Abortion

[McBell]

Do you consider sperm to be human beings?

No, I do not.
What makes you think I would?

 

[dianaiad]

Indeed, some view life as soon precious they would not concede that any destruction of life is okay.

So, your basis for killing being okay is based on another's thoughts?

No. That's a speculation. A pretty good one, I think...and fairly obvious. My basis for 'killing being OK" in some situations is on actions. People who have guns being pointed at them generally don't have enough time--or evidence--to determine motive.

However, I think it's safe to say that if someone actively attempts to kill someone else...who is NOT threatening them first...considers that the target is 'lesser' in some way; disposable. That is something that one can mull on later, though; not at the time of the event.

At THAT time, it's 'you want to kill me, I don't want to be killed, and if I have to end your life to prevent your killing me, it was your choice. I wouldn't be out to kill you if you hadn't started it."

On the other hand, isn't it rather obvious that if the would be killer did NOT think his/her target was 'lesser,' or 'disposable,' then killing wouldn't be an option, would it?

I don't happen to think that humans ARE disposable at the whim of another. I also believe that someone who not only thinks that another human IS disposable, and acts to dispose of him or her, has abrogated the right to be considered 'non-disposable' him/herself.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No, I do not.

So why consider a zygote or embryo to be a human being?

 

[McBell]

So why consider a zygote or embryo to be a human being?

I have no idea.
Perhaps you should ask someone who does?

 

[leibowde84]

Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

To me, it's a legal question. The state cannot force anyone to give up the use of their body against their will, even if someone's life is on the line. So, the question becomes, is having sex for a woman equivalent to that woman giving consent to carrying and giving birth to a child. So, at the very least, it is far more complicated than you are letting on.

Abortion is merely the woman refusing the fetus the use of her body.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I have no idea.
Perhaps you should ask someone who does?

In Post #247 you asked me "Have you heard of DNA?" in regards to an embryo younger than 21 weeks not being considered a human. Why ask me that, then? Do you hold DNA to be the deciding factor of what makes for a human?

 

[McBell]

In Post #247 you asked me "Have you heard of DNA?" in regards to an embryo younger than 21 weeks not being considered a human. Why ask me that, then? Do you hold DNA to be the deciding factor of what makes for a human?

I do not hold any one thing to be the deciding factor.

Seems this whole abortion debate is nothing but semantics.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I am sure that semantics and grammar have led to confusion, and certainly the flippant use of "human being" to describe cells and embryo.

 

[dianaiad]

When it comes to a being, and not a numerical quantity, yes.


I knew this was coming. Comatose patients still have brain activity. More than this, they are developed human beings, already long since born. However on this strain, when a person loses complete brain function and is dead, they cease to be a human being, a "human individual" if you will, and become a corpse.


I think I'm actually being quite clear - and patient, to boot - with my language.

Now, I've answered several questions, yet mine has gone ignored twice. Do you consider sperm to be human beings?


That'd be me; as I'm a part of this discussion - often directly with you - it's somewhat rude to refer to me as "the one". And yes, at the embryonic stage human embryos are very nearly indistinguishable from chicken embryo. Just as you confused a pig embryo with a human embryo, the difference between chicken and human has been made before in other discussions that I've had.

Further than that, at the zygote stage all organism looks the same.

Not from a DNA pov, they don't.

Shoot, I'm currently watching a couple of bald eagles sitting on their very recently laid eggs. *I* can't tell the difference between 'Mr. President" and "The First Lady" (don't blame me...their nest is in Washington DC and I didn't name them). The experts can, but I can't, and even the experts have some problems until they get to know the birds much better. Now...if *I* cannot tell the difference, and YOU can't (and you probably would not be able to do so at first, yourself), does that mean that they aren't eagles, or have no actual sexual differences?

For that matter, I'm about to plant some bulbs. They all look alike to me, but they are going to grow into very different plants. Does my inability to tell them apart mean that they are REALLY aardvaarks?

Your argument here is disingenuous, sir. It doesn't matter whether I can tell the difference between a pig embryo or a human one; the experts can, and no matter what you want to imply, that human embryo is NOT going to grow into a 300 pound pig.

Now, as to comatose patients: this is also a problem for the pro-abortion side, when it is used. You realize, don't you, that the brainstem of a human is formed by the fourth or fifth week, and though 'higher function' brain waves aren't generally recorded until week 24 (which sorta messes up your 21 week deadline, come to think), brain activity IS noticed at the formation of the brain stem, and neural activity begins even sooner than that, prompting muscle activity.

