Abortion

[Curious George]

Actions CAN reveal thoughts and belief.
They can also reveal reflex, instinct, emotional trauma, cultural expectations, etc.

With the exception of reflex, I would say all of these reflect thought or belief as well. And I don't think what we are discussing falls into the reflex category.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I disagree.
The debate is about whether or not a woman can CHOOSE death.
It is the CHOICE that is being debating, not the death.

A completely fair point, and I concede.

 

[dianaiad]

And so too is calling a zygot or a fetus a "baby."

A zygote is not a baby. A baby is not a toddler. A toddler is not an adolescent. An adolescent is not an adult. A 20 year old is not a post menopausal 80 year old.

But at one time, that post menopausal 80 year old was all of those things, and unless it dies first (or someone kills it as a zygote specifically to prevent it from reaching the next level in its development) that human zygote WILL become an 80 year old.

Your argument, then, that it's OK to kill a zygote BECAUSE it's not a baby yet is, imo, specious. It's the worst sort of illogic, UNLESS, of course, you also argue that it is permissible to kill a baby BECAUSE it's not a toddler, and to prevent it from becoming one.

 

[dianaiad]

As a landlord I can tell you this is not true.

I'm sorry, but even as a landlord who can throw a family out in the middle of winter, you MAY NOT throw it in front of a firing squad, or toss 'em out the seventh story window. If your action WILL kill them, then landlord or not, you will be charged with murder.

 

[dianaiad]

Again, this is the problem.

Until you can stop with the emotional rants....

"emotional rants?"

Mestemia, calling something an 'emotional rant' doesn't make it so.

Deciding to call an argument an 'emotional rant' because you don't want to deal with the issue is illogical.

Abortion causes the death of a human. It ends a human life that had NO choice in its existence or where it is. It ends a human life that was, in the vast majority of cases, begun as the result of consensual sex between people who knew very well that their actions could begin a human life....just like theirs.

I find that, in the case of abortion as a 'fix' for an 'oops' to be immoral, unethical and about as selfish and self centered a decision as it is possible to make, and trying to smooth it over by pretending that the life being ended is somehow 'not really human' is the most deceptive sort of rationalization.

And very, very wrong.

 

[dianaiad]

That is the problem.

Why is that a problem?

Tell me; exactly WHEN is the line crossed, where a human zygote is 'more' human than not, so that you can admit that it is?

What precise scientific/medical point must it reach in order to so totally change its nature/DNA/species so that an instant before it was not human, but now it is? What precisely happens at that point?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Your argument, then, that it's OK to kill a zygote BECAUSE it's not a baby yet is, imo, specious. It's the worst sort of illogic, UNLESS, of course, you also argue that it is permissible to kill a baby BECAUSE it's not a toddler, and to prevent it from becoming one.

Absolutely preposterous, especially since we've determined - time and time again, as well as legally - that after 21 weeks an embryo becomes a viable human fetus. When you can't even determine the species of a zygote or embryo, it is your argument that is specious, and when you call it a human life - just because it will become one (if it survives to term) - is illogical. A worse kind of illogical, actually, because you play to emotions to reinforce YOUR opinions.

Abortion causes the death of a human. It ends a human life that had NO choice in its existence or where it is. It ends a human life that was, in the vast majority of cases, begun as the result of consensual sex between people who knew very well that their actions could begin a human life.

Passing over the bolded absurdities, the presence of any sort of contraceptive is an express denial of that consent to pregnancy. Your previous statement that if a child "beats the odds" it should be allowed to live is, frankly, disgusting, and if needed I have an example to show that.

I find that, in the case of abortion as a 'fix' for an 'oops' to be immoral, unethical and about as selfish and self centered a decision as it is possible to make,

And I find this a gross generalization of the primary reasons for abortion; namely that of financial limitations, inability to raise a child, or threat to the mother. Also underlying is an unwillingness to contribute to an overpopulated Earth, a disease that is not wished to be transmitted to the child (and may endanger the mother should she become pregnant), or complications of the pregnancy itself.

You assuming that everyone thinks like you, and that your assumptions are the reason things are done - not to mention the insistence that your beliefs and opinions should be codified into law - are selfish and self-centered.

Tell me; exactly WHEN is the line crossed, where a human zygote is 'more' human than not,

You might have missed this before. Or ignored it. Here, let me help you: 21 WEEKS. Also when you can recognize it as human, and not confuse it with a pig just because you have the preconceived notion that it's a human life.

What precise scientific/medical point must it reach in order to so totally change its nature/DNA/species so that an instant before it was not human, but now it is? What precisely happens at that point?

