Abortion

[columbus]

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.

Ironic, isn't it? People will confidently assert the age of the universe and that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestry. But "Life Cycle of a Primate" is beyond their grasp sometimes. They are not always sure if a fetus is even alive.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

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?

LOL, sure I suppose I can.

That is not really the point. And no it doesn't beg the question. Begging the question is a logical argument that assumes the conclusion in a premise. If such is the case, with assuming the premise that a zygote is a human life. Then thenter only possible conclusion that one can even begin to argue that the the argument begs the question is that abortion is okay given that premise. So, I guess thank you for the answer. Though you needn't have gone about such mental gymnastics to issue that statement.

So then I guess you and pagan will have to duel over the definition as for both of you, the entire argument hinges on this definition.

We're either of you to suggest that abortion is wrong or acceptable regardless of the definition, I would have suggested we just accept the definition of the person that felt like there argument was valid iff their definition was accepted. Since both of you feel this way you will have to continue for a discussion over the definition.

That said, I think that the definition doesn't matter in this instance. In other words, even given defining a zygote as a human life, I believe abortion is still justified. If you are interested in a break from fighting over definitions we can give that discussion a whirl.


Cheers.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Incidentally, this is an example of begging the question and answer appeal to authority to boot.

 

[dianaiad]

LOL, sure I suppose I can.

That is not really the point. And no it doesn't beg the question. Begging the question is a logical argument that assumes the conclusion in a premise. If such is the case, with assuming the premise that a zygote is a human life. Then thenter only possible conclusion that one can even begin to argue that the the argument begs the question is that abortion is okay given that premise. So, I guess thank you for the answer. Though you needn't have gone about such mental gymnastics to issue that statement.

So then I guess you and pagan will have to duel over the definition as for both of you, the entire argument hinges on this definition.

We're either of you to suggest that abortion is wrong or acceptable regardless of the definition, I would have suggested we just accept the definition of the person that felt like there argument was valid iff their definition was accepted. Since both of you feel this way you will have to continue for a discussion over the definition.

That said, I think that the definition doesn't matter in this instance. In other words, even given defining a zygote as a human life, I believe abortion is still justified. If you are interested in a break from fighting over definitions we can give that discussion a whirl.


Cheers.

OK, that was confusing.

However, I have two comments. Well....a question and a comment. First....you can? Please, do.

The parameters are; you need to show me how a human zygote can become something OTHER than a human baby unless it dies first, you can't use stem cell research, unless you want to see me get really unhappy. I have a real problem with stem cell research using fertylized eggs. that SAME research can be done with umbilical stem cells....oh, never mind, that's quite another discussion, even if it does relate to this one.

As for the comment....yes, I also believe that there are times when abortion is necessary even though it involves ending a real, honest to goodness human life. I believe that the rules for this are the same as the rules for any other situation that involves 'choosing who lives,' that is, 'triage.'

....and self defense. In law, one can kill someone who is about to kill you or who threatens to kill you in such a way as to make you BELIEVE him. It is also not considered murder if....say...two climbers are caught on a rope, and the choice is to cut the bottom climber loose or both of 'em fall.

Abortion in these cases should be a traumatic and tragic necessity for which mourning for the life lost happens, an acknowledgment that a life really WAS lost, and that it was a hard, if unavoidable choice to save the mother.

.....and no, to answer someone else's accusation, such decisions should be between the woman and her doctor. Period.

Either way, definitions that depend upon classifications given by law/society that can CHANGE are problematic.

 

[dianaiad]

Incidentally, this is an example of begging the question and answer appeal to authority to boot.

It might be, if it were alone. However, in context it is a rhetorical question, not a 'begging of,' and absolutely not an appeal to authority, but a claim.

There is a difference, Curious George, and taking things out of context like that absolutely IS a logical fallacy.

 

[Curious George]

It might be, if it were alone. However, in context it is a rhetorical question, not a 'begging of,' and absolutely not an appeal to authority, but a claim.

There is a difference, Curious George, and taking things out of context like that absolutely IS a logical fallacy.

This one first because it is the easier of the two. You were offering two conclusions. One: that a zygote of two humans is human. Two that a zygote is alive.

Your argument for the latter said that it is alive because it can die. So the argument went:

A zygote can die
Prior to death life exists
Therefore a zygote is alive.

