into existence when the baby itself is created?
A: No, that’s arbitrary, not to mention evil, stupid, slavemongering, misogynistic, etc. And besides, it’s not a baby. We’ve assigned a different word to describe it and then revolved our logic around different words that can be used.
Q:But if it all starts when the egg is fertilized, and isn’t there before that, doesn’t it necessarily come into existence when it… comes into existence, no matter what you call it?
A: Don’t push your alien morality on me!
If you want to believe that a fertilized egg isn’t human, I can’t change your mind any more than I change your mind that I’m the alien in question. But don’t try to argue that there is even a shred of logic in your position, because there simply isn’t. All the parsing of words in the world won’t change that.
Now there’s an open mind for you.
For the record, I’m no longer debating with you, I’m making fun of you.
You know who else thought his opponents arguments were illogical? Hitler.
The point is that “life” and “human being” are not so easy to define or self-evident as you seem to think.
Nutrition Facts
Serving Size
1 fillet, medium (5" x 1-3/4" x 1/4") (40.0 g)
Amount Per Serving
Calories 87
Calories from Fat 45
Total Fat 4.9g
Saturated Fat 1.1g
Polyunsaturated Fat 1.2g
Monounsaturated Fat 2.0g
Cholesterol 33mg
Sodium 367mg
Total Carbohydrates 0.0g
Protein 9.8g
Vitamin A 1% • Vitamin C 1%
Calcium 3%
http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-herring-atlantic-kippered-i15042
It is your logic that people are poking holes in. But, of course, since we’re communicating with words, such arguments will inevitably hinge upon what precisely you mean by things like “life” or “human being”.
Apparently, to you, an unfertilized egg cell isn’t “alive”. And “human beings” can split into multiple copies of themselves. These are certainly not properties we usually associate with cells and humans, so understandably people are trying to precisely what you mean when you use these terms.
Of course, the major point you still seem not to be able to get your head around is the idea that a thing can exist without there being a precise moment when it came into being. It’s odd that you should be so quick to reject the house metaphor, since you yourself introduced it into the discussion. There’s no precise point in the construction of a house when it flips over from being “not a house” to “a house”, but there’s undeniably a house standing there when it’s all done.
Recommended Daily Allowances are a pure construct of the abortion-loving left to remove people from having rational thoughts.
Or maybe they’re a plot by the right to enslave people nutritionally and impose their narrow nutritional morals on others. I haven’t decided yet… 
On the off chance you actually want to address the OP and not screed on against abortion, I’m mostly in favor of a mix of “conservative” and “liberal” policies–I’m pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-capital-punishment, pro-military. I am in favor of raising taxes to cover the deficit where necessary. I am in favor of expanded welfare and immigration rights. I’m in favor of school vouchers even to schools with parochial/religious affiliation. I can happily support all of those policies.
The problem is that semantics are at heart what this is all about. The fundamental disconnect here is that we don’t ultimately agree on what “human life” might be or what causes the state of “possesses full human rights” to apply.
Science expressly does NOT address these concerns, because from a scientific point of view, the process from ovum to zygote to implantation to fetus to baby is a single continuum requiring both internal growth and external inputs.
With you so far.
The rest of this ‘discussion’ is somewhere between pointless and insulting so I won’t bother addressing it except for the last question.
A: Your question assumes facts not in evidence. All elements required for said human life to start are possessed by the sperm and egg, and before that by the reproductive cells that undergo meiosis to produce the gametes. So in a very real sense, it IS there “before that”. There are many useful metrics for determining when the baby is a separate being from its parent(s)–separate genetics (at conception), separate intellectual potential (at brainwave activity), separate viability (at the point it can survive without the uterus/placenta), or any others you care to name. Some ancient religious traditions even hold it’s not a separate individual until eight days after a live birth! What is known is that the process from meiosis to birth is a continuous process with milestones, none of which admit to an easy, unambiguous division of “not human” and “human”.
And, as covered in the last thread on this subject, none of this is politically relevant–the question of when the fetus becomes a “human life” is (depending on your axioms, naturally) totally irrelevant to the question of abortion. If you understand a pro-death-penalty stance then you understand it’s possible to believe human beings can have their right to life revoked under the proper conditions, after all.
Can I be your friend? 6.5 out of 7 is pretty good.
To get this straight, I have a plot of dirt in my back yard, a packet of Burpee seeds can be bought at the hardware store, I have a hose that can emit water, and, of course, there’s sunshine, “so in a very real sense” I have a garden?
What I understand about a pro-death penalty stance is that the sentence of death is handed down in response to the activities of the sentenced, not because the judge has the freedom to choose. The two are unrelated.
I’ll spell it out for you (again) - an unfertilized egg is not a human life and cannot possibly contribute to the creation of a human life without fertilization. I did not say that human beings can split into multiple copies of themselves (another parsing of words to provide a distraction from the real issue). Life exists at conception - if that becomes two human beings, it is still life.
The house metaphor was in response to your statement that, “the fertilized egg doesn’t just magically poof into existence. It’s not ‘created’. It’s changed from what was there before.” I compared this to saying that a house doesn’t exist because trees and nails existed before the house. Not the same metaphor, but thanks for trying.
All of this philosophy 101 bullshit about existence and things coming into being without ever really coming into being would be great fun in a dorm room with a joint, but it ignores the fact that life must begin somewhere. I’ve wrapped my head around the concept of incremental being sufficiently to see that it is total BS. If the end result is a human being, there must be some point where that humanity is achieved, otherwise, it never is a human being. And again, the problem isn’t that I’m just too durn stoopid to realize the incredible logic at work, it’s that without this obfuscation about life, humanity, humanness, or whatever you want to call it (whether singular or plural), the practice of abortion is absolutely inexcusable.
