Abortion: Most Complicated Issue?

[EKublai]

To me, one of the most morally complicated issues is that of abortion. Despite my pro-choice stance, I am never quite at ease with myself because in my heart I believe that it is wrong to kill another person, no matter what stage of developement. If it has the potential to stop growing or die, it must be at a previous point be growing and alive. You'd have to find some damn good evidence to convince me otherwise of this.

But my real point is that it's a no-win situation. It's Free-Choice vs. Free-Life. It's impossible to suggest one way is entirely correct. The only thing that reasonably makes sense is abortion to save the life of the mother, because in that case the organism inside has become a bad parasite, which we reject from our bodies everyday.

But then, what if abortion is really something else. When is murder excusable? If you're in the military, when you're defending yourself.

Does having an abortion render a valuable service? By having the abortion, is the mother defending herself? Not if the baby is not going to end up killing her.

Is abortion like anything else that's even close to comparable? This is my question for discussion.

Note: I believe that this is best handled with consideration to whether the embryo can feel pain or not. Many bugs do not have the brain capacity to feel pain, and therefore I feel it's more forgivable to step on bugs without thinking much of it. At the same time, it doesn't help that much since I know that at some point the embryo would be able to feel pain.

[bismuthfeldspar]

If a fetus is less than 20 weeks old it is definately not sapient.

If a fetus is older than 24 weeks it has an active human neo-cortex and can survive outside the womb in an incubator, it is only a shade away from being as sapient as a newborn baby.

Abortion before 20 weeks should be legal.

Abortion after 24 weeks should be illegal.

Between 20 and 24 weeks is the grey area, cancer patients who need chemotherapy and so forth can abort but otherwise no.

Pro choicers who want the right to throw newborn babies into medical waste bins are evil.
Pro lifers who want to ban after morning pills because they think a cluster of cells is a person are stupid.

[TheMason]

I agree: abortion is, if not the most complicated issue, one of the top two most complicated issues.

As a Libertarian I believe that government should meddle as little in a person's life as possible. So on one hand I get the free-choice (I think free- sums it up better than pro-) arguments about it being a woman's body and life. Furthermore, I understand the psychological truama that comes from rape and incest from close friends/family who have been raped. Also, there are cases where the mother's life is in danger and if this is a second, third, etc child...there may be an argument for aborting the fetus. Or if the child is not going to make it, making the mother carry the child to term would just be cruel.

But on the other hand...

Furthermore, it is not all about the woman. No matter how early of a stage of development the embryo/fetus it is...the cluster of cells is still a HUMAN life. Unless it and the mother were exposed to some freaky Cherynoble level radiation...it is going to grow into a human being. Whether or not they are sentient or not...we are still talking about one person ending another's life. So from this science based perspective, to end a pregnancy because it is an inconvient time for the mother or she just doesn't want a child for whatever reason...seems wrong.

Then we often overlook the father in this. My ex-wife aborted our second child, and I drove her to PP myself and paid the bill. It was the single worst day of my life. And while I was told there medical issues with the child...I still have my doubts and it haunts me. So even if the mother doesn't want the child I believe that the father should still have a say. If he wants to raise it while mom leaves the picture then I believe the father should have the right to block the abortion as long as he takes full custody and responsibility for it. (With exceptions being for cases of rape...and not just morning-after rape.)

Again...it is one of those issues that is highly emotionally charged but not even the science provides a clear path to follow.

[EKublai]

At 5/27/12 07:05 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: If a fetus is less than 20 weeks old it is definately not sapient.

If a fetus is older than 24 weeks it has an active human neo-cortex and can survive outside the womb in an incubator, it is only a shade away from being as sapient as a newborn baby.

Abortion before 20 weeks should be legal.

Abortion after 24 weeks should be illegal.

Between 20 and 24 weeks is the grey area, cancer patients who need chemotherapy and so forth can abort but otherwise no.

Pro choicers who want the right to throw newborn babies into medical waste bins are evil.
Pro lifers who want to ban after morning pills because they think a cluster of cells is a person are stupid.

See, I can't accept that at all. A cluster of cells develops into a very real human. The pain argument is a utilitarian one, but even then, an absolute morality can suggest that since life is developing, it is wrong entirely.

[kakalxlax]

oh c`on dude, this thread has been done thousands of times

p.d: "pro-choice" is short for "pro choice to kill", adding "choice" to it was made so tools that would normally oppose to death (like death sentence) will support abortion

[Camarohusky]

At 5/29/12 10:09 PM, kakalxlax wrote: p.d: "pro-choice" is short for "pro choice to kill", adding "choice" to it was made so tools that would normally oppose to death (like death sentence) will support abortion

p.d.: "pro-life" is a euphamism for "anti-freedom", changing the wording was made so tools that would normally oppose to government intervention (like gun control) will support a bigger government.

