"It ends a potential human life, not a babies'. A human fetus is no more a human than an omelet is a chicken. A baby is, by definition, an animal that has already been born. That is not flowering it up, that is the simple scientific truth and definition. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the scientists who decided at what point a zygote becomes an embryo becomes a fetus becomes a baby becomes a....
Abortions take place when an embryo resembles a human about as much as it resembles a chicken, a lizard or a elephant. You can argue that you are terminating a future human, but ultimately at the point of abortion you are "killing" an entity that cannot sustain itself, cannot think or have any sort of sentience, most likely has the most basic of feeling...
While I have some ethical issues with ending that, at the end of the day I think the termination of life at that point is preferable to it being born into a world where it is at best not wanted, at worse going to be abused, tortured, and who know's what else."
Scientifically speaking a zygote and an embryo are stages of human life there is nothing potential about it. Conception is the start of the human life cycle. Zygote is a form of a human in a stage of a human life cycle. It even has it's own unique human genome proving that it is a human.
that is scientifically correct. Not flowered up for political reasons.
QuoteScientifically speaking a zygote and an embryo are stages of human life there is nothing potential about it. Conception is the start of the human life cycle. Zygote is a form of a human in a stage of a human life cycle. It even has it's own unique human genome proving that it is a human.
that is scientifically correct. Not flowered up for political reasons.
That is clearly debatable, considering it is a major point of debate amongst both religious and secular communities.
The embryo is nothing more than a parasitic (I mean that in a blunt, not derogatory) being attached to the mother, or perhaps could even be considered an organ of the mother, until it is able to be self-sustaining. A being that has zero mental capabilities, is fully dependent upon it's host for even the most basic of resources and operates as, until birth, basically an additional organ to the mother simply does not deserve the title of "human".
Human implies sentience, emotions, the ability to feel pain, to exist on it's own by consumption of resources and not through another living creature's organs... criteria the fetus simply cannot meet.
http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
It maybe debatable but clearly any scientist making this argument is doing it for political reasons and not scientific reasons.
No scientist wants to come out and get politically slaughtered for taking a side in the abortion issue.
QuoteIt maybe debatable but clearly any scientist making this argument is doing it for political reasons and not scientific reasons.
Or... you know... there is no concrete definition because it's not a matter of science but a matter of philosophy and ethics, which means it can never truly be answered.
To call an embryo a human is about as useful as calling an omelet a chicken. While you can argue it scientifically (though it's debated) is, at the end of the day... so what? The omelet was never a sentient being and a embryo was never a sentient being. Saying, "it could have been a human though!" is also about as useful as saying, "my Nintendo 64 could have one day been an android that had artificial intelligence and gained sentience!". It... could have?... but it didn't.
The core issue was you equated the death penalty to "killing" an embryo... killing a sentient being to killing a non-sentient parasite. If we are keeping that as the core issue then you simply have no scientific or ethical comparison you can draw between the two.
excuse me an embro is still a human. even in the definition of abortion the term human fetus is used.
http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
"In common parlance, the term "abortion" is synonymous with induced abortion of a human fetus."
as I've said before It is a stage in the human life cycle. Sentient or not.
as for a chicken egg It still has chicken DNA. Simply because you are eating it at the beginning of it's life cycle doesn't make it not a chicken.
Meh.
I can't carry a child in my body. I get no say on the people who can if they don't want to.
The rest of the argument is just semantics to me.
Quote from: doorknob on July 27, 2014, 08:09:04 AM
A human fetus is no more a human than an omelet is a chicken.
That's not exactly true. At least in the vast majority of omelets. Hens drop an egg every 23 hours or so regardless of whether the rooster has come a callin' or not, the same way women drop an egg every 28 days or so regardless of whether she's gotten lucky or not. So if you're making that omelet with store bought eggs or eggs from any chicken owner who knows enough to keep the hens and rooster separated at all times, that omelet was never going to be a chicken no matter what you did. Didn't really mean to ruin your breakfast or derail the conversation but I thought it should be pointed out that your analogy is kind of bogus.
