Abortion (reject, attend, experience, Zen, circumcise)

[Paraprakrti]

#1 Fertilization of the human egg is the initiative that results a human life. Therefore to stop human development at any point is considered killing a human.

#2 Furthermore, if killing a human inside the womb can be rationalized, why not outside the womb? Why is there presumed a difference in importance the location of the human?

#3 Moreover, if inside and outside can somehow be shown to be different, why particularly of the womb? Why can't we rationalize killing a human inside a cardboard box?

[angellous_evangellous]

If we reject #1, then #2 and #3 are indefensible.

#1 is fairly easy to reject because the mere fertilization of an egg is not "the initiative that results a human life" but the successful implantation of the egg into the uterus. A fertilized egg cannot survive unless it implants into the uterus and develops there. Only after the fetus can live outside of the womb by itself do we have human life, which is why we cannot murder a fully developed human being in a cardboard box or anywhere else outside of the womb. Before it is fully developed, a fetus merely retains the potential to be human, which is worthy of some respect.

How much respect a fetus deserves is obviously up for debate.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

If we reject #1, then #2 and #3 are indefensible.

Well said ...

[Flappycat]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

#1 Fertilization of the human egg is the initiative that results a human life. Therefore to stop human development at any point is considered killing a human.

#2 Furthermore, if killing a human inside the womb can be rationalized, why not outside the womb? Why is there presumed a difference in importance the location of the human?

#3 Moreover, if inside and outside can somehow be shown to be different, why particularly of the womb? Why can't we rationalize killing a human inside a cardboard box?

#1 A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. What this constitutes is a relative few specialized cells that, after much replication, develop into a fetus. Once we've begun to discuss the fetus, we have some openings for controversy.

#2 Doesn't follow. A fertilized egg isn't a fetus, a fetus isn't an infant, an infant isn't a toddler, a toddler isn't a young child, a young child isn't a preteen, a preteen isn't a teenager, a teenager isn't a young adult, a young adult isn't a mature adult, and a mature adult isn't a senior citizen on Medicaid. If they were all the same, we would treat them the same, and we don't. We wash out fertilized eggs with morning after pills, some of us don't terribly mind purging a fetus, we might circumcise an infant, we keep toddlers locked, against their will, in playpens, some of us might assault a young child who is misbehaving, the law actually requires us to force preteens to attend school, we don't allow teenagers to vote even if they're more clued in on politics than most adults, we don't allow young adults to run for president, mature adults are the only age group we don't treat like dirt, and we used to force seniors into retirement.

#3 The clearest and simplest boundary between a fairly mature fetus and a newborn is whether it is within or outside of the womb. It's vague and slightly arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. After that, we divide the definition of "fetus" up into three relatively distinct degrees of development, during the last of which the fetus begins to experience the world much as we do. Aborting a fetus that has a similar experience of the world to ours isn't championed by many except as a necessary evil, but the subject of how the prior two degrees of development should respectively be treated under the law has been a source of much discussion. In any case, the matter has been given a great deal of thought and attention, so the "cardboard box" analogy is dumb.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

If we reject #1, then #2 and #3 are indefensible.

And certainly we would need to analyze on what basis #1 is rejected...

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

#1 is fairly easy to reject because the mere fertilization of an egg is not "the initiative that results a human life" but the successful implantation of the egg into the uterus. A fertilized egg cannot survive unless it implants into the uterus and develops there.

But as you explain, the "mere" fertilization of an egg is the successful implantation of the egg into the uterus, wherein it is required to survive. Therefore egg fertilization remains the necessary initiative step toward human life. Simply showing that there are subsequent stages of development (i.e. implantation of the egg into the uterus) in no way negates egg fertilization from being the initiation resulting in a human being. Before egg fertilization, any amount of time can endure and a human being will not result. On the other hand, after egg fertilization, the countdown begins; about 9 months to go. And every woman understands after this point, "I am pregnant."

Pregnant (adj.)
having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal. (dictionary.com)

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Only after the fetus can live outside of the womb by itself do we have human life, which is why we cannot murder a fully developed human being in a cardboard box or anywhere else outside of the womb.

