Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One would not expect that the pro-abortion faction to treat the not yet born with any respect that might indicate an acceptance of equality in any measure.

Have you read my signature? I figure this is simply another example of that. In fact, viewing this thread, almost every argument FOR abortion I've seen uses that 'first must be made other' principle to justify it.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The bodily security argument is still valid even if you grant the fetus all the rights of a person, provided you also grant the woman all the rights of a person.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Now you're saying life doesn't begin with a zygote and sperm? Make up your mind, and let me know.

Thanks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

It seems to me that @Mestemia is telling you that life begins BEFORE conception.

 

[McBell]

It seems to me that @Mestemia is telling you that life begins BEFORE conception.

I have already flat out said at least twice in this very thread that life began a long time ago and is a continuous ongoing process

Seems to me there are some persons in this thread are debating when a specific individual life begins.
Though they seem much more interested in tip toeing around it instead of just flat out saying what it is exactly they want to "debate".

 

[McBell]

Now you're saying life doesn't begin with a zygote and sperm? Make up your mind, and let me know.

Thanks.

life began a long time ago and is a continuous ongoing process.

So no, life does not begin at conception because it takes a LIVING sperm to fertilize a LIVING ovum.

Though I understand that some people argue that a specific individuals life begins at conception.

Problem is that far to many people are not actually saying what they mean to say and are instead saying something they do not mean then getting upset when what they actually said is what is being addressed.

 

[Curious George]

One would not expect that the pro-abortion faction to treat the not yet born with any respect that might indicate an acceptance of equality in any measure.

Have you read my signature? I figure this is simply another example of that. In fact, viewing this thread, almost every argument FOR abortion I've seen uses that 'first must be made other' principle to justify it.

The point is, that the attitude of society has absolutely nothing to do with medical fact; the attitude of the early European settlers of the Americas was that the indigenous population was very much 'lesser.' It allowed them to rationalize the whole sale rolling over of the people whose land they wanted. This is a habit long used in human kind. Those of darker skin (African or Indian...both sorts....aboriginal peoples of pretty much everywhere) were viewed as 'lesser,' and treated as such. THEIR burial rites reflected that opinion, but that didn't mean they were correct in their assessment, does it?

Those the invaders thought of as 'lesser,' or 'not quite human enough,' were very much human and equal in their humanity with the invaders.

So.....the question isn't whether abortion is OK BECAUSE of the way society views and treats the unborn. It's whether society is correct to do so.

I think it's not.

Somewhere we took a step back. I was referring to Thanda. You see I am not talking about the pro-abortion faction at all. I am talking about the pro lifers doing this.

 

[Curious George]

.....'I don't think [that word] means what you think it means..' (grin)

At least someone got it.

 

[Thanda]

I'm sorry do you think that proves he wasn't buried or cremated?

Nope - it shows that many did not want to participate in a burial. And that gives us a clue about what they thought of the remains...which has nothing to do with what they thought of the life.

Another interesting question comes to mind, what is burial and cremation? Are they not the manner in which we dispose of the remains of a human being? And if so, then their purpose is to dispose of the body and not to measure the value of the life. When at sea the preferred method of disposal is (or was) to throw the body out into the sea, to be eaten by whatever shark or creature(s) live in that water.

So what's my point? The value of a life is not judged by the manner in which the remains are disposed of; the more accurate gauge of the value of the life (to those who remain) is the depth of the mourning. Therefore your attempt to portray as hypocrites those who say they value life but do not dispose of the remains in your preferred manner (which was burial in a casket in the beginning but was recently expanded to include cremation) fails to hold, since a mothers mourning of her miscarried fetus is often little less (if any less) then her mourning of the death of her 25 week-old (in the womb) fetus, or one month old new born. And if it ever does appear that they mourn a little less it is often because society expects them to simply "move on".

 

[Thanda]

I don't live in the world 300 years ago, so explain how it's relevant at all to today.

It is relevant in that your line of argument was used 300 years ago to abuse and demean other human beings.

No, we far from agree, nor does my statement that you quoted mean what you've taken it for. I said there is no "scientific reason" to kill or spare anything. That does not mean that science cannot be used to dispel fanciful claims that a zygote or embryo is equivalent to a developed human life. Crushing an acorn is not cutting down a sapling, and there is nothing that scientifically denotes either pre-fetal stage as equivalent to human life.

Fetuses do not have regular brain activity until 25 weeks - a process begun at 24 weeks. With the knowledge of what classifies as death - all brain activity ceasing - a fetus isn't "alive" until around 24-25 weeks. Even when a person's heart stops beating, they are not considered dead; scientifically and clinically, a heartbeat does not denote "life". How can you kill that which is not alive to begin with?