When does the acorn become an oak?

 

[Curious George]

A zygote is not a baby. A baby is not a toddler. A toddler is not an adolescent. An adolescent is not an adult. A 20 year old is not a post menopausal 80 year old.

But at one time, that post menopausal 80 year old was all of those things, and unless it dies first (or someone kills it as a zygote specifically to prevent it from reaching the next level in its development) that human zygote WILL become an 80 year old.

Your argument, then, that it's OK to kill a zygote BECAUSE it's not a baby yet is, imo, specious. It's the worst sort of illogic, UNLESS, of course, you also argue that it is permissible to kill a baby BECAUSE it's not a toddler, and to prevent it from becoming one.

Absolutely preposterous, especially since we've determined - time and time again, as well as legally - that after 21 weeks an embryo becomes a viable human fetus. When you can't even determine the species of a zygote or embryo, it is your argument that is specious, and when you call it a human life - just because it will become one (if it survives to term) - is illogical. A worse kind of illogical, actually, because you play to emotions to reinforce YOUR opinions.


Passing over the bolded absurdities, the presence of any sort of contraceptive is an express denial of that consent to pregnancy. Your previous statement that if a child "beats the odds" it should be allowed to live is, frankly, disgusting, and if needed I have an example to show that.


And I find this a gross generalization of the primary reasons for abortion; namely that of financial limitations, inability to raise a child, or threat to the mother. Also underlying is an unwillingness to contribute to an overpopulated Earth, a disease that is not wished to be transmitted to the child (and may endanger the mother should she become pregnant), or complications of the pregnancy itself.

You assuming that everyone thinks like you, and that your assumptions are the reason things are done - not to mention the insistence that your beliefs and opinions should be codified into law - are selfish and self-centered.


You might have missed this before. Or ignored it. Here, let me help you: 21 WEEKS. Also when you can recognize it as human, and not confuse it with a pig just because you have the preconceived notion that it's a human life.


When does the acorn become an oak?

you two are going to go round about over terms until it is possible to agree on definitions. So let me ask you this since we all agree that zygote =/=embryo=/=fetus=/=baby.

Would it make a difference in your argument-that is: would abortion be okay or not okay, if we defined a zygote as a human life or not a human life?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yes, if a zygote or embryo were "human life," then I would likely be more against abortion than I am now. But they are not.

 

[dianaiad]

Absolutely preposterous, especially since we've determined - time and time again, as well as legally - that after 21 weeks an embryo becomes a viable human fetus. When you can't even determine the species of a zygote or embryo, it is your argument that is specious, and when you call it a human life - just because it will become one (if it survives to term) - is illogical. A worse kind of illogical, actually, because you play to emotions to reinforce YOUR opinions.

You mean, if *I* can't determine the species, then it's not human?

....you do realize that science can determine the species of any conceptus before it has split even once, right? Your argument...and the trick pulled here...is irrelevant and specious.

I could show you a picture of a newborn animal; if you can't determine from it at less than a day old exactly what species it is (fox vs. dog, for instance) then does that mean that it's neither one?

This isn't about whether *I* can be fooled, or whether YOU can be. It's not about perception, but about medical and scientific fact. No matter what it looks like, a human fetus remains a human fetus; it began human and will remain human until and unless it dies. Even then it will be HUMAN.

Passing over the bolded absurdities, the presence of any sort of contraceptive is an express denial of that consent to pregnancy. Your previous statement that if a child "beats the odds" it should be allowed to live is, frankly, disgusting, and if needed I have an example to show that.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

You are also wrong.

I think the problem here is that if *I* am wrong, nobody dies. If YOU are, someone does. I know which way I'm going to bet.

And I find this a gross generalization of the primary reasons for abortion; namely that of financial limitations, inability to raise a child, or threat to the mother. Also underlying is an unwillingness to contribute to an overpopulated Earth, a disease that is not wished to be transmitted to the child (and may endanger the mother should she become pregnant), or complications of the pregnancy itself.

That's misrepresenting my position rather severely, sir. I HAVE stated rather firmly that I'm talking only about abortion because mom changed her mind...the pregnancy is inconvenient. I made some rather pointed exceptions in regard to the health and life of the mother.

.........and frankly, 'financial limitations and inability to raise a child' don't fly with me. I have a daughter who would LOVE to raise that child. There are many other women who, like my daughter, weep most nights because they cannot have children, who WANT children, but who society will not allow to adopt; society would rather see the child not exist than be raised by...say...a woman with a disabled husband.

I find THAT to be disgusting.

Anyway, I have given y'all my opinions and my reasoning for those opinions. It has been my experience that this particular debate never gets resolved, because neither side will look at the other.