Right back atcha.

[MOSFET]

At 5/29/12 09:44 PM, EKublai wrote: See, I can't accept that at all. A cluster of cells develops into a very real human. The pain argument is a utilitarian one, but even then, an absolute morality can suggest that since life is developing, it is wrong entirely.

So you are against IVF(invitro fertilization) as well?
The basic procedure is as follows.
1.) egg cells removed from the woman
2.) multiple eggs are fertilized by the father's sperm
3.) the woman decided how many of the eggs are to be implanted back into her. 1-3 typically
4.) The rest of the fertilized eggs are thrown out.

Some women probably wouldn't have been able to get pregnant naturally, so this option is the only one available to some couples. I can understand how you feel about dehumanizing a potential human, but a potential human is still not a human being.

[kakalxlax]

At 5/29/12 10:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/29/12 10:09 PM, kakalxlax wrote: p.d: "pro-choice" is short for "pro choice to kill", adding "choice" to it was made so tools that would normally oppose to death (like death sentence) will support abortion

p.d.: "pro-life" is a euphamism for "anti-freedom", changing the wording was made so tools that would normally oppose to government intervention (like gun control) will support a bigger government.

Right back atcha.

wow, you are so smart....

changings words wont make your argument make sense, "pro-life" are defending a life being and opposing the "choice" that other being makes about killing
relating abortion with freedom is plainly a propaganda thing.... you could say a rapist makes the "choice" of raping and thus, punishim him is "anti-freedom", then you have to think, why those tools are against beating up animals, against torture and murder but they support abortion? why? if beating up animals, muerdering and torturing are choises, if they are actually "pro-choice" they should condemn every action that is a consequence of a choice.... the answer: because they are tools, and tools dont reason

[kakalxlax]

ignore those typos

[Camarohusky]

At 5/29/12 10:38 PM, kakalxlax wrote: wow, you are so smart....

Don't care what you have to say here. Didn't read it.

All I was pointing out was that you'll never Bull Run on a zinger here. Both sides have more than their fair share of hypocrisy and skeletons in their closet that any zinger will easily be brushed off.

Your use of a zinger is akin to wind-sprinting the first 100m of a marathon and claiming you won the race.

[kakalxlax]

At 5/29/12 10:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/29/12 10:38 PM, kakalxlax wrote: wow, you are so smart....

Don't care what you have to say here. Didn't read it.

wow, you entering this thread makes so much sense

btw, we all know that you read it and can`t refute it

[MultiCanimefan]

If the mother's life isn't in danger and it won't be severely disabled, they have every responsibility to take care of it. It has the right to develop into a human being, whether or not the parents were ready. Even with protection and precautions, if you get pregnant, you take care of it. People who take risks, no matter how big or small, should be ready to take on the consequences, which is what we all do everyday with all sorts of decisions.

I will never buy the "It's her body, let her do what she pleases with it" argument. That's all well and good when it doesn't involve another life. And, you know, the fact that now there's 2 bodies to deal with. Suppose people grew into fully functional adults before they were detached from their mothers. Suppose the fetus could talk and play and interact with its mother before being born. Is it still "her body, her choice" to terminate such a person then?

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/27/12 10:52 PM, TheMason wrote: I agree: abortion is, if not the most complicated issue, one of the top two most complicated issues.

Agreed...I'm not responding to everything here, just some of the bits that seemed off to me.

As a Libertarian I believe that government should meddle as little in a person's life as possible.

Can certainly agree with that.

Also, there are cases where the mother's life is in danger and if this is a second, third, etc child...there may be an argument for aborting the fetus. Or if the child is not going to make it, making the mother carry the child to term would just be cruel.

MAY be an argument? This is where the pro-life argument becomes a bit unwieldy to me. Because the argument in essence relies on the idea that ALL human life is sacred. If we have a case where the mother's life is in danger from the pregnancy, or worse, it is entirely sure that the mother WILL die, then I don't understand by what rights someone can decide that the fetus's life is worth more then the mother's life (and make no mistake, that is the consequent position of saying even in a case like that abortion is still not ok).

Furthermore, it is not all about the woman.

I can grant that.

No matter how early of a stage of development the embryo/fetus it is...the cluster of cells is still a HUMAN life.

*sigh* no it is not. This is a scientific fact. It also ignores all the complications and problems that can occur to that cluster of cells enroute to trying to become a fetus. This is distorting the issue to me to try and strengthen the argument and bolster the moral implication of such.

Unless it and the mother were exposed to some freaky Cherynoble level radiation...it is going to grow into a human being.

