Abortion

[JamesDillon]

So it's not a human either, it's a potential human. Of course, an egg and a sperm are also parts of a potential human. If you want to protect one, you have to protect the lot to be consistent, eh?

No, because neither a sperm nor egg by themselves contain a full human genome.

We seem to be disagreeing on the definition of the word "human," rather than whether a developing embryo really is one. I would submit that any biological entity with human DNA is a human in the biological sense. Whether it is a "person" or not is a trickier question with perhaps no clear answer.

 

[KingMerv00]

jj,

I have already answered this question for you several times. What would you call a developing embryo/fetus that contains a full set of human DNA other than "human"?

Zygote, embryo, fetus?

I do not categorize something as "human" simply because it has human DNA. Hell, a dead body has a human genome. Brain function is an absolute requirement to have rights.

 

[JamesDillon]

Zygote, embryo, fetus?

I do not categorize something as "human" simply because it has human DNA. Hell, a dead body has a human genome. Brain function is an absolute requirement to have rights.

And a dead body is a dead human, is it not? But, as I noted in my response to jj above, we seem to be arguing about two different things.

Would you accept the proposition that "any biological entity with human DNA is a member of the species homo sapiens"? If not, why not? This is a purely biological statement that has nothing to do with whether a biological entity with human DNA has "rights."

 

[chris epic]

And that's the brick wall in the debate right there.

Your own opinion is a philosophy. The fact we value a living breathing human being over a cow is a moral philosophy.

You're using my attempt to shy away from absoluteness by saying "in my opinion" to side-step my support of objective scientific evidence.

 

[chris epic]

chickens

You know, I love eating eggs. Eggs and crispy bacon with some dark hashbrowns, sourdough toastand strawberry jam and a glass of oj and milk. Have you ever been cooking, and you break an egg and drop the insides into a frying pan and you see a little baby chicken fetus surrounded by blood. "Ewwwe" Why are you so grossed out? The chicken wasn't developed enough to think when it was alive in that egg- so its really not a chicken.....

Just food for thought *ooh, no pun intended, sheesh*

 

[Luke T.]

You're using my attempt to shy away from absoluteness by saying "in my opinion" to side-step my support of objective scientific evidence.

I am not trying to side-step your support of objective scientific evidence. That is one of the arguments for determining when a fetus is human that I consider to be very reasonable. I just want it to be understood that there are other reasonable arguments which disagree with that method of determination.

 

[Mark]

Washington Post



But do you still believe pro-lifers want to enslave women? And if so, why do you still believe it?

I saw nothing in the article to justify the term "minority." Either provide the poll results or stop using the term...that's what you demanded of me; I am merely asking for the same.

And, yes, significant numbers (the word corrected to obey the standard you hold for me and not for yourself) of people in the anti-abortion movement have as their main agenda controlling the behavior of women. I never used the term "enslave." You did that.

 

[KingMerv00]

And a dead body is a dead human, is it not? But, as I noted in my response to jj above, we seem to be arguing about two different things.

Would you accept the proposition that "any biological entity with human DNA is a member of the species homo sapiens"? If not, why not?

I'll agree if you want. Words are just arbitrarily defined anyway. You say that:

Human = Human DNA
person = Human DNA + life + self-awareness

Is that correct? Now what?

 

[Mark]

And a dead body is a dead human, is it not? But, as I noted in my response to jj above, we seem to be arguing about two different things.

Would you accept the proposition that "any biological entity with human DNA is a member of the species homo sapiens"? If not, why not? This is a purely biological statement that has nothing to do with whether a biological entity with human DNA has "rights."

Sperm have human DNA. So does vomit. What's the point?

 

[jj]

And that's the brick wall in the debate right there.

Your own opinion is a philosophy. The fact we value a living breathing human being over a cow is a moral philosophy.

Philosophy is abstract thought.

Science is testable and verifiable.

And science does read on what a "living, breathing human being" is, not just philosophy. I wouldn't include "breathing" in that, by the way.

 

[jj]

We seem to be disagreeing on the definition of the word "human," rather than whether a developing embryo really is one. I would submit that any biological entity with human DNA is a human in the biological sense. Whether it is a "person" or not is a trickier question with perhaps no clear answer.

Then a corpse is human? And deserving of the same legal rights as any other human?

An embryo does NOT contain all the information required to become human. That's the point.

 

[jj]

No, because neither a sperm nor egg by themselves contain a full human genome.

