quote:And who is expecting this number? Your sources for these numbers would be.... I'm guessing a colonic extraction, but feel free to correct me if I'm off on that.
OK, so you're clearly not interested in having a discussion. There's lots of literature out there about numbers of abortions before legalization. Feel free to read it for yourself.
I also note you've given not one source supporting your contention that making abortions illegal will significantly increase the percentage of women undergoing abortions who face complications.
So the next time you accuse me of pulling something ouot of my ass, take a couple of seconds to make sure you haven't done the same.
Or simply grow up, ask for a source, and skip the insult.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I know the "looks human" line has its own problems because, after all, at one point some people thought certain minorities didn't look human. (This is one reason why I wouldn't be opposed to a total ban on abortion.) But I think in our present society nearly everybody agrees for one reason or another that it's bad to go around killing people who physically look human, so it's unlikely there'd be a lot of pressure to pass less restrictive abortion laws. Also, if we allowed abortion up to around, say, 4 months, the rabid pro-abortion people would have to say a lot more clearly that they don't care that what they're advocating suspiciously like killing a person.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: It is in the wrong forum, but *shrug* here it is.
...I'm saying that one can come to the ethical conclusion that abortion is wrong without need of a commandment from God, and without being told by the heirarchy of a religion. So I'm not sure what the point of your first post on this page really is. ... My basis for my opinion on abortion is presented elsewhere in this thread, and it's late at night, so forgive me for not rewriting it. ... I could certainly compromise on my stance in favor of leaving something like this legal, if we could, in return, outlaw abortions of second and third trimester fetuses, at the very least. Certainly such a pill seems more morally gray than a late second trimester abortion.
I think those of us who oppose abortion will need to be willing to compromise if we want to have our way here--unless, of course, the Supreme Court obviates the need.
We're in less disagreement than you may think. I personally find abortion of convenience after the first trimester to be wrong, but that is a personal and subjective realization. Which is my point. Ethical questions lie outside of science or math. That is not to say that there cannot be a rationally or logically derived ethical code, as opposed to revealed or religious codes: there are different historical models that one can find. However, even these are ultimately based on subjective and not objective, empirically measurable parameters.
I also agree that compromise is possible.
And it was late and I was hoping for a recap instead of having to look for your position, so instead of forgiving you your tiredness, I'll apologise for my laziness. Mea culpa.
quote:Originally posted by DagoneeI also note you've given not one source supporting your contention that making abortions illegal will significantly increase the percentage of women undergoing abortions who face complications.
So the next time you accuse me of pulling something ouot of my ass, take a couple of seconds to make sure you haven't done the same.
First off, I've never made that contention, especailly not in this thread. The only points I have made are a) I don't think there are an justifiable reasons for a third trimester abortion since any medical situation that jeopardizes the health of the mother is going to make any proceedure, either a caesarian or an abortion, equally inherently risky; b) I find the concept of an abortion of convenience in the third trimester abhorrent; c) I don't have any personal moral qualms against abortions of convenience only in the first trimester; and d) the subjective nature of all moral and ethical systems.
I'm not pretending that any of my arguments are morally certain, especially in light of my assertion (which is in itself fundamentally a colonic extraction) that moral and ethical certainty is impossible. From a purely non-revelatory and secular perspective, admittedly.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I got you mixed up with the person I was responding to. I wonder, then, why you felt the need to call me on something when the person I was responding to had provided no proof, either.
And, of course, why the hell you had to be so rude about it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Ah, I got you mixed up with the person I was responding to. I wonder, then, why you felt the need to call me on something when the person I was responding to had provided no proof, either.
And, of course, why the hell you had to be so rude about it.
Because the use of unsubstatiated numbers sometimes gives an argument an appearance of objectivity that it does not actually possess.
So I asked for a source. I would question how the number of unsanctioned, unrecorded, and unregulated procedures was generated, if one of those number is supposed to be based on the number of back-alley abortions that took place each year before abortion was legal. The figure of 1,000,000 abortions per year was true in the early 90's, per CDC reporting, but is not true now. Unless you round up to the nearest million. The number of abortions has been slightly under 860,000 since 2000, though the reporting is several years behind and not available since 2002.
Who's colon from which the numbers you used were pulled is irrelevant, my point was that they were being presented as factual when one was (at best) hypothetically reconstructed, and the other was apparently at least 7 years out of date.
edit to add: DRAT and double DRAT the CDC. Their numbers don't include California. How useless and stupid. So, ok, I'll grant 1,000,000 as a reasonable approximation.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At that point (around 4 months?) it's pretty much impossible to say that the fetus isn't alive.
It's pretty much impossible to say it's not alive once the cells start dividing.
If 'life' is the standard, then stop eating. All of the things you eat were once alive but they had to be killed to feed you. The point isn't 'life' or not. The point is 'human life' or not.
If those dividing cells are not human life, what are they? Goat life? Celery life?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who's colon from which the numbers you used were pulled is irrelevant
Apparently you are unable to be civil or polite.
It is abundantly clear that any statement about the future number of events if a law is changed is an opinion.
In case anyone else didn't figure that out, I'll state it explicitly: my post on the previous page that references the number of abortions that would occur annually if abortion were made illegal is my own rough estimate.
When you grow out of you anal-centric phase let me know.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:JenniWren: So each individual cell in your body is a separate human life?
Okay, so the question then is not when it becomes human life, but when it becomes a distinct entity. Do you see that you are taking somebody's reply to one question and pointing out that it's an inadequate reply to a totally different question? I don't think you are doing it on purpose, but I wanted to point out to you that you are doing this.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Okay, so the question then is not when it becomes human life, but when it becomes a distinct entity. Do you see that you are taking somebody's reply to one question and pointing out that it's an inadequate reply to a totally different question? I don't think you are doing it on purpose, but I wanted to point out to you that you are doing this.