Here's another falsehood. This is absolutely not the case. This ignores genetic defects, conditions the mother may herself have (PCOS is a bastard of a condition that will result in repeated miscarriages and other horrors for a woman trying to, or having conceived), or just plain bad decisions either knowingly made during pregnancy, or in the period before the mother is aware she is in fact pregnant. Let's please argue facts and correct and accurate scenarios and not resort to statements and omissions that are beneath us. You're a smart guy, I hardly thought I'd need to point this stuff out.

So from this science based perspective, to end a pregnancy because it is an inconvient time for the mother or she just doesn't want a child for whatever reason...seems wrong.

This isn't on the face of it about using science to justify a decision. This treads dangerously into the false equivalency arguments that are often attempted with science vs. religion. Science is merely an effort to uncover the absolute factual truth of the matter it is applied to (in this case when does human life begin). What that ultimately gets used for, or to justify is wholly on the individual. What you are trying to do is what so many have done before, to act like science is merely a "perspective" on this, holding equal weight to religion or other opinions about when life begins. The equivalency is false because it is clear that one methodology uses a far superior criteria for defining and discovering the truth of the matter over the other.

Then we often overlook the father in this.

We do, and that I believe is patently unfair, the father absolutely has rights as well.

My ex-wife aborted our second child, and I drove her to PP myself and paid the bill. It was the single worst day of my life. And while I was told there medical issues with the child...I still have my doubts and it haunts me.

I am truly sorry you were ever put into such a situation. I can not imagine how bad it sucks to live with that.

So even if the mother doesn't want the child I believe that the father should still have a say.

Agreed. But in your own case it looks like you absolutely did have a say, you made your decision painful as it was, still have your doubts but at the end of the day you did participate in the decision.

If he wants to raise it while mom leaves the picture then I believe the father should have the right to block the abortion as long as he takes full custody and responsibility for it. (With exceptions being for cases of rape...and not just morning-after rape.)

What about cases where the mother may, or will die if the child is carried to term? Surely you agree with those as exceptions as well and just forgot to mention them, right?

Again...it is one of those issues that is highly emotionally charged but not even the science provides a clear path to follow.

I think that all depends on what the science says for individual cases. That's certainly been my stance on the issue. Abortion as birth control is absolutely wrong and unconsionable to me. But that said, I also firmly believe we MUST allow for abortion in extreme cases such as rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother or the fetus, or cases where the fetus will be born with birth defects which will render it incapable of functioning in any way with society and the world around it..

[bismuthfeldspar]

At 5/29/12 09:44 PM, EKublai wrote: See, I can't accept that at all. A cluster of cells develops into a very real human

It's simple, if the cluster of cells never becomes a human it doesn't matter what happens to it. That's all you need to know really. Let me give you an example of how this works...

Let's say a woman wants one more child and uses embryo selection to ensure she does not pass on the genes for cystic fibrosis and the first embryo has the cystic fibrosis gene. She has 2 options.

1: Bring the embryo to full term and give her child cystic fibrosis.
2: Try again until she has an embryo that does not have the cystic fibrosis gene thereby preventing her child from having cystic fibrosis.

In this situation no potential lives have been lost, all that has happened is the woman has chosen which blueprints to use for the body of the soul to be.

The pain argument is a utilitarian one, but even then, an absolute morality can suggest that since life is developing, it is wrong entirely.

There are many forms of absolute morality and technically utilitarian ethics are a form. A moral relativist will say "morals change from place to place" while utilitarianism says "there is a universal code of ethics, the only thing that changes from place to place are the circumstances", a moral relativist will say "not everything is black and white, instead there are different shades of grey" while utilitarianism says "it is not always obvious whether something is good or evil".

[Aigis]

At 5/27/12 07:05 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: If a fetus is less than 20 weeks old it is definately not sapient.

If a fetus is older than 24 weeks it has an active human neo-cortex and can survive outside the womb in an incubator, it is only a shade away from being as sapient as a newborn baby.

Yeah, but if the only thing separating a foetus from being sapient is four weeks, how can you justify the distinction? It's not sapient yet but, with emphasis, it's not sapient YET. With a miniscule amount of time it would develop into something you (yourself) couldn't morally justify killing, so what is the difference? Nothing has to happen for it to become 'human', save for inaction on the mother's part.

I'm essentially pro-choice, because I think the world is a better place if it is an option (and because making it illegal would lead to some unfortunate consequences), but I still don't think I can justify it to myself morally.

[bismuthfeldspar]

At 5/30/12 07:27 AM, Aigis wrote: Yeah, but if the only thing separating a foetus from being sapient is four weeks, how can you justify the distinction?