So says the person who wants to pretend that calling people names is unacceptable in an argument. Of course, what you really mean is that your opponents shouldn’t call you names; you of course as a superior enlightened being can call other people names all you like.
You assume that I believe you.
Assuming you mean “pro-life”, then yes. Each gender is pretty notorious for persecuting its own, and woman hating groups often have large female memberships for whatever reason.
Yes it is, you are demanding the use of her body against her will for your own purposes. That’s slavery.
No, but the ability to feel pain would involve a massive alteration and upgrade in its nervous system; they are automatons.
Nonsense, unlike a fetus other people can take care of children once they are born. And babies rapidly gain mental sophistication once born. And yes, an unwanted fetus is a parasite; it drains and damages the body while giving nothing in return. That’s a parasite.
Thanks to biology the two matters are quite different.
Yes it does, it points out the baselessness of your position that “life” begins at conception.
Translation: Your idea that society is breaking down because of abortion is simply made up, you can’t defend it, and you want people to forget you said it.
No; what’s central to your debate is the attempt to play bait-and-switch with terms like “person” and “human life”. You keep switching definitions mid conversation, to confuse the two so you can demand that something that merely qualifies as alive receive the status of a person. One example:
“Future human” isn’t the same as “person”, not even close.
They are only “diversions” from your desire to oppress and torment them.
As you have ignored your own stated purpose in starting the thread to post screeds on abortion and ignored entirely my response to your supposed thread topic, I can feel safe in branding you a troll and ignoring you.
We just HAD this stupid discussion. You’re more erudite than classyladyhp, but no more convincing or logical.
I’ve been called plenty of names based solely on a logical stance. I called you a name which, given your stance that the entire issue is subjective to the person involved without regard to anything or anybody else, is at best borderline sociopathic. I didn’t call you a rapist or a retard, as I’ve been called, I described your views with a term you don’t like.
I honestly couldn’t give a shit less if you believe me. Again, not everything is subject to your personal opinion on it.
I demand no use of a woman’s body against her will. I have no children, I’ve never impregnated anybody, and I’ve never forced a woman to do anything. My position is that abortion is murder, and preventing murder is not forcing anybody to do anything. What possible purpose could I have in a woman I’ve never met (and never will) not committing murder? You make no sense.
I have said nothing against women. Your hysterical ranting about rape and slavery (and projected desires) being perpetrated by anyone who is against abortion shows an anti-male attitude in you much more than it proves an anti-female attitude in somebody else.
Are you sure about that?
But, using your definitions, the baby would be parasitic to the “other people,” wouldn’t it?
Also, does this rapid gain of mental sophistication begin when, and only when, the baby leaves the birth canal?
I’m not going to play these little word puzzles anymore.
Someone asked if society was breaking down and I answered. There was nothing for people to forget. Zeriel is already whining about the thread being off-topic; I saw no need to take it even further. I’d be more than happy to discuss it in another thread.
[/QUOTE]
No; what’s central to your debate is the attempt to play bait-and-switch with terms like “person” and “human life”. You keep switching definitions mid conversation, to confuse the two so you can demand that something that merely qualifies as alive receive the status of a person.
[/QUOTE]
If the example you gave was supposed to show my switching definitions, it was a horrible example. If you can show me where I’ve baited and switched, I’ll consider that I may have done so. I haven’t switched anything, and you haven’t shown that I have.
The switching of definitions is being done by other posters (including yourself), not by me. I said that life begins at conception, which was wasn’t accepted because it was parsed down to “all life, ever” by you (see above) and other posters. So I said “humanity,” which was then discredited because it didn’t allow for twins, triplets, etc. I’ve been talking about the same thing all along - human life. Not “life” on a cellular level (red herring 1), life on a universal level (red herring 2), or the life of one single individual and only that one single individual (red herring 3) - actual human life, which, by any definition, means that a person exists. If you genuinely believe that human life (status of human living) is equivalent to that of a cell, a plant, a protozoa, a dinosaur, etc., then that’s another discussion altogether. I’ve been consistent in what I said, it is my opponents who insist on twisting words and then crying foul.
My point was that if you rob your next-door neighbor of the chance to live his life, it is no different from robbing what my opponents see as a future person of theirs.
- Did you really feel the need to inform me that you would be ignoring me?
2.I started the thread with one question and it turned into a debate on abortion (not by my design). Shit happens.
- I’m sorry if “we” already discussed this, but I’m not a part of “we.” If you think it’s repetitive, ignore it, but be sure to properly inform me that you will be ignoring it.
Your “logical stance” isn’t “logical” at all, it’s just an attempt to rationalize your desire to persecute women. And what you want to inflict on women is a monstrous evil, so tough if you don’t like being called on it. You rightwingers sure love to dish out hostility, but you can’t take any in return.
If you want to forbid abortion, then yes you do. It’s morally no different than chaining her to a bed and raping her for nine months.
Because as is standard with anti-abortionists, you are a woman hating sadist and power freak.
No, since they have a choice and it isn’t physically attached and is rapidly developing into its own person.
Yes you will, you anti-abortionists always do. You just hate to be called on it.
More nonsense. A “future person” is not the same as an actual person.
Der Trihs, do you mind switching to decaf? First of all, it’s obvious that he’s an idiot who just wants to screed about rightwing bullshit–he made the “Why aren’t Nazis considered socialist, it’s right there in the name hurr hurr” comment in GD already too. Second of all, it’s obvious that you can’t conceive of reasonable disagreement on your pet topics, which really puts you in the same sinking boat with the slapdick you’re arguing with.