Comatose patients are NOT considered 'brain dead' until after all activity from the BRAIN STEM is gone; a totally flat EEG. The unborn human starts having measurable brain activity at about four to six weeks in. Perhaps not 'conscious' brain activity, but certainly more than any comatose patient considered 'brain dead.'

As well, there is this....and it is the wall up against any argument smashes its nose, for me: it doesn't matter what the current specific state of development of any human is; killing it to PREVENT it from reaching the next stage is just plain wrong.

After all, if a comatose patient's family is told that there is a 50% chance that the patient will wake up, and someone sneaks into the room and 'pulls the plug' to PREVENT that from happening, it's murder.

So....how is it permissible to kill a foetus to PREVENT a 100% chance that it WILL have fully measurable and conscious brain wave function?

I just keep running up against that.

So...Is a foetus a human being or a person? Probably not...those terms are artificial ones assigned by society. Is a foetus a human, and alive?

yep.

 

[Curious George]

No. That's a speculation. A pretty good one, I think...and fairly obvious. My basis for 'killing being OK" in some situations is on actions. People who have guns being pointed at them generally don't have enough time--or evidence--to determine motive.

However, I think it's safe to say that if someone actively attempts to kill someone else...who is NOT threatening them first...considers that the target is 'lesser' in some way; disposable. That is something that one can mull on later, though; not at the time of the event.

At THAT time, it's 'you want to kill me, I don't want to be killed, and if I have to end your life to prevent your killing me, it was your choice. I wouldn't be out to kill you if you hadn't started it."

On the other hand, isn't it rather obvious that if the would be killer did NOT think his/her target was 'lesser,' or 'disposable,' then killing wouldn't be an option, would it?

I don't happen to think that humans ARE disposable at the whim of another. I also believe that someone who not only thinks that another human IS disposable, and acts to dispose of him or her, has abrogated the right to be considered 'non-disposable' him/herself.

Just to muddy the waters... some also allow killing in war, in the case of pulling the plug, euthanasia, and capital punishment. Why are these accepted by some and are they accepted by you?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Not from a DNA pov, they don't.

And from a DNA point of view, your husband's sperm is the same as him. Better start naming it, and calling people who masturbate murderers.

Now...if *I* cannot tell the difference, and YOU can't (and you probably would not be able to do so at first, yourself), does that mean that they aren't eagles, or have no actual sexual differences?

This is a really bad comparison. Female bald eagles are generally larger than the males, have a lower pitch vocalization, and darker plumage.

Your examples got progressively ridiculous. Plant bulbs and aardvarks?

Your argument here is disingenuous,

No, my argument is realistic.

no matter what you want to imply, that human embryo is NOT going to grow into a 300 pound pig.

That has never been my argument, and I can't be sure exactly how you got that impression.

Now, as to comatose patients: this is also a problem for the pro-abortion side, when it is used. You realize, don't you, that the brainstem of a human is formed by the fourth or fifth week, and though 'higher function' brain waves aren't generally recorded until week 24 (which sorta messes up your 21 week deadline, come to think), brain activity IS noticed at the formation of the brain stem, and neural activity begins even sooner than that, prompting muscle activity.

You do understand that a coma is a temporary state, yes? That comatose patients either wake from coma, or die and become corpses? So the parallel of a coma patient to an organism in development is very uneven.

Secondly brain function forming at 24 weeks does not "mess up" my stance, as I have been quite clear and consistent in stating that 21 weeks is the line in which follows a human being. Is 24 weeks after 21 weeks? It is. Thus it is within the period of development that can rationally be called "personhood."

So....how is it permissible to kill a foetus to PREVENT a 100% chance that it WILL have fully measurable and conscious brain wave function?

There is no 100% chance. I am not certain how you continue to miss that. Everything about pregnancy is a shot in the dark. I am also not sure what you are missing regarding bodily autonomy, and the rights of the woman to her own body and all that goes on with it.

So...Is a foetus a human being or a person? Probably not...those terms are artificial ones assigned by society. Is a foetus a human, and alive?

yep.

I am growing very weary of going around in a circle, so this will likely be the last time I address this.

A human zygote, embryo, and fetus are all human in the same regard that sperm is human, or a liver and heart are human. Their genetic makeup assigns them to the human species. We do not, however, consider our sperm or ovum (eggs) to be human beings; they are not persons. Losing them through menstruation and emission (whether voluntary or involuntary) is not considered murder in the slightest.