I didn't say it was sapient at 24 weeks, just that it isn't worth the risk at that point.

[Osuras]

Perhaps a new a scientific view is required. The moment of inception, the moment a zygote forms, is the moment a new Human beings to form. That particular molecule of DNA, likely completely unmethylated, is now attempting to transcribe mRNA, and translate proteins for the new body being formed. An organic molecule is living, aptly named, and therefore is life at its embryonic stage.

[MOSFET]

At 5/30/12 01:55 PM, Osuras wrote: Perhaps a new a scientific view is required. The moment of inception, the moment a zygote forms, is the moment a new Human beings to form. That particular molecule of DNA, likely completely unmethylated, is now attempting to transcribe mRNA, and translate proteins for the new body being formed. An organic molecule is living, aptly named, and therefore is life at its embryonic stage.

This is not really new, used by pro-lifers (for fetuses) for decades. You can define life however you like to make yourself feel good, it's not going to solve any problems. The problem isn't how it's defined, it's social-political. Some women just don't want to have a kid. Making it illegal, wont stop desperate women from seeking abortions.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/30/12 01:55 PM, Osuras wrote: Perhaps a new a scientific view is required.

That would require some new research done and it to reach a different conclusion.

The moment of inception, the moment a zygote forms, is the moment a new Human beings to form.

Well, if research could be done to prove this unquestionably, then the attitude and the ideas would change. This is not like if The Catholic Church decides they want to change an article of their faith they just say "we have decided to change this article of faith because we sat around, talked about it, and agreed to do so". The scentific method is much more rigorous then that. I think that's part of the problem when people start arguing about the absolutes or lack there of with science...they don't fundamentally understand the discipline or how it works.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/30/12 01:49 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/27/12 10:52 PM, TheMason wrote: No matter how early of a stage of development the embryo/fetus it is...the cluster of cells is still a HUMAN life.

*sigh* no it is not. This is a scientific fact. It also ignores all the complications and problems that can occur to that cluster of cells enroute to trying to become a fetus.

Hm.

At 5/30/12 04:17 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/30/12 01:55 PM, Osuras wrote: The moment of inception, the moment a zygote forms, is the moment a new Human beings to form.

Well, if research could be done to prove this unquestionably, then [etc.]

I'm not sure what scientific fact or lack of research you're referring to, but I'm curious to know which part of the evolutionary tree you think a human egg fertilized by human sperm belongs to. It seems like you're suggesting that it would be something other than Homo sapiens... did "human" get a new definition while I wasn't looking? Do developmental complications = 'brand new species' or 'not even a species yet'?

Help me to understand why you think that âEU" whatever level of scientific certainty/uncertainty is involved âEU" it is not appropriate to call the product of human sexual reproduction... 'human'. I understand not calling a zygote/fetus a 'person' because that term has a whole different set of implications... but not 'human'? Hwa?

[djack]

At 5/30/12 01:49 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: *sigh* no it is not. This is a scientific fact. It also ignores all the complications and problems that can occur to that cluster of cells enroute to trying to become a fetus. This is distorting the issue to me to try and strengthen the argument and bolster the moral implication of such.

Whether you're saying it isn't human or isn't alive you're wrong. As I told Camaro, the scientific standard for what is alive clearly includes zygotes. As for the standard of what is or isn't human, there's no valid reason to discount a fetus as a member of it's parent species. In fact there are many creatures that develop drastically between larval and adult stages, most notably the sea squirt who devours its own brain during the transition.

Unless it and the mother were exposed to some freaky Cherynoble level radiation...it is going to grow into a human being.

Here's another falsehood. This is absolutely not the case. This ignores genetic defects, conditions the mother may herself have (PCOS is a bastard of a condition that will result in repeated miscarriages and other horrors for a woman trying to, or having conceived), or just plain bad decisions either knowingly made during pregnancy, or in the period before the mother is aware she is in fact pregnant. Let's please argue facts and correct and accurate scenarios and not resort to statements and omissions that are beneath us. You're a smart guy, I hardly thought I'd need to point this stuff out.

Did you two actually just say that people with genetic defects aren't human? My genetically inherited immune deficiency says hello jackasses.

So from this science based perspective, to end a pregnancy because it is an inconvient time for the mother or she just doesn't want a child for whatever reason...seems wrong.

This isn't on the face of it about using science to justify a decision. This treads dangerously into the false equivalency arguments that are often attempted with science vs. religion. Science is merely an effort to uncover the absolute factual truth of the matter it is applied to (in this case when does human life begin). What that ultimately gets used for, or to justify is wholly on the individual. What you are trying to do is what so many have done before, to act like science is merely a "perspective" on this, holding equal weight to religion or other opinions about when life begins. The equivalency is false because it is clear that one methodology uses a far superior criteria for defining and discovering the truth of the matter over the other.

