beagledave is correct. robert’s latest claim
is fallaciously premised, and contradicts his own previous statements. Irony indeed.
For those playing along at home, that would be the third time. Let’s review, shall we?
-
He argues about biological concepts…then, guided by apos, says it’s not about biology…but philosophy…but then jumps back and forth on the biology argument. (with no medical cites to back his claims… still, even after explicit requests from Chaim, JThunder and myself to provide some)
-
Says he “has no problem with infanticide”…but then hastens to point out a few posts later that “of course” he is not in favor of killing children. (This is when I went from active participant to bemused bystander)
-
Large segments of society have been historically wrong about their definition of “personhood” before…but then points out that a poster doesn’t view a z/e/f as a person…so there!!
Did I miss any?
And the pro-life side still doesn’t have an argument. And yes, you need one. This means you, JThunder.
And dammit, beagledave, your cite was r-o-n-g. It drew a logical conclusion from one bit of data(chromosome number).
And my opinions are definitly not representative of the pro-choice community. Deal with it.
And infants != children. I beleive that newborns, while not people yet, should be legally protected, but I shed no tears for children until they have been around long enough to think. Incidentally, this is only vaguely germane to this argument. Even if I was a blood-crazed child butcher, y’all would still need a cogent argument against abortion. Which y’all haven’t provided. At least Chaim made a decent effort.
Yes, beagledave, people hold incorrect views in light of insufficient information or predujice. (Must-restrain-self-from-sarcastic-comment.)
Also, before anyone else posts a definition of human life, make sure that it pasts the tumor test. When you think about it, the process of applying an agent to make cells grow funkily applys equally to skin cancer and intercourse.
I do wonder why I am the only pro-choicer left in this thread.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
in·fant Pronunciation Key (nfnt)
n.
- A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk.
- Law. A person under the legal age of majority; a minor.
Asked and answered.
snicker.
Sometimes one bit of data is all that you need. The difference in chromosome number is sufficient to distinguish zygotes and other somatic cells from sperm cells and oocytes.
Besides, the article in question discussed quite a bit more than that, as one can plainly see.
How about
and
So is personhood arbitrary, or is it “a function of human source material and intelligence”? It can’t be both.
And FTR, the pro-lifers here HAVE provided arguments for their side. Among other things, we’ve provided medical cites which testify that human life begins at conception, and that the fetus is recognizably human by the time most abortions occur. (And if you click on the links which I have just provided, you will see further testimony to that effect.)
Then there were the analogies I drew to blowing up a building, or shooting at some rustling animal in the woods. If you haven’t determined that the building is empty, or that the rustling animal isn’t just a fellow hunter, then you are guilty of criminal negligence. As I said, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that the victim is NOT a human being and/or person.
Yes, personhood is arbitrary. I have, my definition, you have yours, and soceity has its. Thank you for the cites, btw.
Hmm. The Catholic cite (hah) states that a fertilized ovum is a person. On the other hand, its reasoning is shaky at best: tumors are also unique genetically. Tell me, why are tumors not considered severly abnormal people?
Interesting line of reasoning for the burden of proof thing. I’ll get back to you tomorrow with more detail. For now, I remind you of the possiblity of shooting trespassers on your land or burning down a building you own. My question still stands, however. Can YOU prove that a tumor isn’t a human being? Without resorting to abritrary definitions?
One last point before I sign off. The Catholic cite (hah again) refrenced the individuality of zygotes. Grab a microscope sometime: all the cells in your body are unique. That argument don’t wash.
-=
The sperm has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the father. The sperm is genetically identified as a cell of the father’s body. It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. It is destined to fertilize an ovum or to die. It is at the end of the line.
The ovum has life, but not an independent life; it shares in the life of the body of the mother. The ovum is genetically identified as a cell of the mother’s body. It has reached the endpoint of its maturation. It cannot reproduce itself. Its destiny? To be fertilized or die. It, too, is at the end of the line.
=-
Verbaitum from the site.
I would like to add:
A zygote has life, but not independant life. At any rate, not for long. A zygote is not genetically identical to its host (unless cloning or other weirdness is occuring), but neither is a tumor. A zygote has reached the end of its maturation if the pregnant woman says so. After the first couple divisions, a zygote cannot reproduce itself, short of growing up and making more gametes. On the other hand, the two gametes that make up this zygote can be said to have reproduced themselves in exactly the same way. A zygote’s destiny? To grow, and become human. Or die.