An acorn is not equivalent to a fetus. It is equivalent to a sperm cell or an egg: neither of which represent any stage of development of a human life. Only once the acorn finds the right conditions and germinates does it begin the path of becoming an Oak tree. "But even when it has germinated, it is still not an oak tree, you say". Well we could also say that until a child learns to speak coherent sentences they are not really a human being. The line we draw is quite arbitrary...and that is the point. We arbitrarily draw a line - and I argue that we draw it too late.

But just out of interest I looked up the life cycle of an Oak Tree. Here is what I found:

Life Cycle

Every oak tree starts life as an acorn.

Each acorn contains just one seed.

seed

When a seed germinates it produces a taproot.​

taproot

This will anchor the tree for the rest of its life.

As spring arrives, the seed sends up a shoot.​

shoot

It pushes through the leaf litter, producing its first leaves for photosynthesis.​

photosynthesis

The oak tree is now a seedling.​

seedling

Most oak trees won't produce a good crop of acorns until they are around 50 years old.

Over the next hundred years, the young tree matures into a majestic adult.​

adult

A mature tree can grow up to 45 meters tall and can spread almost as wide.

At 700 years old the oak has reached old age.

It produces fewer acorns and only grows very slowly.

At 1000 years old, the oak is nearing the end of its life.

Parts of the tree start to die.

Over its lifespan an oak tree can produce as many as 10 million acorns.
​

Note how this is referred to as a tree throughout it's stages of development. Because there is no woman who needs to justify an abortion, there is no need to make a distinction on the tree's status as a tree during the different stages of it's life cycle. From the moment it germinates it is a tree , an Oak Tree, because that is exactly what it will become if it does not die.

This is precisely the same with human development. The life cycle begins when the egg is fertilized and ends at death (whether in the womb or without it). There is absolutely no value at all in trying to say at what stage it is a human except for the purpose of justifying abortion.

 

[dianaiad]

At least someone got it.

I'm old. I only remember the good stuff.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It is relevant in that your line of argument was used 300 years ago to abuse and demean other human beings.

No, it's not. It is not relevant, and I'm not going to bother entertaining it.

An acorn is not equivalent to a fetus. It is equivalent to a sperm cell or an egg: neither of which represent any stage of development of a human life.

Interesting. And why is that?

The line we draw is quite arbitrary.

No, the line that is draw is not arbitrary. There's nothing random about it, nor is it based on personal whim. Deciding that an embryo or a zygote is a "human being" is arbitrary. The line of 21 weeks is backed by science and the developmental stages of gestation; reasons which have been given multiple times throughout this thread.

..and that is the point. We arbitrarily draw a line - and I argue that we draw it too late.

Every oak tree starts life as an acorn.

Well, I guess some things needs to happen:
1. Explain how a sperm or egg is not a stage in human development, as you said the acorn is equal to them.
OR
2. Revise your stance, and explain how crushing an acorn is not the same as cutting down a sapling
3. Find the line between acorn and oak tree.

There is absolutely no value at all in trying to say at what stage it is a human except for the purpose of justifying abortion.

Actually there is, because we live in a world of laws. If something that cannot be seen with the naked eye, or survive outside the womb, is considered a human person, that entails a few rights, restrictions, expectations, and dues.

And even still, explain to us why the rights of a zygote or embryo supersedes those of the mother.

 

[Curious George]

Nope - it shows that many did not want to participate in a burial. And that gives us a clue about what they thought of the remains...which has nothing to do with what they thought of the life.

Another interesting question comes to mind, what is burial and cremation? Are they not the manner in which we dispose of the remains of a human being? And if so, then their purpose is to dispose of the body and not to measure the value of the life. When at sea the preferred method of disposal is (or was) to throw the body out into the sea, to be eaten by whatever shark or creature(s) live in that water.

So what's my point? The value of a life is not judged by the manner in which the remains are disposed of; the more accurate gauge of the value of the life (to those who remain) is the depth of the mourning. Therefore your attempt to portray as hypocrites those who say they value life but do not dispose of the remains in your preferred manner (which was burial in a casket in the beginning but was recently expanded to include cremation) fails to hold, since a mothers mourning of her miscarried fetus is often little less (if any less) then her mourning of the death of her 25 week-old (in the womb) fetus, or one month old new born. And if it ever does appear that they mourn a little less it is often because society expects them to simply "move on".