A loosely threaded fate, as well as a healthy dose of emotion, is no valid or legal reason to withhold the right to safe abortions to women who want them. Restricting the right to safe abortion based on what you (subjective) feel to be a "proper reason" is not ethical or just. Furthermore, this zealous opposition to abortion has lead to many women's health services being in danger of revocation, simply because of their slight proximity to abortion. Which is frankly abhorrent.

 

[dianaiad]

Just to muddy the waters... some also allow killing in war, in the case of pulling the plug, euthanasia, and capital punishment. Why are these accepted by some and are they accepted by you?

"pulling the plug" is, in most cases, simply removing artificial means of extending a life already ended.
"euthanasia,' is harder, but I'm agin' it, mostly. Oh, I think that most of the time suicide is the wrong idea, but at least with suicide it is the choice of the one doing the dying. "Euthanasia" is the choice of someone ELSE. that is, I believe, the wrong thing in pretty much every case (every position has exceptions, of course, and I'm sure you could come up with an example where shooting the guy being tortured to death when there is no possible way to rescue him is the right thing to do).
'killing in war,' 'druther not, but in war it's sort of 'self defense writ large,' I think, for the soldiers, and the moral responsibility belongs to the leaders who sent them out. Unless, of course, the soldiers do stuff that is not required of them.
'capital punishment'....well, I'm a little bit on the vengeful side there. I PERSONALLY think that murderers should be locked up in a concrete cage without windows or books or anything but uninteresting food and sanitary facilities for the rest of their lives, period.

On the other hand, just shooting them does get them out of OUR hair, so....remember my opinion of those who would commit murder? They have, imo, abrogated their own right to live. Their choice. That I'm mean enough to want them to live a good long time locked up, examining their own choices, is my problem. There is also the very rare occurrence where the wrong guy is convicted, and if you've killed him, well....you can't take that back.

Just like abortion. It's something you can't take back.

 

[dianaiad]

And from a DNA point of view, your husband's sperm is the same as him. Better start naming it, and calling people who masturbate murderers.


This is a really bad comparison. Female bald eagles are generally larger than the males, have a lower pitch vocalization, and darker plumage.

Your examples got progressively ridiculous. Plant bulbs and aardvarks?


No, my argument is realistic.


That has never been my argument, and I can't be sure exactly how you got that impression.


You do understand that a coma is a temporary state, yes? That comatose patients either wake from coma, or die and become corpses? So the parallel of a coma patient to an organism in development is very uneven.

Yes, but I'm not the one who was doing the comparison.

Secondly brain function forming at 24 weeks does not "mess up" my stance, as I have been quite clear and consistent in stating that 21 weeks is the line in which follows a human being. Is 24 weeks after 21 weeks? It is. Thus it is within the period of development that can rationally be called "personhood."


There is no 100% chance.

There is. If the foetus lives, it WILL develop brain function. 100% chance. The only exception is for those anacephalic children who simply don't die until after they are born, but they still have only two choices here; develop brain function or die. That's it.

It is my position that killing a foetus/zygote in order to prevent him/her from developing that brain function, using the excuse that it doesn't have brain function, is circular and cynical and sophist to the nth degree. It is, from where I sit, not only bad logic, but deliberately deceptive.

If you were to kill a two year old in order to prevent her from becoming pubescent, using the excuse that she's NOT pubescent, do you think your excuse will fly?

Yet you are using exactly that argument to excuse abortion.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yes, but I'm not the one who was doing the comparison.

Sure you are. You're comparing a cell to a human being. Among others.

There is. If the foetus lives, it WILL develop brain function. 100% chance.

97%, actually. The United States has a rate of 3% stillborn on average at 20 weeks.

It is my position that killing a foetus/zygote in order to prevent him/her from developing that brain function, using the excuse that it doesn't have brain function, is circular and cynical and sophist to the nth degree.

I'm not sure you understand what a circular argument is, or the proper application of cynical. Or sophist, for that matter. Best to not use them.

It is, from where I sit, not only bad logic, but deliberately deceptive.

In what way is presenting solid, scientifically backed facts "deliberately deceptive"? You're the one who's argument relies on "fate" and loose terms for what makes a person.

If you were to kill a two year old in order to prevent her from becoming pubescent, using the excuse that she's NOT pubescent, do you think your excuse will fly?

Yet you are using exactly that argument to excuse abortion.

