Abortion

[Marisa]

Good Lord. Do you not bother to think what you write, or to read what you wrote. Why are we have any discussion whatsoever other than you said I mentioned....and I said no I didn't...

I think it's pretty clear that I create my comments with more care and attention than some.

FYI, no one likes to be told what they did by someone who doesn't know the difference between the words "interesting" and "odd", and who seems to think every comment made is all about them. I explained my comment rather well. One assumes that might have been the point at which you realized that, though I replied to your comment, I was not speaking about you and owned up to misunderstanding. But clearly making a mistake is not within your wheelhouse, so do carry on telling me what I'm "factual (sic) wrong" about again.

In other news, it's always good to read a person's entire comment rather than quitting when it becomes obvious it's not about you. The mental gymnastics required to make other people's every thought about you get rather odious and somewhat laborious.

 

[McBell]

Separately, they do not constitute a human.

You did not say the sperm and egg are not "a" human...
You said they were not human.

 

[McBell]

Wait, I'm confused. Did he say that they weren't "human eggs" and "human sperm", or did he just say that a "human" was not formed until the two came together? Because, would have to agree with the latter.

I suspect that he meant the latter.
However, the way he worded it makes it sound like he is arguing that the sperm and egg are not human.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They are yet not human, though they arise out of human body. However, Stratum Corneum (dead skin cells), of which we shed 30-40,000 each hour (almost a million every day) are fully human. They have the full human DNA. Neither the Sperm nor the ovum has full human DNA. Basic biology
How many skin cells do you shed every day? - HowStuffWorks

BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Sex cells and chromosomes

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I think it's pretty clear that I create my comments with more care and attention than some.

FYI, no one likes to be told what they did by someone who doesn't know the difference between the words "interesting" and "odd", and who seems to think every comment made is all about them. I explained my comment rather well. One assumes that might have been the point at which you realized that, though I replied to your comment, I was not speaking about you and owned up to misunderstanding. But clearly making a mistake is not within your wheelhouse, so do carry on telling me what I'm "factual (sic) wrong" about again.

In other news, it's always good to read a person's entire comment rather than quitting when it becomes obvious it's not about you. The mental gymnastics required to make other people's every thought about you get rather odious and somewhat laborious.

*YAWN*

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

They are yet not human, though they arise out of human body. However, Stratum Corneum (dead skin cells), of which we shed 30-40,000 each hour (almost a million every day) are fully human. They have the full human DNA. Neither the Sperm nor the ovum has full human DNA. Basic biology
How many skin cells do you shed every day? - HowStuffWorks

BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Sex cells and chromosomes

Again, to believe that dead skin cells are 'fully' human because the have 2 sets of 100% human DNA, while a 100% viable egg is not human because it has only 1N of 100% of human DNA....IS NOT BASIC BIOLOGY! It is a basic misunderstanding of the entire history of life on earth.

 

[McBell]

Again, to believe that dead skin cells are 'fully' human because the have 2 sets of 100% human DNA, while a 100% viable egg is not human because it has only 1N of 100% of human DNA....IS NOT BASIC BIOLOGY! It is a basic misunderstanding of the entire history of life on earth.

If the cell is not fully human, how much of it is not human and what is that part.

Though i suspect you meant the cell is not "A" full human...

Interesting as hell how so many people do not understand the difference the use of the word "a" makes in their statements....

 

[Aupmanyav]

An ovum or sperm is a potentiality to be but not yet human (or chicken).

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

If the cell is not fully human, how much of it is not human and what is that part.

Though i suspect you meant the cell is not "A" full human...

Interesting as hell how so many people do not understand the difference the use of the word "a" makes in their statements....

Human V fully Human? Please define?

Human V "A" human? Please define?

I'm speaking of the lineage, the only biologically continuous identity, that connects you to the very first human..whether that be 'human,' 'a human,' or 'fully human.'

The genetic lineage passes, in 99% of vertebrate species, form 1N to 2N and back and forth. You can say a sperm is not 'fully human' all you want. But if it isn not fully human, than you, as "A" human, have not continuance with your father, or any other ancestor.