"Saying, "it could have been a human though!" is also about as useful as saying, "my Nintendo 64 could have one day been an android that had artificial intelligence and gained sentience!". It... could have?... but it didn't."
there is a huge difference to an embryo becoming a human and your nintendo 64 becoming an android. An embryo is already human first of all. If left alone it will definitely become a fully formed human with out a doubt. Leave your nintendo alone and it will never become an android.
QuoteDidn't really mean to ruin your breakfast or derail the conversation but I thought it should be pointed out that your analogy is kind of bogus.
That was mine, and let's say for argument sake it was an old-school, self-sustaining farmer who picked up one of the eggs his hen's laid-as they would have done for thousand and thousands of years of human history before mass chicken farming.
Some of those eggs will have been fertilized.
QuoteAn embryo is already human first of all.
No, a embryo is a parasite with the genetic material to develop into a human.
QuoteIf left alone it will definitely become a fully formed human with out a doubt.
QuoteAmong women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 15-20%
That is a pretty high failure rate to say it would DEFINITELY had become a human, especially when you consider that many abortions are preformed on women in high stress situations which increases the mortality rate.
QuoteLeave your nintendo alone and it will never become an android.
Leave an embryo alone and it will never become a human. It is only through the constant nourishment of resources from a woman's body that it is able to develop, just as the constant adding upgrades could one day lead a n64 to become an android capable of self-sufficiency.
QuoteI can't carry a child in my body. I get no say on the people who can if they don't want to.
The rest of the argument is just semantics to me.
Completely agreed on both points. As I said, it is ultimately a matter of philosophy and ethics which means there will never be a "right" answer.
"eave an embryo alone and it will never become a human. It is only through the constant nourishment of resources from a woman's body that it is able to develop. "
you'd have to remove the embryo from the body and that is not leaving it alone.
Taking the logic of prolifers to its conclusion, if a woman has a period and passes an unfetilized egg from her body, she has in effect also killed a potential human. Just because the egg is unfertilized, it still has/had the potential to be fertilized. And it is not unrealistic that we could wind up there, because personhood laws criminalize women for miscarriages where the mother is theoretically the cause, i.e. drinking, unsafe behavior doing something that could be seen as intentional to create a miscarriage.
You can talk and philosophize all day long about whether an egg is human or not, and at what stage it can be considered "not human" enough to be aborted. To me it comes back to simple logistics. If a baby by being born is facing a future of neglect, and by being born bring a negative condition for itself and the parent into existence, abortion is justified. Sounds cold and hard, but so is reality. If a baby by being born will face a life of dubious potential or in constant need of care and is a burden on society with no realistic justification for its life, abortion makes sense. Giving birth to diseased monsters or unwanted, unsupportable offspring is stupid, period.
While you may classify a fetus as not human or not a potential person, most people don't view pregnancy that way. Women who have miscarriages are typically upset and consider it a loss. Having an abortion isn't the same as killing a person but it isn't nothing and I personally think any woman who choses to have an abortion needs compassion and support, not just be told she got rid of a "parasite."
Quote from: GSOgymrat link=topic=5835.msg1034357#msg1034357 d469545
While you may classify a fetus as not human or not a potential person, most people don't view pregnancy that way. Women who have miscarriages are typically upset and consider it a loss. Having an abortion isn't the same as killing a person but it isn't nothing and I personally think any woman who choses to have an abortion needs compassion and support, not just be told she got rid of a "parasite."
Note: I am taking it to the extreme because it is ultimately a semantics issue; as I said I am not a big ethical fan of it, but op was comparing it to executions, which I find completely unrelatable.
My moral code only extends to sentient beings. Embryos are not sentient. They can become sentient, but they themselves are not. Far as I'm concerned, it's a hunk of meat, and I care not what happens to it.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 27, 2014, 09:59:05 AM
While you may classify a fetus as not human or not a potential person, most people don't view pregnancy that way. Women who have miscarriages are typically upset and consider it a loss. Having an abortion isn't the same as killing a person but it isn't nothing and I personally think any woman who choses to have an abortion needs compassion and support, not just be told she got rid of a "parasite."