No, we're not. Because yet again you're talking about a born child, a human capable of surviving outside the womb. Not a cellular organism or embryo.

This argument can go no further. I'm done here.

 

[McBell]

"Euthanasia" is the choice of someone ELSE.

No, it isn't:

Death with Dignity Act​

 

[McBell]

If you were to kill a two year old in order to prevent her from becoming pubescent, using the excuse that she's NOT pubescent, do you think your excuse will fly?

No it won't fly.
However, it is a bad comparison given that the laws differ greatly based upon the location of the killing.

Yet you are using exactly that argument to excuse abortion.

the law supports it.

 

[dianaiad]

Sure you are. You're comparing a cell to a human being. Among others.


97%, actually. The United States has a rate of 3% stillborn on average at 20 weeks.

What part of 'if it lives' went whoosh? As well, what proportion of still born infants died after they developed conscious brain function?

I'm not sure you understand what a circular argument is, or the proper application of cynical. Or sophist, for that matter. Best to not use them.

Indeed? Well it is true that one of us is having difficulties.

In what way is presenting solid, scientifically backed facts "deliberately deceptive"? You're the one who's argument relies on "fate" and loose terms for what makes a person.

What 'solid, scientifically backed fact" have you presented? You are the one who is using squishy sociological terms and insisting that 'hard' science backs them. Terms like "person," and perhaps even 'being' are artificial designations that are imposed from the outside by society, NOT by physical scientific data. As such, these designations can, do and have changed.

I have already given you examples of this: the designation 'person' has changed over human history, depending upon perception. I have given you an example of our own American history that assigned 'personhood' only fractionally to slaves, how historically 'personhood' is applied rather arbitrarily to different ages after birth; at two, or six, or puberty, or is voidable depending upon whether the 'person' is slave, free, citizen or not....or a corporation, come to think of it.

You want an example of a circular argument?

Abortion is acceptable because
a foetus isn't a person.
If it WERE a person, abortion would be murder, therefore
we can't call a foetus a person.

The problem is, "person" isn't intrinsic to anybody. It's a 'title' given by others, for reasons other than scientific or medical data. There is no stage in human development that medical science terms as 'personhood.' You realize this, right? That's what makes the above circular.

It's a little harder to make that argument about 'being,' unless you want to make 'person' and 'being' exactly synonymous. They aren't, really. Indeed, I don't think that anybody could argue against a living foetus actually being a, er, 'being.' It's alive, and it exists.

No, we're not. Because yet again you're talking about a born child, a human capable of surviving outside the womb. Not a cellular organism or embryo.

Just how capable is a newborn of surviving outside the womb, without the conscious and constant care of someone else? The only difference I see is that the care of a foetus is unconscious and by only one person,. whereas the care of the newborn is very conscious, deliberate and can be handled by those other than mom. In neither case, however, can the foetus/newborn survive without that care.

I wonder: what would your opinion regarding all this be if/when medical science CAN grow a baby from conception to birth in an artificial womb? They ARE working on this, y'know.

This argument can go no further. I'm done here.

Perhaps. I'm sure that you believe that you have made your points. I believe I have made mine.

 

[dianaiad]

No, it isn't:

Death with Dignity Act​

Yes it is. All the 'Death with Dignity Act' does for the person being euthanized is that the law now gives him the right to give someone else permission to kill him so that the act is not considered to be 'murder,' or to commit suicide. However, it is still the choice of the killer to do the killing.

 

[dianaiad]

No it won't fly.
However, it is a bad comparison given that the laws differ greatly based upon the location of the killing.


the law supports it.

And THAT is begging the question, isn't it? Yes, the law supports it. I've certainly never claimed it doesn't.

My claim is that the law is wrong. The law should NOT support it.

Or rather....perhaps not even that. My claim is that SOCIETY should not support it.

You realize, don't you, that there is no law on the books against stars revolving around the planet, right?
That's because a: no stars revolve around this planet and there is no chance that there ever would be, and b: we couldn't do anything about it if they did. Ergo, no law forbidding it.

THAT'S what I want to see: I want to see abortion--except under the most tragic of circumstances--be so unthinkable to any sane person that there doesn't need to be a law against it.

 

[McBell]

Yes it is. All the 'Death with Dignity Act' does for the person being euthanized is that the law now gives him the right to give someone else permission to kill him so that the act is not considered to be 'murder,' or to commit suicide. However, it is still the choice of the killer to do the killing.

My apologies.
I thought you were saying that it was not the one being euthanized choice to be euthanized.