Genetic Lineage!!! There is only one in a trillion sperm that connects you with your father! There is only one in a thousand ova that connects you with your mother. Without that sperm and that ova, THER IS NO GENETIC CONTINUANCE! You can't ignore them, and go back to your father and mother. You can't pretend that they do not exist!

What is more important..Your father, or the sperm? Your mother, or the unfertilized ova? Neither. But which is proximal? Which is derived? Which is directly relevant to you?

Can I look at that single sperm and know more about you than by looking at your father?

We look at sperm and ova as if they are not individuals; but in evolutionary, and biologial terms, it doesn't matter if they exist only 5 minutes or 500 years; each sperm between you and father, father and grandfather, etc is JUST AS MEANINGFUL (IMPORTS AT LEAST AS MUCH DATA) into what it means to be YOU as your father, grandfather, etc.

You can't just pretend that fully 1/2 of all successful human genetic packages are somehow "not" human! ("A" human; "Fully" human?)
HUMAN genetics selects for sperm mobility, sperm viability, ova fertility...AND EVEN THE ABILITY TO SPONTANEOUSLY ABORT IN THE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS!


How do you discriminate between 'fully' and 'not-fully' human?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

They are yet not human,

Not yet??? human? I'm sorry, but "human" began only once? That is like saying they are not "YET LIFE? Human has only one beginning; it is called the common ancestor. "human" does not stop, and then start. It does not end, and then begin. It does not "not yet"

though they arise out of human body. However, Stratum Corneum (dead skin cells), of which we shed 30-40,000 each hour (almost a million every day) are fully human. They have the full human DNA. Neither the Sperm nor the ovum has full human DNA. Basic biology
How many skin cells do you shed every day? - HowStuffWorks

BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Sex cells and chromosomes

 

[McBell]

Human V fully Human? Please define?

Human V "A" human? Please define?

I'm speaking of the lineage, the only biologically continuous identity, that connects you to the very first human..whether that be 'human,' 'a human,' or 'fully human.'

The genetic lineage passes, in 99% of vertebrate species, form 1N to 2N and back and forth. You can say a sperm is not 'fully human' all you want. But if it isn not fully human, than you, as "A" human, have not continuance with your father, or any other ancestor.

Genetic Lineage!!! There is only one in a trillion sperm that connects you with your father! There is only one in a thousand ova that connects you with your mother. Without that sperm and that ova, THER IS NO GENETIC CONTINUANCE! You can't ignore them, and go back to your father and mother. You can't pretend that they do not exist!

What is more important..Your father, or the sperm? Your mother, or the unfertilized ova? Neither. But which is proximal? Which is derived? Which is directly relevant to you?

Can I look at that single sperm and know more about you than by looking at your father?

We look at sperm and ova as if they are not individuals; but in evolutionary, and biologial terms, it doesn't matter if they exist only 5 minutes or 500 years; each sperm between you and father, father and grandfather, etc is JUST AS MEANINGFUL (IMPORTS AT LEAST AS MUCH DATA) into what it means to be YOU as your father, grandfather, etc.

You can't just pretend that fully 1/2 of all successful human genetic packages are somehow "not" human! ("A" human; "Fully" human?)
HUMAN genetics selects for sperm mobility, sperm viability, ova fertility...AND EVEN THE ABILITY TO SPONTANEOUSLY ABORT IN THE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS!


How do you discriminate between 'fully' and 'not-fully' human?

I am not the one who is saying that HUMAN sperm and HUMAN eggs are not fully human.
YOU seem to be saying they are not fully human when you mean they are not "A" human.

Can you not differentiate the difference between:

Sperm and ovum are not human.​

and

Sperm and ovum are not a human​

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

An ovum or sperm is a potentiality to be but not yet human (or chicken).

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I am not the one who is saying that HUMAN sperm and HUMAN eggs are not fully human.
YOU seem to be saying they are not fully human when you mean they are not "A" human.

Can you not differentiate the difference between:

Sperm and ovum are not human.​

and

Sperm and ovum are not a human​

Yes I can...And in the terms Im being directed to distinguish, my point would be that "A" human is insignificant in biological or evolutionary terms! By insisting that "A" human has import, the insistence is one of pure ego.