This is your assertion. Why only after the fetus can live outside the womb by itself do we have a human life? Please show me the logic in defining it in such a way.

Also, no one lives outside or inside anything by themselves. We require energy for our sustenance. Inside the womb, outside the womb; inside the cardboard box, outside the cardboard box - in all cases we require energy to sustain. So what is the difference? The mother provides energy to the baby inside the womb as well as outside the womb.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Before it is fully developed, a fetus merely retains the potential to be human, which is worthy of some respect.

That is worthy of all respect. Foreknowledge makes us responsible. Potential means, "I know this is a growing human life. It is not a tape worm. It is not a grove of orange trees. Therefore my killing it is no different than killing any other human". On what basis you rubber-stamp "human" upon the entity at some stage of development, I have not seen. There is no logic to say that the fetus must be able to live outside the womb without aid, since babies themselves cannot live without aid. So maybe you differentiate a degree of "aid". If that is the case, why?

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

How much respect a fetus deserves is obviously up for debate.

Why is it up for debate? We are dealing with a human life, potential or otherwise makes no difference. Knowledge makes us responsible. Ingorance and word-jugglery never constitute as reason.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Flappycat

#1 A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. What this constitutes is a relative few specialized cells that, after much replication, develop into a fetus. Once we've begun to discuss the fetus, we have some openings for controversy.

Once again, simply because there are subsequent stages in between 'fertilized egg' and 'human baby', that does not negate egg fertilization from being the initiative resulting in human being.

Originally Posted by Flappycat

#2 Doesn't follow. A fertilized egg isn't a fetus, a fetus isn't an infant, an infant isn't a toddler, a toddler isn't a young child, a young child isn't a preteen, a preteen isn't a teenager, a teenager isn't a young adult, a young adult isn't a mature adult, and a mature adult isn't a senior citizen on Medicaid. If they were all the same, we would treat them the same, and we don't. We wash out fertilized eggs with morning after pills, some of us don't terribly mind purging a fetus, we might circumcise an infant, we keep toddlers locked, against their will, in playpens, some of us might assault a young child who is misbehaving, the law actually requires us to force preteens to attend school, we don't allow teenagers to vote even if they're more clued in on politics than most adults, we don't allow young adults to run for president, mature adults are the only age group we don't treat like dirt, and we used to force seniors into retirement.

The issue concerns life. Let's stick with that for now. You say #2 doesn't follow. I still don't understand why. Why do you treat the in-womb entity as "non-human" and the birthed entity as "human"? Certainly we treat people differently according to their stage of development, but at no point of development outside the womb do we kill them. So why is it logical to kill them while developing inside the womb?

Originally Posted by Flappycat

#3 The clearest and simplest boundary between a fairly mature fetus and a newborn is whether it is within or outside of the womb. It's vague and slightly arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. After that, we divide the definition of "fetus" up into three relatively distinct degrees of development, during the last of which the fetus begins to experience the world much as we do. Aborting a fetus that has a similar experience of the world to ours isn't championed by many except as a necessary evil, but the subject of how the prior two degrees of development should respectively be treated under the law has been a source of much discussion. In any case, the matter has been given a great deal of thought and attention, so the "cardboard box" analogy is dumb.

I don't follow. Why is the cardboard box analogy, "dumb"? We all require energy to sustain, inside or outside any location. Therefore the difference between these locations is trivial. Why is inside a womb different than inside a cardboard box? Are not living entities still living entities regardless of location?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

#1 Fertilization of the human egg is the initiative that results a human life. Therefore to stop human development at any point is considered killing a human.

The "initiative that results a human life" is not human life. It's an insipid non sequitur - there's simply no 'there' in your 'therefore'.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

#1 Fertilization of the human egg is the initiative that results a human life. Therefore to stop human development at any point is considered killing a human.

#2 Furthermore, if killing a human inside the womb can be rationalized, why not outside the womb? Why is there presumed a difference in importance the location of the human?

#3 Moreover, if inside and outside can somehow be shown to be different, why particularly of the womb? Why can't we rationalize killing a human inside a cardboard box?

Since at least 12% of all fertilizations end in spontaneous abortions, are you prepared to convict women who have spontaneous abortions of involuntary manslaughter?