This. I grew up in a religious environment and have 3 kids of my own, so no, a child/fetus is definitely not a parasite. And women should always be treated with compassion in that regard. I know women who have had miscarriages, and I know how devastated they were. Likewise, women who do get abortions still feel biologically connected to the fetus and can go through depression because of it.
QuoteNote: I am taking it to the extreme because it is ultimately a semantics issue; as I said I am not a big ethical fan of it, but op was comparing it to executions, which I find completely unrelatable.
and this. A medically justifiable abortion is not murder in my eyes. If I do not see how bringing an unwanted or monstrous baby into the world is compassion. I have, as a religous person, seen children who will spend their lives in constant medical supervison and treatment, and I see them as a burden, not a blessing. Personal choice.
The abortion issue has nothing to do with the rights of the embryo but is about whether the woman has any rights to her own body or not. Anyone who brings up the embryo is intentionally attempting to muddy the issue
If an unborn is aborted, and it is a human, why does it die then? What if it looks like this or worse:(http://i.imgur.com/3RN5mVz.jpg) (http://imgur.com/3RN5mVz) :wall: Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on July 27, 2014, 12:08:18 PM
If an unborn is aborted, and it is a human, why does it die then? :wall: Solitary
:lol:
The whole argument is stupid. Men shouldn't have a say in women do with their bodies and women shouldn't have a say in what other women do with their bodies.
As for taking a potential life.... that argument gets shot in the foot when you realize that the people that are anti-abortion are usually also pro-war....
nice i got it.
roe v wade was ruled because of privacy not about a woman's right to her body.
Also if I try to kill myself and some one stops me, Why do I not have the right to kill myself it's my body?
how bout this I cut off my arm and then claim disability. It's my body.
There's no law that says you can't cut off your arm, but there is for fraud. :biggrin2: Solitary
Here's a thought.
If a woman can't have an abortion because the rights of the embryo are greater than her right to her own body, then the woman is less of a person than the unborn embryo.
If that embryo is female and is born, grows up, and has an unwanted pregnancy but can't have an abortion because she is also less of a person.
Therefore, only female embryos can be safely aborted because women are clearly less human than men.
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 27, 2014, 12:31:28 PM
Here's a thought.
If a woman can't have an abortion because the rights of the embryo are greater than her right to her own body, then the woman is less of a person than the unborn embryo.
If that embryo is female and is born, grows up, and has an unwanted pregnancy but can't have an abortion because she is also less of a person.
Therefore, only female embryos can be safely aborted because women are clearly less human than men.
Impeccable logic, sir.
(http://media.giphy.com/media/t0GdApalgA0bm/giphy.gif)
:lol: And I thought this subject couldn't get more contentious. Solitary
I just realized how terrible the_antithesis' last post could sound out of context. :lol:
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 27, 2014, 12:37:57 PM
I just realized how terrible the_antithesis' last post could sound out of context. :lol:
You mean if I was an actual pro-lifer.
I don't think they realize this is the consequence of their position
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 27, 2014, 12:00:58 PM
The abortion issue has nothing to do with the rights of the embryo but is about whether the woman has any rights to her own body or not. Anyone who brings up the embryo is intentionally attempting to muddy the issue
How many laws are out there that has been introduced or passed in the US that prevents a man from getting a vasectomy?
The answer, by the way, (I believe) is zero.
Abortion has never been about saving a baby, it's always been about women being second/third class citizens to men.
If people were serious about all life, or potential life being precious then vasectomies would be as evil (to them) as everything passed, attempted to be passed, etc., toward women.
-Nam
Why come so many pro-lifers lose interest once the kid has been born?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 27, 2014, 02:53:16 PM
Why come so many pro-lifers lose interest once the kid has been born?
Because they're alive. Ironically, they actually don't care about the living.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 27, 2014, 02:59:42 PM
Because they're alive. Ironically, they actually don't care about the living.
-Nam
Might cost them money, so fuck 'em.