Except it is not my preferred manner. You are confusing how we as a society treats our dead vs how these individuals treat their remains. And an individual treats remains A in manner x, but flushes down the toilet remains British. That speaks volumes. And no amount of back peddling, Internet words, or rationalizations is going to change that simple fact.

It is not that I don't see your point of view here. It is that I see you are lying to yourself to try to prove something.

 

[Thanda]

No, it's not. It is not relevant, and I'm not going to bother entertaining it.

It is...but I'll accept your conceding defeat.

Interesting. And why is that?

Because neither of them, standing alone as they are in a man's ball-sack and in a woman's uterus will ever become or even start to become a human life unless a sperm cell fertilizes an egg.

Well, I guess some things needs to happen:
1. Explain how a sperm or egg is not a stage in human development, as you said the acorn is equal to them.
OR
2. Revise your stance, and explain how crushing an acorn is not the same as cutting down a sapling
3. Find the line between acorn and oak tree.

The Oak tree life has not started when it is just sitting as a non-germinated Acorn. An acorn can sit on my desk for thousands of years and it will never become, or start to become an Oak tree unless it finds fertile ground and it germinates. Then the life of the Oak tree has started because that is what life is: growth and development (and decay, unfortunately).

Then my stance is consistent - when the journey towards become the full adult version of a Human being or an Oak Tree begins (at successful egg fertilization and seed germination respectively) so soon the journey of life begins. Saying that a fetus is not a human being because it doesn't have certain brain functions is as arbitrary as saying 40 year-old Oak Tree is not really an Oak Tree because it hasn't started producing any Oaks.

Actually there is, because we live in a world of laws. If something that cannot be seen with the naked eye, or survive outside the womb, is considered a human person, that entails a few rights, restrictions, expectations, and dues.

That is precisely my point - the desire to make up an artificial cut-off point for a human life is fueled by the desire strip it of rights and allow mothers to have abortions. I can assure you Ragin, if abortion was not an issue (if it didn't exist) most people. likely including yourself, would not care to define different stages of human life as being really human or not.

And even still, explain to us why the rights of a zygote or embryo supersedes those of the mother.

There is only one specific right of the zygote, embryo and fetus (i.e. the unborn child) that supersedes one specific right of the mother: the unborn child's right to life supersedes the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Part of the reason for this is obvious: the right to life is generally considered the most important right a human being can have. Another reason for this is that an unborn child is not the mothers body. Therefore she cannot do with it as she pleases merely on the basis that it is in her body.
Likewise a man may not use the right to ownership of his house as an excuse to abuse his family since his family are not his house. And even if he owns the house outright (and is married out of community of property) he may not throw out his wife and children any way he pleases. For though his ownership of his house gives him certain rights - it does not give him carte blanche as no right is absolute.

And so also the mother's right to bodily autonomy is not absolute - and it cannot be used as an excuse to infringe upon an even greater right.

Finally I also note that since no right is absolute, the mother has a right to kill the baby, or have the baby killed, when the baby's life threatens her own.

 

[Thanda]

Except it is not my preferred manner. You are confusing how we as a society treats our dead vs how these individuals treat their remains. And an individual treats remains A in manner x, but flushes down the toilet remains British. That speaks volumes. And no amount of back peddling, Internet words, or rationalizations is going to change that simple fact.

It is not that I don't see your point of view here. It is that I see you are lying to yourself to try to prove something.

Remind me again - which are you arguing, that society is hypocritical or that individuals are?

 

[Curious George]

Remind me again - which are you arguing, that society is hypocritical or that individuals are?

Seems you are struggling.

 

[Thanda]

Seems you are struggling.

Yes I am - so which is it?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You know how some women try to get in shape or change their diet before they try to get pregnant? That must mean that they think the fetus is a person before it's even conceived!

Haha... I know... WEIRD, right? I mean, what is this world coming to?!

 

[BilliardsBall]

It seems to me that @Mestemia is telling you that life begins BEFORE conception.

A sperm and an ovum are shed by the parents. They are not persons. The miracle of conception is the genetic contribution of the parents, the new birth, the soul.

 

[Curious George]

Yes I am - so which is it?

Individuals.

 

[BilliardsBall]

life began a long time ago and is a continuous ongoing process.

So no, life does not begin at conception because it takes a LIVING sperm to fertilize a LIVING ovum.

Though I understand that some people argue that a specific individuals life begins at conception.

Problem is that far to many people are not actually saying what they mean to say and are instead saying something they do not mean then getting upset when what they actually said is what is being addressed.

I'm not upset when I patiently explain, the miracle is the two genetic backgrounds forming a new person, and God breathing a soul to the person.