The only thing we can do from here is repeat ourselves with greater or lesser rancor, and frankly, all it will be is keyboard exercise for the fingers.

 

[dianaiad]

you two are going to go round about over terms until it is possible to agree on definitions. So let me ask you this since we all agree that zygote =/=embryo=/=fetus=/=baby.

Would it make a difference in your argument-that is: would abortion be okay or not okay, if we defined a zygote as a human life or not a human life?

A zygote is not a human life the way abortion is not murder; not because any scientific or fact is related here, but because society has decided to place an arbitrary label on it.

A human zygote IS a human life. It is human. It is alive. If you can show me where a human zygote is NOT human (or can turn into something not human) or is NOT alive, then you might have a point. However, there is no medical or scientific point at which anyone can identify and say 'here it is human and alive, where a second ago it wasn't."

Sorry, but there isn't, not after conception there isn't.

 

[Curious George]

A zygote is not a human life the way abortion is not murder; not because any scientific or fact is related here, but because society has decided to place an arbitrary label on it.

A human zygote IS a human life. It is human. It is alive. If you can show me where a human zygote is NOT human (or can turn into something not human) or is NOT alive, then you might have a point. However, there is no medical or scientific point at which anyone can identify and say 'here it is human and alive, where a second ago it wasn't."

Sorry, but there isn't, not after conception there isn't.

You failed to answer the question.

 

[Curious George]

A zygote is not a human life the way abortion is not murder; not because any scientific or fact is related here, but because society has decided to place an arbitrary label on it.

A human zygote IS a human life. It is human. It is alive. If you can show me where a human zygote is NOT human (or can turn into something not human) or is NOT alive, then you might have a point. However, there is no medical or scientific point at which anyone can identify and say 'here it is human and alive, where a second ago it wasn't."

Sorry, but there isn't, not after conception there isn't.

I put the question to both you and pagan. It is a simple question really. It would resolve whether or not pursuing the discussion of a definition is necessary. The question would determine whether your argument hinges on that definition. A simple question. No need to fight about it or defend your point of view regarding the definition. I am not interested in fighting over the definition. I merely want to know whether your abortion would be okay if the opposite view of the definition was considered.

For you, the question would read: if a zygote was not considered a human life, would abortion then be okay?

For pagan, it would read: if a zygote was considered a human life, would abortion be okay?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You mean, if *I* can't determine the species, then it's not human?

Yeah, diana. We're going to screen every zygote and fetus past you, and if you can't tell what species it is, it dies.

I could show you a picture of a newborn animal; if you can't determine from it at less than a day old exactly what species it is (fox vs. dog, for instance) then does that mean that it's neither one?

That is quite easy to do, and - being past 21 weeks - is not a parallel to the issue at hand.

It's not about perception, but about medical and scientific fact.

'Kay. A zygote and an embryo are not human beings. They may develop into human beings should everything go swimmingly, but they are not medically or scientifically the same thing as an infant, or even a 21+ week fetus.

I think the problem here is that if *I* am wrong, nobody dies. If YOU are, someone does.

"Someone"... There you go again. You seem not to understand that both zygots and embryo are completely unresponsive. There is no sense of being there, so it's not a "someone." It's a "something." Scientifically and medically.

That's misrepresenting my position rather severely, sir. I HAVE stated rather firmly that I'm talking only about abortion because mom changed her mind...the pregnancy is inconvenient. I made some rather pointed exceptions in regard to the health and life of the mother.

And how do you determine that? How do you tell if a pregnant woman is having an abortion "just because", or because she has a "valid" reason? Why are you the arbiter of her decisions, in any case? That is the underlying issue in all of this; other people making decisions that are not their own based on their unscientific, emotion-driven opinions.

and frankly, 'financial limitations and inability to raise a child' don't fly with me.

Well it's not up to you. And if your daughter can't adopt, then don't inject yet another useless example that really only damages your argument; the foster system is overburdened and problematic as is. You really want to add more children to that, and subject them to a life of suffering, mental conditions such as chronic depression, the likelihood of never being adopted, and higher rates of crime? Yeah, great choice.

It has been my experience that this particular debate never gets resolved, because neither side will look at the other.

You know that's just as much on you, right? Your inability to see that it's not your choice, and a tendency to rely on over-emotional examples that don't compare? It may shock you to know that I am actually quite against abortion by and large. But my sentiments aside, I recognize that it is not my choice, and when it does become my choice, it's the business of myself and my wife - her more so than me - and no one else.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

For pagan, it would read: if a zygote was considered a human life, would abortion be okay?

