the hated abortion discussion.

Started by doorknob, July 27, 2014, 08:09:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


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.
Every day is a good day to *remove from server* an autocrat.


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
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.


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.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR


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.
lol, marquee. HTML ROOLZ!

Jason Harvestdancer

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.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!


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?
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

Jason Harvestdancer

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.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!