Science has a field specifically devoted to defining all forms of life and a similar field meant to organize various creatures based on their relation to each other. To ignore what science has to say on the matter for the sole purpose of justifying abortion (especially since many of the other justifications involve false claims that a fetus isn't alive/isn't human) is willfull ignorance in the face of contradictory evidence.

While i don't know, or even pretend to have the authority to decide, where exactly the line should be drawn I don't know but to defend abortion with outright lies about scientific fact is just bad tactic for a debate and a worse standard for making decisions. I also don't support allowing abortion just to protect the few thousand women who might get killed getting an illegal abortion, my opinion is not based on the inherent value of life but on preserving the most basic of rights for a group physically incapable of defending themselves (isn't that what the government is supposed to be for).

For those basing their decision on the 20-24 weeks, I remind you that when Roe v Wade passed that number was 24-28 weeks. As technology changes so to will that number and to decide whether someone is alive based on how advanced technology is ignores all other standards and requires you to change your own opinion until eventually technology reaches the point that even the youngest zygote can be kept alive.

P.S. I don't have internet right now so I have to do this on my phone. I probably won't be on much and my replies will be shorter than I want, as well as lacking links so learn to use Google youraelf.

P.P.S. I don't swear much in text messages so my phone is still learning those words. If there's a weird autocorrect just assume i said something my phone doesn't want to repeat.

[Osuras]

At 5/30/12 04:17 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/30/12 01:55 PM, Osuras wrote: Perhaps a new a scientific view is required.

That would require some new research done and it to reach a different conclusion.

The moment of inception, the moment a zygote forms, is the moment a new Human beings to form.

Well, if research could be done to prove this unquestionably, then the attitude and the ideas would change. This is not like if The Catholic Church decides they want to change an article of their faith they just say "we have decided to change this article of faith because we sat around, talked about it, and agreed to do so". The scentific method is much more rigorous then that. I think that's part of the problem when people start arguing about the absolutes or lack there of with science...they don't fundamentally understand the discipline or how it works.

Unquestionably? I'm sorry, perhaps I really need to start cracking out some jargon. It IS proven unquestionably, must I show all of you a bloody video of it happening (I will if you pm me), are you people really this petty? I can't even believe i have to explain this. Each and every DNA molecule is different in some way shape or form, yes, even within the same species. This is what we call inter-individual variability. The moment the DNA molecule is incepted, is the moment it begins to function towards its purpose, the creation and homeostasis of a human in this case. Here's some elementary biology for all of you to understand. Think of each and every DNA molecule as a cook book, the cooks are the ribosomes, which translate the mRNA via transcription of the DNA by RNA polymerase. These proteins then begin to create and construct cells, embryonic stem cells (Totipotent/Pluripotent), which begin to form the blastocyst and fundamental organs of the human body. Maybe, god forbid, if people did their own studying and attempted to understand the world around them, the general population wouldn't still be clueless about things that have been laminated decades ago. Here's a picture for your petty minds to ponder.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/30/12 08:02 PM, djack wrote: Whether you're saying it isn't human or isn't alive you're wrong. As I told Camaro, the scientific standard for what is alive clearly includes zygotes. As for the standard of what is or isn't human, there's no valid reason to discount a fetus as a member of it's parent species. In fact there are many creatures that develop drastically between larval and adult stages, most notably the sea squirt who devours its own brain during the transition.

No one here is going to say an organism is not alive. That isn't what the goalposts should be for this. The question is "is the unborn baby enough of a human being to deserve rights?" We already make rights distinctions based on development and maturity. This is no different than that, just taken to a different level. My view is that until an unborn baby can survive on its own outside of the womb it is not yet a person, but an extension of the mom, just like any other organ or appendage on the mother's body.

Did you two actually just say that people with genetic defects aren't human? My genetically inherited immune deficiency says hello jackasses.

Nope. That's not what they said. They were stating that just because an egg has been fertilized does not mean it will result in a viable human being. There are things such as still borns and miscarriages, along with a multitude of other problems that can result in that life never actually living as anything more than an appendage of the mother. (this is coming from someone who also has a genetic immune disease)

Science has a field specifically devoted to defining all forms of life and a similar field meant to organize various creatures based on their relation to each other. To ignore what science has to say on the matter for the sole purpose of justifying abortion (especially since many of the other justifications involve false claims that a fetus isn't alive/isn't human) is willfull ignorance in the face of contradictory evidence.

The crux here isn't the scientific definition. It's where the line lies. Just as Askewed said the issue is a socio-cultural one, not a scientific one. Cause scientifically, we're both right. The chasm is created by the different parameters we use.