Why is a genome special? It, by itself, does not contain all the necessary information to become human, as it turns out. Mom is required, at least until we get to the point of understanding the process at the depth required to deal with the interactions that stimulate proper differentiation.

 

[Jas]

... and a glass of oj and milk.

You mix the two?

Blegh.

 

[JamesDillon]

Then a corpse is human?

Biologically speaking, of course a corpse is human. Does a stuffed deer cease being a deer? The American Museum of Natural History is going to be very upset to find out that all those bones it has painstakingly mounted aren't really dinosaurs.

And deserving of the same legal rights as any other human?

Therein lies the key distinction that I'm getting at: does being a member of the human species necessarily entitle one to inviolable legal rights? I think the answer here must be no (not least because no one has "inviolable" legal rights-- all rights are flexible to the extent that they may potentially come into conflict with the rights of others). Trying to avoid this uncomfortable balancing of the life of one human against the liberty interests of another by defining the unborn child out of the human species seems an implausible approach to me.

An embryo does NOT contain all the information required to become human. That's the point.

Can you elaborate on this? I understand that an embryo needs nourishment and hormonal stimuli from the mother in order to properly develop, but it is the case, is it not, that from the moment of conception, a zygote contains a full set of human genetic information?

To address your subsequent post: isn't the genome the most objective method we have of identifying species? We all seem to agree that a developing embryo is a separate biological entity from the mother-- this must be the case, if, as many pro-choice advocates claim, it is a "parasite." If it's a separate biological entity, it must be a member of some species, right? What species might that be if not homo sapiens?

 

[strathmeyer]

Are you enslaved by every law? You are subject to their influence. Is someone who wants you to wear a seatbelt seeking to enslave you?

Yes, I am. You are unable to have a logical conversation about abortion. You are unable to come up with logically consistant arguments.

I am a slave to the seatbelt laws. If I am in jail, I am a slave to the warden. Why can't you understand this. I posted the definition of the word for you, why don't you read it.

If abortion is immoral, how come you can't just explain why and change people's minds about it? Why can't you answer simple questions about it?

 

[jj]

Can you elaborate on this? I understand that an embryo needs nourishment and hormonal stimuli from the mother in order to properly develop, but it is the case, is it not, that from the moment of conception, a zygote contains a full set of human genetic information?

I think that it's not quite correct to say it contains the full set of information. In cooperation with the various chemical influences (this goes way beyond hormones, to signalling between cells with some surprisingly simple chemicals, there is quite a bit of work on this, but I don't know any generally accessable references, they're mostly very specialized at the minute) there is enough to create a human being.

Of course, how mom makes those chemical influences is coded into the DNA and cellular structure, but having it present in would-be junior does not help here, it requires grown mom expressing this behavior.

So it's not that simple, really. The system is not designed, it evolved, and some of the ways it works do in fact look downright accidental.

 

[jj]

If abortion is immoral, how come you can't just explain why and change people's minds about it? Why can't you answer simple questions about it?

Hold on, hold on. If it's a matter of faith for him, he doesn't have to explain. What he then has to explain is why he has the right to impose his faith on others. Different problem.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Wouldn't this whole issue be easy to deal with if we just make a law that it's illegal for a woman to have an abortion unless she is in danger?

Charlie (in danger of having an unwanted birth) Monoxide

 

[Luke T.]

I saw nothing in the article to justify the term "minority." Either provide the poll results or stop using the term...that's what you demanded of me; I am merely asking for the same.

Which you never provided. I did provide evidence to debunk your claim.

There are no poll results for the vaccine. Most likely because such an insignificant number of people are opposed to it that it isn't worth polling about.

And, yes, significant numbers (the word corrected to obey the standard you hold for me and not for yourself) of people in the anti-abortion movement have as their main agenda controlling the behavior of women. I never used the term "enslave." You did that.

No. jj did. And Art Vandelay. And you implied it.

 

[Luke T.]

If abortion is immoral, how come you can't just explain why and change people's minds about it? Why can't you answer simple questions about it?

I am being as simple as possible, and have answered simple questions.

Let me answer your question about morality with a question. Do you think an eight month fetus is human?

If so, it is immoral to kill it if the mother's life is not in danger?

If you can comprehend that, then you can comprehend that to some people, a one day old clump of cells is human and feel it is immoral to kill it.

I think you and jj are mistaking me for being one of the people who thinks it is human at conception. So let me say, again, very simply, that I am undecided when a fetus is human.

ETA: But I do feel that at whatever point a fetus is human, it is immoral to kill it after that point for the same reason it is immoral to kill any human.

Simple enough for you?