Quote from: stromboli on July 27, 2014, 09:25:09 AM
Taking the logic of prolifers to its conclusion, if a woman has a period and passes an unfetilized egg from her body, she has in effect also killed a potential human. Just because the egg is unfertilized, it still has/had the potential to be fertilized. And it is not unrealistic that we could wind up there, because personhood laws criminalize women for miscarriages where the mother is theoretically the cause, i.e. drinking, unsafe behavior doing something that could be seen as intentional to create a miscarriage.
You can talk and philosophize all day long about whether an egg is human or not, and at what stage it can be considered "not human" enough to be aborted. To me it comes back to simple logistics. If a baby by being born is facing a future of neglect, and by being born bring a negative condition for itself and the parent into existence, abortion is justified. Sounds cold and hard, but so is reality. If a baby by being born will face a life of dubious potential or in constant need of care and is a burden on society with no realistic justification for its life, abortion makes sense. Giving birth to diseased monsters or unwanted, unsupportable offspring is stupid, period.
Careful.. You're treading on eugenics territory there sounding really right wingish on the side of pro choice people with the burden on society nonsense. It's sounding like you're saying it's OK as long as the mother is dirt poor and everyone knows poor people always stay poor so there's no reason to allow them to breed kind of talk.. That's the argument that the Lush Limpballs of the world might make..
Here's the argument I've heard time and time again from people from their ivory towers and self righteousness, poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed. Bottom line as if to imply that people with money and nice jobs are the ONLY people capable of raising children and poor people are mere burdens on everyone else completely ignoring the fact that millions upon millions, indeed the vast majority of humans who have ever existed on this shitty rock of a planet have been poor and that trend isn't going to reverse now or any time in the future...ever.
Now if you agree poor people oughtn't breed then you could be considered part of the gentrified bourgeois in which case Marx has a nice lesson on frim where your wealth is derived .
QuoteThe worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.
If you want poor people to stop breeding then denounce your wealth, give it to poor people so they're not poor anymore.
Oh wait..it's about you and your self righteous beliefs.. My mistake.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 27, 2014, 02:53:16 PM
Why come so many pro-lifers lose interest once the kid has been born?
That single thought very nicely points out how stupid the argument is. If you diminish or remove the ability for women to receive birth control, make "personhood" laws that make women criminally liable for a miscarriage, get rid of abortion, the only remaining alternative is a bunch of welfare raised children nobody really wants that are nothing but a burden on society.
Oh, wait- I just described Mississippi. :doh:
A lot of poor people own cats.. They don't care if the cat drags it away and eats it once born.. After all.. Cats are people too..
If a woman decides she wants an abortion then everybody else should respect her decision end of fkn story, cos its her body and her decision.
yeah well I am still not convinced at the heart, it is a simple racial issue in that old white men don't give a fuck about kids of "color". Whitey is losing his place as the majority, gotta stop the white gal from abortin the next Duke.
Quote from: aitm on July 27, 2014, 07:00:45 PM
yeah well I am still not convinced at the heart, it is a simple racial issue in that old white men don't give a fuck about kids of "color". Whitey is losing his place as the majority, gotta stop the white gal from abortin the next Duke.
Basically based on Marx to keep creating poor workers to keep the proletariat busy creating wealth for the bourgeois.. See? They're really Marxists at heart..
Is this supposed to be "the heated abortion discussion"?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 27, 2014, 07:27:40 PM
Is this supposed to be "the heated abortion discussion"?
It's just my way of turning the pro lifers into fucking commies..
:)
I don't believe I ever stated my personal view on whether abortion should be legal. And I never will.
I simply stated a scientific fact. I like to see every ones thought processes on the matter.
I've also seen a great deal of strawmen tonight btw. I also see a lot of assumptions being made.
I realize every thing is not black and white and no issue ever is. I just thought it might be backwards that people will protect a guilty adult yet easily excuse and justify killing an innocent life. A life whether it's sentient, resembles a human and every other excuse.
Now that may sound pro life to you and I could see how people would make that assumption but honestly I just like to call a duck a duck.
scientifically an embryo is apart of the human life cycle. It is a human scientifically. now you can call it a tumor or a parasite but it is still human. I think admitting that abortion is terminating a human life is just being honest about it! As if admitting that would some how stop abortions from being legal. Or even make it obvious as to whether it is right or wrong. But back to that black and white issue different people have different values on life. Some don't value life at all. Some value an embryo some value a criminal. Some people don't care one way or another. Who is right or wrong is subjective, and it can also be situational.