[Osuras]

At 5/30/12 10:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/30/12 08:02 PM, djack wrote: Whether you're saying it isn't human or isn't alive you're wrong. As I told Camaro, the scientific standard for what is alive clearly includes zygotes. As for the standard of what is or isn't human, there's no valid reason to discount a fetus as a member of it's parent species. In fact there are many creatures that develop drastically between larval and adult stages, most notably the sea squirt who devours its own brain during the transition.

No one here is going to say an organism is not alive. That isn't what the goalposts should be for this. The question is "is the unborn baby enough of a human being to deserve rights?" We already make rights distinctions based on development and maturity. This is no different than that, just taken to a different level. My view is that until an unborn baby can survive on its own outside of the womb it is not yet a person, but an extension of the mom, just like any other organ or appendage on the mother's body.

Did you two actually just say that people with genetic defects aren't human? My genetically inherited immune deficiency says hello jackasses.

Nope. That's not what they said. They were stating that just because an egg has been fertilized does not mean it will result in a viable human being. There are things such as still borns and miscarriages, along with a multitude of other problems that can result in that life never actually living as anything more than an appendage of the mother. (this is coming from someone who also has a genetic immune disease)

Science has a field specifically devoted to defining all forms of life and a similar field meant to organize various creatures based on their relation to each other. To ignore what science has to say on the matter for the sole purpose of justifying abortion (especially since many of the other justifications involve false claims that a fetus isn't alive/isn't human) is willfull ignorance in the face of contradictory evidence.

The crux here isn't the scientific definition. It's where the line lies. Just as Askewed said the issue is a socio-cultural one, not a scientific one. Cause scientifically, we're both right. The chasm is created by the different parameters we use.

And this is where I begin to diffuse morality and its purpose. There is both a logical and biological reason for the roots of religion. And a reason for religious texts' importance as a "moral" boundaries for the human species. Any other perspective other than a "moral" guide, of or pertaining to religion of any kind, is absolute bull shit. So what I guess i'm trying to say now is, what's your point? Science is an explanation for how things work, it's latin for knowledge, where's the line? It's were ever you want that line to be, that's our decision to make, I fail to see any argument you're trying to make here. You try to defend your position with different socio-culture. The only reason THAT developed is because people took religion and twisted it into random rules, and hampering guidelines which has caused those soico-cultures you speak so fondly of (it's good for biodiversity, but that's about it).

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/30/12 10:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The crux here isn't the scientific definition. It's where the line lies.

That seems a tad specious. Isn't 'definition' basically the art of drawing lines between things? So it's almost as if you're saying "the crux here isn't [the boundary]... it's [the boundary]." But no, I actually do understand what you meant:

Just as Askewed said the issue is a socio-cultural one, not a scientific one.

And yet scientific knowledge informs socio-cultural knowledge, doesn't it? They're pretty difficult to separate actually.

Now, of course it's true that the taxonomic classification of an organism isn't the real argument at hand... the argument is whether the developing organism is "person-enough". Like djack pointed out, our standard of measurement for that sort of thing will change as our technological capabilities and scientific knowledge changes. Sure, it makes sense that "personhood" would correlate with the development of an organism's nervous system, since that's the material analog of mental activity, thoughts, emotions, and personality... it makes sense to correlate the two scientifically, but at the base of things, it really is a "socio-cultural" issue.

Or more simply put, it's just an emotional issue.

It's about what a person can empathize with. We don't like to end the lives of things with faces, much less things with faces we recognize as our own. The faces of humans and other animals express emotion, and when we recognize emotion in others we can relate to the emotions we feel ourselves. Clearly, we are built to protect our own lives, and when we relate to others, we are compelled to protect their lives as well.

Empathy is about placing yourself in another's shoes by way of mental projection. It's super easy to do with other humans (even the unborn, quite obviously), it is slightly less easy but still simple to do with other mammals, and the more remote the organism becomes from our own kind, the less we give a shit about the value of their lives. The kindest way to phrase "atheist" tends to be "secular humanist", which in-itself is telling of the inherent prejudice towards other forms of life. People don't want to hurt other people nor do they want to hurt their pets, but they typically don't give a shit about the bugs and other pests they step on on their walk to work, and absolutely no ones cares if mowing the lawn causes untold amounts of horrific pain for all those defenseless little blades of grass.

"Well yeah, but that's because they don't have a nervous system like ours that can sense pain like we can and [BLAH BLAH BLAH]."

In one way or another, people will resort to what they think they know about life (e.g. via scientific knowledge) in order to validate their socio-cultural worldview (emotional-empathetic value system, rather). It's the classic... you have a gut feeling about something being "not quite right", and have to reason that shit out after the fact. And we're all susceptible to confirmation bias, so... yeah.