That my friend is not taking it out of context that is your argument. Then you tacked on a "science says it is alive"
If you see it another way, or if I missed something, I am listening.

 

[Curious George]

OK, that was confusing.

However, I have two comments. Well....a question and a comment. First....you can? Please, do.

The parameters are; you need to show me how a human zygote can become something OTHER than a human baby unless it dies first, you can't use stem cell research, unless you want to see me get really unhappy. I have a real problem with stem cell research using fertylized eggs. that SAME research can be done with umbilical stem cells....oh, never mind, that's quite another discussion, even if it does relate to this one.

I can't invoke genetic manipulation? Well that is just silly then. You cannot open up a forum and then narrow it quickly.

But your comment at least acknowledged that it can become something different.

 

[Curious George]

OK, that was confusing.

As for the comment....yes, I also believe that there are times when abortion is necessary even though it involves ending a real, honest to goodness human life. I believe that the rules for this are the same as the rules for any other situation that involves 'choosing who lives,' that is, 'triage.'

....and self defense. In law, one can kill someone who is about to kill you or who threatens to kill you in such a way as to make you BELIEVE him. It is also not considered murder if....say...two climbers are caught on a rope, and the choice is to cut the bottom climber loose or both of 'em fall.

Abortion in these cases should be a traumatic and tragic necessity for which mourning for the life lost happens, an acknowledgment that a life really WAS lost, and that it was a hard, if unavoidable choice to save the mother.

.....and no, to answer someone else's accusation, such decisions should be between the woman and her doctor. Period.

Either way, definitions that depend upon classifications given by law/society that can CHANGE are problematic.

Well at least we are at this point. We agree that killing is OK in some instances. The most often instance that people agree killing is okay is self defense. But there are other instances as well.

But since you have started us with self defense, let us explore that?

Why is killing another human life okay in self defense?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

SCIENCE states that a human zygote is a: human and b; alive.

Yet again, alive is not the question. A zygote is undoubtedly alive. Sperm is undoubtedly alive. However a zygote is not stated by science to be a human. It is classified as a eukaryotic cell. It is recognized as the very beginnings of a developing human, but is not a human yet. The term for it is preimplantation conceptus. It is not even called an embryo, because at this stage it is unknowable how many embryo will be formed from this zygote.

It is not a human any more than any other cell in your body is a human.

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.

Your position is yours to hold, but it is preposterous and illogical. A human sperm is never going to become anything but a human baby, so are you going to start calling them humans too?

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...

Got any proof for that? I know of practices where children aren't named until their first winter, but that's a different practice entirely. Your parallel to women and slaves is equally flawed, as they are humans who are clearly able to think, speak, etc. A zygote or embryo is not. You are naming inanimate cells as human because you have a fated attachment to them, and your society has impressed upon you that they are human. But as you said, this is a matter of science, not society.

...that magical 21 week old fetus...

Your incredulity to the developmental stage of 21 weeks is almost laughable, especially since the significant developments of the now fetus have been outlined to you.

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

That is not my argument for why abortion should be legal. My argument for that is that I would much rather women receive abortions in a safe, professional environment. The alternative being, of course, coathanger abortions and dangerous drug/alcohol use to induce said abortion. Because as stated, if women want abortions, they will get them.

The argument of the foster care system is in rebuttal to the counter-point of "there's always the foster system." It's state aside, are you going to adopt? If the answer is no, then you should not suggest it. Otherwise you're just feeding into the problem there.

 

[McBell]

So . . . you agree life begins at conception. Good job!

If you read the Bible with the same type of "understanding" you read the post the above is in reply to...

 

[McBell]

"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.

thank you for further proving my point.

Who here in this thread has claimed the fetus is not human?
Who here in this thread has claimed the fetus is not alive?

I flat out ask these questions because I have not seen either in this thread.
So unless you can point out the post number where it has happened, you are ranting emotionally over something that was not said.,

 

[McBell]

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?

Who has said it is not human?
Post number please.

 

[McBell]

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.

what kind of life is an embryo and or zygote?
If it is in a human it is a human zygote or embryo.

At what point, in your opinion, doe sit become a human fetus?
What is it before it becomes a human zygote, embryo, fetus?
Canine?
Feline?
Ape?

 

[McBell]

Yet again, alive is not the question. A zygote is undoubtedly alive. Sperm is undoubtedly alive. However a zygote is not stated by science to be a human. It is classified as a eukaryotic cell. It is recognized as the very beginnings of a developing human, but is not a human yet. The term for it is preimplantation conceptus. It is not even called an embryo, because at this stage it is unknowable how many embryo will be formed from this zygote.