I just wanted to see if a single person could be honest with them selves about it. Or what your version of honesty is.
Don't talk about strawmen when you're intentionally twisting the issue. Regardless of whether the embryonic stage is part of the human life cycle, the fact of the matter is that it is not a sentient life form, and my moral code does not extend to them as such. That means cats, dogs, etc. Any animal that obviously thinks and feels (and is not otherwise needed for food purposes) is something whose life I will put time and effort into defending long before I give so much as one singular shit about an embryo.
QuoteI just wanted to see if a single person could be honest with them selves about it. Or what your version of honesty is.
I am; it is, at it's bluntest and most basic definition, a non-sentient parasite. Just because you can't accept that doesn't mean I'm not honest to myself about it.
neither of those is a blunt or basic definition. Non sentient is not in the definition of embryo. Neither is parasite. Those are terms coined by pro lifers to comfort the women having abortions and they are not based on science.
Also that does not refute what I said. Those are excuses.
by the way some biologists have said that a fetus is symbiotic not parasitic.
Quote from: doorknob on July 28, 2014, 10:20:15 AMNon sentient is not in the definition of embryo.
I never said it was, you dunce. Nevertheless, they
are non-sentient, and don't fall into my moral compass as such.
Quote from: doorknob on July 28, 2014, 10:20:15 AMAlso that does not refute what I said.
Refute what? You've offered no argument. You aren't even a participant in this discussion. You're just sitting there insulting people for having an informed opinion.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 27, 2014, 07:31:32 PM
It's just my way of turning the pro lifers into fucking commies..
Very well, carry on.
Quote from: doorknob on July 27, 2014, 11:53:28 PM
:)
I don't believe I ever stated my personal view on whether abortion should be legal. And I never will.
I simply stated a scientific fact. I like to see every ones thought processes on the matter.
I've also seen a great deal of strawmen tonight btw. I also see a lot of assumptions being made.
I realize every thing is not black and white and no issue ever is. I just thought it might be backwards that people will protect a guilty adult yet easily excuse and justify killing an innocent life. A life whether it's sentient, resembles a human and every other excuse.
Bolded: not scientific. You're not even coming from a scientific position first, you're coming from an emotional one and trying to use science to justify your emotions about the subject.
-Nam
Quoteneither of those is a blunt or basic definition. Non sentient is not in the definition of embryo. Neither is parasite.
Really? So would you therefor define embryos as sentient & self-sustaining?
QuoteThose are terms coined by pro lifers to comfort the women having abortions and they are not based on science.
A. I think you meant pro-women right, because pro-lifers don't comfort women who have abortions.
B. I have never heard a pro-woman person put it that way either because that is a very, VERY blunt and cold way of putting it, but ultimately one of the most accurate ways of putting what you are terminating.
If it's not based on science I would like to ask... how would you scientifically prove that an embryo is both sentient and self-sustaining? Because I feel you are going to have tread through ALOT of medical evidence that says contrary.
QuoteAlso that does not refute what I said. Those are excuses.
You aren't saying anything, so yeah I don't reckon it would. And what would your position be if not excuses for why it is wrong?
Quoteby the way some biologists have said that a fetus is symbiotic not parasitic.
Parasite -an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
Sorry, they are parasites.
Is a fertile chicken egg a chicken before it is hatched? Just think, if we laid eggs, and didn't want to have children, we could eat them for breakfast. :eek: :pidu: Solitary
Quote from: doorknob on July 27, 2014, 08:09:04 AM
"It ends a potential human life, not a babies'. A human fetus is no more a human than an omelet is a chicken. A baby is, by definition, an animal that has already been born. That is not flowering it up, that is the simple scientific truth and definition. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the scientists who decided at what point a zygote becomes an embryo becomes a fetus becomes a baby becomes a....