---

Now, for my next trick, I will use Biblical scripture to justify abortion as a natural expression of the plenitude of life.

[Osuras]

At 5/30/12 11:11 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

:in one way or another, people will resort to what they think they know about life (e.g. via scientific knowledge) in order to validate their socio-cultural worldview (emotional-empathetic value system, rather). It's the classic... you have a gut feeling about something being "not quite right", and have to reason that shit out after the fact. And we're all susceptible to confirmation bias, so... yeah.

May god be praised, there's someone on this topic with some basic psychological and biological understanding...

[SmilezRoyale]

It's not the most complicated issue, in fact, it's probably one of the least complicated issues.

That's not to say that there is a simple answer to the abortion problem, but rather in terms of the technical knowledge that is required

And it's also an emotional issue. So high emotions coming into an issue with very little background knowledge required makes abortion a POPULAR debate issue; even if there isn't really MUCH to the debate itself. The more technical a topic the fewer people will have strong opinions on it, as a general rule.

Most people are not in favor of the right of women to kill their five year old children, and most are probably also not in favor of having abortions the moment a woman's water breaks. A few anti-natalists might...

Likewise, most people do not believe that a sperm / egg is a human being with so-called 'rights'.

So the line gets drawn somewhere between those two extremes.

[MOSFET]

At 5/30/12 10:22 PM, Osuras wrote: ... So what I guess i'm trying to say now is, what's your point? Science is an explanation for how things work, it's latin for knowledge, where's the line? It's were ever you want that line to be, that's our decision to make, I fail to see any argument you're trying to make here. ...

Likewise. All I've see from you is random science facts thrown in to your paragraph soup in a vain attempt to explain that life begins at conception. For example.

:Each and every DNA molecule is different in some way shape or form, yes, even within the same species. This is what we call inter-individual variability.
Yes, that is what inter-individual variability can be defined as. Basically, a fancy way of saying, people are different. You bring up this fact, but it doesn't go anywhere, so why bring it up? Are you trying to say that people are unique? If so, you need to explicitly say so. Then you need to explain why you feel this uniqueness is important when deciding whether a group of cells are alive.

:The moment the DNA molecule is incepted, is the moment it begins to function towards its purpose, the creation and homeostasis of a human in this case.
To paraphrase, "life begins at conception". But look! Your first supporting point! "the moment it begins to function towards its purpose". I kind of disagree with this. I mean it's just as equally applicable to viruses, or computer programs.

:Here's some elementary biology for all of you to understand. Think of each and every DNA molecule as a cook book, the cooks are the ribosomes, which translate the mRNA via transcription of the DNA by RNA polymerase. These proteins then begin to create and construct cells, embryonic stem cells (Totipotent/Pluripotent), which begin to form the blastocyst and fundamental organs of the human body.
I see you are trying to describe a process which leads to the blastocyst, but it doesn't help with the case that the blastocyst is alive. It seems like you are trying to build on your previous point by demonstrating the steps taken to become a blastocyst. I think if you just described the purpose of a blastocyst, as opposed to describing the process of one forming, you would of actually built off your previous point. I would still disagree with, but at least a point would of been made.

Remember, just because you are spewing random science facts doesn't mean you are making a cogent argument. Make your points clear(what are you trying to prove), then back it up with facts(your proof). Honestly, "life at conception" isn't a difficult statement to back up.

And try to avoid using insulting barbs in your explanations. It makes you look.. petty.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/30/12 07:04 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: I'm not sure what scientific fact or lack of research you're referring to, but I'm curious to know which part of the evolutionary tree you think a human egg fertilized by human sperm belongs to.

I think even though you read and qouted the piece of information that I would use for my basis...you kind of failed to absorb how I'd keep coming back to that as a defense.

It seems like you're suggesting that it would be something other than Homo sapiens...

Yep, you definitely did. Go back to the fallacy that people seem to keep trotting that "the cluster of cells MUST and WILL develop into a human being". This is NOT always the case. That cluster of cells may have defects, or the mother who incubates them may have defects that result in expulsion (miscarriage) before it develops the essential parts and characteristics of Homo Sapien, or it could develop into a parasitic organism which kills the mother and does not develop into a human being. My point is that a just because a Homo Sapien egg is fertlized by homo sapien sperm does not mean we have a guaranteed new homo sapien at that time, or really at anytime until we see the features of a homo sapien develop. Current scientific definitions that I can find agree with that. Let's also not forget that this fertilized egg, or the cluster of cells do not perform most of the basic functions that it is agreed are required for an organism to be considered alive.

did "human" get a new definition while I wasn't looking? Do developmental complications = 'brand new species' or 'not even a species yet'?