Answered above, Post #209

 

[Curious George]

Answered above, Post #209

Is "more likely" to mean that abortion is not okay if a zygote is a human life? And sorry, I missed that post. Guess I'm used to reading the long ones we have all been writing and I thought it was an add or something, lol.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I am actually anti-abortion. Pro-choice, but anti-abortion. I would much prefer to see human life come to term. That said, I do not regard the embryo before 21 weeks to be "human life" just yet. There is nothing that scientifically distinguishes it as such save fate. If there was, and they were regarded as "human" that early, I would likely be far more effected by abortion that I am currently. Given my stance, I can't say that it would be "not okay," but I would certainly be more uncomfortable with it.

 

[columbus]

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

There are some words I avoid using in a discussion of abortion, two of those are "murder" and "person" . It's because they don't have clear and universal meanings. But people get emotionally attached to their opinion about what the words should mean.
Murder is usually defined as "extralegal killing of a human ". But what is legal killing, and how illegal it is, varies widely depending on whose laws are being enforced. Laws are very different from Sweden to Saudi Arabia to Mississippi to ISIS.
And here in the USA, elective abortion is generally legal. But if Capitol Hill passed a law, Trump signed it, and SCOTUS passed constitutional muster elective abortion would become murder. Murder just isn't a useful word in the context.

"Person" is similar. For all of human history people have had a way of restricting the concept to the humans that they care about. Here in the USA, black people didn't used to qualify. And that didn't magically change with the Emancipation Proclamation either.

So instead of murder and person, I try to stick with more precise words like "killing" and "human being".
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

I put the question to both you and pagan. It is a simple question really. It would resolve whether or not pursuing the discussion of a definition is necessary. The question would determine whether your argument hinges on that definition. A simple question. No need to fight about it or defend your point of view regarding the definition. I am not interested in fighting over the definition. I merely want to know whether your abortion would be okay if the opposite view of the definition was considered.

For you, the question would read: if a zygote was not considered a human life, would abortion then be okay?

For pagan, it would read: if a zygote was considered a human life, would abortion be okay?

Depends upon who is doing the 'considering.' In fact, you are begging the question here. SCIENCE states that a human zygote is a: human and b; alive. Indeed, it is considered that someday it may well be possible to take a human sperm and egg, combine them in a petri dish, and grow the resulting human entirely in an artificial environment/womb. So obviously SCIENCE considers a zygote to be a 'human life,' or such proposals would not even be thought about, much less researched.

So you can't ask me that question logically, because it begs the question big time. My answer is...it doesn't matter WHO decides that a human zygote is not a human life, because scientifically and medically, it very much is. Anybody outside the medical/scientific community (lawyers or lawmakers or feminists or anybody else who wants to change reality) who decides that it is not is WRONG, just like the folks who once called slaves 3/4 of a person were WRONG.

However, if you can get a scientist or a doctor to show me that a human zygote can turn into anything BUT a human baby unless it dies first, I might rethink my position.

So. Can you?

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, if a zygote or embryo were "human life," then I would likely be more against abortion than I am now. But they are not.

Who says?

This is a scientific and medical question, sir, not a societal one. Why? Because law and society CHANGE. What both say is 'this is truth' one day will be redefined as 'oops, we were wrong; THIS is true now."

This is beautifully illustrated by the way people assign the term 'human being' to humans. There have been times in human history where 'human being' wasn't applied until a child was two, or four, or pubescent, or in his/her twenties....and some societies where women never WERE considered human beings. My own nation at one time only allowed a slave to be 3/5 of a human being.

"Human being" and "person" are NOT scientific labels; they are societal and legal labels, just like 'murder' is a LEGAL label, not a scientific finding of fact.

However, 'human' and 'life' ARE very much scientific labels that we can identify and count on, specifically.

A human zygote is HUMAN. It isn't anything else. It is the product of the combination of a human sperm and a human egg.
A human zygote is ALIVE, with its own unique physicality, dependent upon its mother, but separate from her. This zygote may not have the same blood type, certainly has different DNA, and will absolutely not grow up to be a clone of her.
A human zygote is ALIVE, because, well.....it can die. It can change state to 'dead.' What was it before it was dead?

SCIENCE says it was alive.

Ergo, it is a human life which, if allowed to grow and develop naturally, will BECOME that magical 21 week old fetus, unless it dies first, or someone kills it first.

..........................................and I find your argument that abortion should be legal because the foster care system is bad to be...

it's exactly like claiming that the solution to over crowded schools is to shoot half the first graders before they start classes.

Exactly like that.

The solution is to fix the system, not kill the victims of it.