But in distinguishing that there is a difference between "A" human and (supposedly sans-"A") human, my point would be that "A" Sperm is "A" human as much as "An" Ovu or as much as an adult. In evolutionary terms they are of 100% equal import in what it means to be human. Only in your own ego do you somehow rate as "A" hunan above the billion aborted sperm that did not become you!

 

[McBell]

Yes I can...And in the terms Im being directed to distinguish, my point would be that "A" human is insignificant in biological or evolutionary terms! By insisting that "A" human has import, the insistence is one of pure ego.

But in distinguishing that there is a difference between "A" human and (supposedly sans-"A") human, my point would be that "A" Sperm is "A" human as much as "An" Ovu or as much as an adult. In evolutionary terms they are of 100% equal import in what it means to be human. Only in your own ego do you somehow rate as "A" hunan above the billion aborted sperm that did not become you!

Ah.
Thank you for that clarification.
I somehow missed the "in evolutionary terms" part.

My apologies.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I am not the one who is saying that HUMAN sperm and HUMAN eggs are not fully human.
YOU seem to be saying they are not fully human when you mean they are not "A" human.

Can you not differentiate the difference between:

Sperm and ovum are not human.​

and

Sperm and ovum are not a human​

Please define Human? Again so many are asking me to differentiate, yet none are providing parameters to be differentitated.

How, are YOU, as "A" human, ANY, ANY, ANY, more significant, in evolutionary terms, than the sperm or egg that eventually led to you?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Ah.
Thank you for that clarification.
I somehow missed the "in evolutionary terms" part.

My apologies.

Thank you sir! My apologies for the previous lack of clarification.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I would not like this contest to go on for ever, but it has implications. Then masturbation is a sin because you are killing 'a' (oh no, about 250 million) human/s in one ejection or that an ovum has necessarily to be fertilized otherwise it is the killing of 'a' human. And if one can do that, then what is the harm in abortion. I have placed my views (I think clearly enough). Other people can, of course, differ on it (Hinduism has no problem with differing views). I take the dividing line at conception, i.e., a sperm entering the plasma membrane. From that time on, I will grant the zygote all human rights (i.e., I am against abortion without specific conditions as in the current Indian law on abortion). I do not think I will post in the topic again. Nice to debate with you, FunctionalAtheist.

Egg cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mister Emu]

as if "divine prerogative" isn't anything but special pleading.

A difference or exception has to be unjustified to be special pleading. Even in everyday life we can point to magisterial prerogative compared to the citizen's. The police can raid a criminal syndicate, I and my fellows cannot even if the justification for both raids would be the same. There is action that only proper authority can take.

This line of discussion is of course granting that the original sentiment, that God is inherently responsible for every act that takes place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A difference or exception has to be unjustified to be special pleading. Even in everyday life we can point to magisterial prerogative compared to the citizen's. The police can raid a criminal syndicate, I and my fellows cannot even if the justification for both raids would be the same. There is action that only proper authority can take.

... and there are actions that even proper authorities would be unjustified in taking.

For your analogy to work, abortion (or murder) would have to be not inherently evil.

One of the other posters in this thread brought up the distinction between "malum prohibitum" (evil because it has been prohibited) and "malum in se" (evil in and of itself). Your analogy ONLY works for malum prohibitum.

This line of discussion is of course granting that the original sentiment, that God is inherently responsible for every act that takes place.

Of course, but I don't think you can avoid this conclusion.

Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game. Even if there are other intelligent agents involved, if I freely make a decision, then I'm responsible for all of the foreseeable outcomes of that decision. Assuming that mainstream Christianity is true, the only way that God couldn't be responsible for something that happens is if:

- he didn't foresee it,
- he couldn't have avoided the outcome, or
- he didn't freely choose to set the universe in motion.

All of these possibilities are inconsistent with mainstream Christian theology.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How is it an "uplifting sacrifice" if done by force against the mothers will?

sac·ri·fice (from Miriam-Webster)

\ˈsa-krə-ˌfīs, also -fəs or -ˌfīz\noun
: the act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to help someone

: an act of killing a person or animal in a religious ceremony as an offering to please a god

: a person or animal that is killed in a sacrifice

I think you may be mistaking "done by force" with "done by law". There are many things people will to do and like to do that are unlawful.