Does everybody who seems to disagree with abortion, or want to pick at the "science" argument really need to only argue one way? Do they really have nothing better to use then the old "argue the parts I think help me, ignore the rest and hope the other guy will do the same"? Come on...

Help me to understand why you think that âEU" whatever level of scientific certainty/uncertainty is involved âEU" it is not appropriate to call the product of human sexual reproduction... 'human'.

I believe I did it prior, I believe I did it again here. I don't know how to be clearer. Wait, maybe I do. Do you think it's fair to call a foundation a house? Because if not, then I'm not sure why you'd call a zygote a human.

I understand not calling a zygote/fetus a 'person' because that term has a whole different set of implications...

Oh rly? What sort of different set of implications? Because I always thought being a 'person' and being 'human' went hand in hand.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/30/12 08:02 PM, djack wrote: Whether you're saying it isn't human or isn't alive you're wrong.

am I now? Links? Proof? Lols?

As I told Camaro, the scientific standard for what is alive clearly includes zygotes.

Does it now? Because in my understanding of the qualifications for life, it actually does not. But I'm open to new proof.

As for the standard of what is or isn't human, there's no valid reason to discount a fetus as a member of it's parent species.

Nobody is dicounting a "fetus". A fetus is different from a zygote, a blastocyst, or any of the other pre-fetus stages. That's what's under discussion here.

In fact there are many creatures that develop drastically between larval and adult stages, most notably the sea squirt who devours its own brain during the transition.

Neat information...not seeing what it has to do with homo sapien though.

Did you two actually just say that people with genetic defects aren't human?

Holy shitballs no! What I was saying is there can be defects that result in death within the womb, or never developing past a certain stage in the womb, thus the developing lifeform is rejected by the body. Or things that can cause still birth and other "born dead" or similar conditions. I was refuting TheMason's patently stupid assertion that the only way a pregnant woman doesn't deliver a baby is through "freaky Chernobyl radiation".

Science has a field specifically devoted to defining all forms of life and a similar field meant to organize various creatures based on their relation to each other.

That's true.

To ignore what science has to say on the matter for the sole purpose of justifying abortion (especially since many of the other justifications involve false claims that a fetus isn't alive/isn't human) is willfull ignorance in the face of contradictory evidence.

Just like to try and ban abortion based on religion, personally morality, etc. is also wrong. But again, let's stop trying to turn this into people arguing that a fetus is not alive or human. That has clearly NOT been said, and agreed that a fetus IS. So let's stop trying to deflect attention from what's actually being discussed to move the goal posts into safer territory for you.

While i don't know, or even pretend to have the authority to decide, where exactly the line should be drawn I don't know but to defend abortion with outright lies about scientific fact is just bad tactic for a debate and a worse standard for making decisions.

Excuse me? I'm a liar now? Please to show me WITH PROOF FROM SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES where I've gone wrong. You of course can't prove that I'm lying (being willfully deceptive) without knowing me, which you don't. So I'd kindly appreciate it if you never do that again and keep the ad hominem out of the debate. You want to talk about bad tactics, that's among the absolute worst.

I also don't support allowing abortion just to protect the few thousand women who might get killed getting an illegal abortion, my opinion is not based on the inherent value of life but on preserving the most basic of rights for a group physically incapable of defending themselves (isn't that what the government is supposed to be for).

What about in the case of the mother being killed or potentially killed by carrying the pregnancy to term? I don't understand this logic...how and what gives you the right to decide one life is more important then another? You're bitching that abortion is akin to murder...but what you're doing is murdering the mother for the potential life of the child.

For those basing their decision on the 20-24 weeks, I remind you that when Roe v Wade passed that number was 24-28 weeks.

An attempt to make the best possible decision with the information available at the time. Sounds logical to me.

As technology changes so to will that number and to decide whether someone is alive based on how advanced technology is ignores all other standards and requires you to change your own opinion until eventually technology reaches the point that even the youngest zygote can be kept alive.

Well, one would hope. You sort of had a point then you slipped into a supposition on how far technology will ultimately advance which is always an uncertain proposition. I mean, most people thought we'd have moon colonies and shit by now in the 60's. So let's not just assume we can see the path of technology and research.

P.S. I don't have internet right now so I have to do this on my phone. I probably won't be on much and my replies will be shorter than I want, as well as lacking links so learn to use Google youraelf.

No, that is not how it works. If you make a claim, you should be able to defend that claim. That's how debate and argument works. You don't make claims and then say "oh hey guys! It's up to you to prove me wrong and fact check me now!"