Ah, so it could turn into a feline zygote?
At what point is it possible to know that it will in fact end up a human zygote, embryo, fetus....?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

what kind of life is an embryo and or zygote?

Cellular. They are human cells, but they are not a human.

At what point, in your opinion, doe sit become a human fetus?

My opinion has nothing to do with it. The preembryonic period ends at 14 Days. Embryonic stages are from 3 Weeks to 8 Weeks. After that point it is in the fetal stage. After 21 weeks, the fetus begins to significantly complicate; brain patterns emerge, organs begin working, gender is determinable, etc.

What is it before it becomes a human zygote, embryo, fetus?

Cells, in the same regard as sperm, white blood cells, or stem cells. This isn't Pokémon, where a human cell is going to turn into a cat cell. Yet we don't consider our cells to be human people, even when they "will become one" as is the case with sperm.

 

[McBell]

Cellular. They are human cells, but they are not a human.


My opinion has nothing to do with it. The preembryonic period ends at 14 Days. Embryonic stages are from 3 Weeks to 8 Weeks. After that point it is in the fetal stage. After 21 weeks, the fetus begins to significantly complicate; brain patterns emerge, organs begin working, gender is determinable, etc.


Cells, in the same regard as sperm, white blood cells, or stem cells. This isn't Pokémon, where a human cell is going to turn into a cat cell. Yet we don't consider our cells to be human people, even when they "will become one" as is the case with sperm.

You seem to be arguing that at some time during the human reproductive process the parts involved are not human.
I am curious what they might be if not human.

You reply with a generic "cells".
So they are not human cells?
If not human cells, what are they?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You seem to be arguing that at some time during the human reproductive process the parts involved are not human.

No, I am saying they are not a human. It's like the difference between pig blood and human blood, but we're not calling our blood a person.

 

[McBell]

No, I am saying they are not a human. It's like the difference between pig blood and human blood, but we're not calling our blood a person.

So at what point during the reproductive process does it become A human?

 

[dianaiad]

This one first because it is the easier of the two. You were offering two conclusions. One: that a zygote of two humans is human. Two that a zygote is alive.

Your argument for the latter said that it is alive because it can die. So the argument went:

A zygote can die
Prior to death life exists
Therefore a zygote is alive.

That my friend is not taking it out of context that is your argument. Then you tacked on a "science says it is alive"
If you see it another way, or if I missed something, I am listening.

You are quite right. However, can you show me where science says a human zygote (one that is not dead, anyway) is NOT alive?

You see, an appeal to authority, in order to be a fallacy, must have a couple of things: first, the authority appealed to must be specific and have some knowledge in his/her recognized field, and second, that this field has very little to do with the topic under discussion.

Thus, it is perfectly acceptable, in an argument as to whether a certain rock is igneous or sedimentary, to appeal to the professor of geology at the local college. That is NOT a fallacy.

However, if one were to say "well, my cousin the doctor says it's a sedimentary rock, so there!" that is 'appeal to authority' in a fallacious sense.

"Science" isn't actually an 'authority,' anyway; it's a method of observation/learning. By claiming that 'science says so,' I was claiming that anybody using that method...especially anybody who had specific knowledge OF that area, says so. You might convict me of generalization, but not 'appeal to authority."

the problem here is that I have never met a biology teacher, bioloGIST, doctor or researcher who says that zygotes which are actively growing and developing are NOT 'alive.' They ain't rock crystals, Curious George.

 

[dianaiad]

I can't invoke genetic manipulation? Well that is just silly then. You cannot open up a forum and then narrow it quickly.

But your comment at least acknowledged that it can become something different.

What 'different' thing can it become? The word here is....as far as anything else goes...dead. Gene manipulation using lines fertylized FOR THE PURPOSE OF stem cell research is, imo, exactly like harvesting all the organs from a healthy person. Doing so is killing that person, and gene manipulation from fertylized ova is killing the human in order to harvest stuff.

Same/same.

.....and the only way it happens is through deliberate actions on the part of other humans. No human conceptus jumps itself into a petri dish and says 'I don't want to grow up....just play with my cells, please..."

We can harvest perfectly good stem cells from umbilical cord blood to use for such research.