Abortions take place when an embryo resembles a human about as much as it resembles a chicken, a lizard or a elephant. You can argue that you are terminating a future human, but ultimately at the point of abortion you are "killing" an entity that cannot sustain itself, cannot think or have any sort of sentience, most likely has the most basic of feeling...
While I have some ethical issues with ending that, at the end of the day I think the termination of life at that point is preferable to it being born into a world where it is at best not wanted, at worse going to be abused, tortured, and who know's what else."
Scientifically speaking a zygote and an embryo are stages of human life there is nothing potential about it. Conception is the start of the human life cycle. Zygote is a form of a human in a stage of a human life cycle. It even has it's own unique human genome proving that it is a human.
that is scientifically correct. Not flowered up for political reasons.
if we are going to get scientific about it, that conceptus needs my uterus for much of its development. My uterus is my property. I am the landlord. There really is nothing more mine in the world than my body and its parts. Ethically nobody else can make decisions about my uterus And my life. Period. End of sentence. It blows my mind that such a common practice worldwide for people I don't know, have never met, and are completely uninvolved with my life dare to try and, tragically, generally succeed at making decisions about what's going on in my uterus.
I frequently read the Facebook page of an organization called personhood USA. I recommend this page to anyone who is interested in the kind of dialogue that occurs in this country. The posts are interesting, and the comments or even more so. Their platform is very very antiabortion. This includes all cases of rape and incest. Every single conceptus is precious. For some reason this makes sense to me. Perhaps it's because their stance is not conditional. I have always found it puzzling that the mainstream pro-lifer wants to make exceptions, considering their main talking point is all life is precious and that preborn babies are innocent and deserve to live. But sometimes it's ok to kill them in the interest of the mother. I guess is a good demonstration of why this issue is black-and-white to me and there is no middle ground: You either support a woman in making decisions about her own body or you want to completely take away her rights and she becomes a handmaiden.
Quote from: doorknob on July 28, 2014, 10:20:15 AM
by the way some biologists have said that a fetus is symbiotic not parasitic.
Citation please.
Not saying that you or them are incorrect. However symbiosis infers that both parties have a mutual gain. Physiologically the woman gets nothing from pregnancy except a kick of hormones. And not even that is universally positive.
Hormonal imbalances can be a leading cause of postnatal depression, which can obviously be devastating for woman and child following birth.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 27, 2014, 11:50:23 AM
My moral code only extends to sentient beings. Embryos are not sentient. They can become sentient, but they themselves are not. Far as I'm concerned, it's a hunk of meat, and I care not what happens to it.
I spent much time trying to come up with a philosophical definition of "human", as opposed to the biological definition of "Eukaryota, Unikonta, Opisthokonta, Holozoa, Filozoa, Animalia, Eumetazoa, Bilateria, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Cephalochordata, Craniata, Vertebrata, Gnathostomata, Teleostomi, Tetrapoda, Reptiliomorpha, Amniota, Synapsida, Reptiliomorpha, Eupelycosauria, Sphenacodontia, Sphenacodontoidea, Therapsida, Eutherapsida, Neotherapsida, Theriodontia, Eutheriodontia, Cynodontia, Epicynodontia, Eucynodontia, Probainognathia, Chiniquodontoidea, Prozostrodontia, Mammaliaformes, Mamalia, Holotheria, Trechnotheria, Cladotheria, Zatheria, Tribosphenida, Theria, Eutheria, Placentalia, Exafroplacentalia, Boreoeutheria, Euarchontoglires, Euarchonta, Primatomorpha, Primates, Euprimates, Haplorrhini, Simiiformes, Catarrhini, Hominoidea, Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini, Homo, Sapiens"
My philosophical definition started with the baseline of "man is the thinking animal" but it was pointed out that one could exclude the brain damaged from being considered people, and also infants. Eventually I had to work the definition to being the potential for thought.
The evidence says dogs have some limited capacity to count and have feelings. For example under some circumstances Rover can tell that Fido got three treats and he only got two. This realization can lead to feelings of jealously and anger. Those are thoughts. Does that make Rover human?
No, not nearly enough in the way of thought as intended by my proposed definition.
It may include dolphins, elephants, and the other great apes though. That point would be arguable.