Fair enough, and I'll accept that phrasing of the fundamental question.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mute, all the cells in my body make up a human life that is me. I don't cry about the loss of my dead skin cells, because while they were a part of me (literally by the dna, they were me until they died) I am still alive without them.
The cells of the body of a growing human embryo make up a human life that is seperate genetically from its mother. Thus it cannot be confused with her body or her (the person in the body). It's a seperate life, currently enjoying the hospitality of someone who intentionally, or unintentionally, invited it to be there. It strikes me as deliberately obtuse to think abortion is anything less than killing.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those are interesting questions, but not particularly relevant. The question is whether or not it is right to allow women to abort their pregnancies. Or to word it without politically correct sanitation: kill the tiny human lives inside them.
As I said before regarding tumors, an arm cannot function independent of the body to which it genetically belongs. Chop it off, it dies. If you will, it's a tool of the body. If it becomes gangrenous, it may become a parasite. But at no point did it ever have the potential to become a seperate entity capable of independent life.
Human embryos are genetically unique, and given time and basic care, will become seperate and independent of their hosts. You don't gestate your arm or leg so that it can one day fall off and run free.
I'm kind of wondering at what point you're going to admit that what you're really pushing at is that you don't believe that the human life inside a pregnant woman doesn't have a soul and is therefore not worth saving unless she wants it. Or that it doesn't matter if it has a soul or not, it's still her rights over the rights of the not-yet-born. In other words, some are more equal than others. THESE are belief, not scientific fact. Your continued effort to point out that anti-abortionists base their activism on faith is in fact only true of pro-choicers. Fearlessly honest pro-choicers acknowledge this.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Those are interesting questions, but not particularly relevant. The question is whether or not it is right to allow women to abort their pregnancies. Or to word it without politically correct sanitation: kill the tiny human lives inside them.
As I said before regarding tumors, an arm cannot function independent of the body to which it genetically belongs. Chop it off, it dies. If you will, it's a tool of the body. If it becomes gangrenous, it may become a parasite. But at no point did it ever have the potential to become a seperate entity capable of independent life.
Human embryos are genetically unique, and given time and basic care, will become seperate and independent of their hosts. You don't gestate your arm or leg so that it can one day fall off and run free.
I'm kind of wondering at what point you're going to admit that what you're really pushing at is that you don't believe that the human life inside a pregnant woman doesn't have a soul and is therefore not worth saving unless she wants it. Or that it doesn't matter if it has a soul or not, it's still her rights over the rights of the not-yet-born. In other words, some are more equal than others. THESE are belief, not scientific fact. Your continued effort to point out that anti-abortionists base their activism on faith is in fact only true of pro-choicers. Fearlessly honest pro-choicers acknowledge this.
Actually, no. The root of the question is at what point is something human to start with. You want to say "kill the tiny human lives inside them." My point is at what point is this a 'tiny human life' in the first place? This is essential. There is, of course, the other end of the argument: at what point has a human life ended? However, since I missed the Schiavo case on these boards, that is tangential (though still somewhat relevant) to this argument.
My arm has the exact same genetic information as any other part of me, but if you seperate it from the rest of my body it's just so much dying flesh. It isn't me, it isn't even that essential in defining who I am. Even if cloning technology were to be developed to grow a clone from my severed arm, that new body would still not be me, but it would be a different person altogether -- the identical twin I hadn't been born with. Frankly, this is true of nearly every part of my body. As technology continues to improve, there is only one part of my body that, if it were removed or destroyed, that would necessarily entail my destruction and that is my brain. That is the only sine qua non for which there can be no technological substitute or cure. You are right, the arm is just a tool -- though not of the body, which is itself just a set of tools, but of the brain. The brain IS the person. The brain is the tool-user. You cannot have a person without a brain. And not just any old brain will do, either. Earthworms and ants have brains, but they are amazingly dull dinner companions.
Now, you may have some opinions regarding the quality, functioning, and/or existance of my brain; but these are obviously metaphorical. Feel free to share, though, because that can sometimes be amusing.
As for the rest of your argument I have already pointed out above that all moral and ethical choices are ultimately not based on science -- until a unit of 'good' can be measured, they can't be. So I would say that all moral frameworks are, in the respect that they are all subjective, essentially faith based*. I am also not a dogmatic 'pro-choicer,' given my antipathy to abortion after the first trimester, so I don't know what relevance the pro-choice digression has. Choice isn't an essential part of any argument that I've made at all, and I don't think I have even used the word before this post, at least not as a main aspect of any of my posts.
*Note: In this specific context by 'faith' I am refering to any kind of philophical framework regardless of its religious, agnostic, or anti-religious context. This is a broader use than is normally associated with the word, which typically is restricted to some kind of revealed philosophy.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People love using analogies don't they? Only this one doesn't make sense. Alley abortions are dangerous to a mother's health. If you legalize abortion, mothers will have less risk of personal injury or death. Where-as if abortion is illegal, many mothers will try it anyway; the baby will still die and the mother's life may also be threatened. Definately NOT the same as murder or rape or torture.
People love refuting analogies, don't they? Only this refutation doesn't make sense. All abortions are fatal to the child. If you ban abortion, children will have less risk of death. Where-as if abortion is legal, many more mothers will obtain abortions; more babies will die.
And the analogy of abortion to murder only makes sense if you start out in the position of believing that abortion is wrong, and possibly equitable with murder. Since no one seems to be arguing for the legalization of murder.
But hey, if abortion is illegal, it allows you to say that girl who died of septic shock in some back alley deserved it, because she was a law-breaking would-be murderess slut anyway. Makes sure those other sluts keep their buns properly in the oven, eh?
Yes, I know that's not the point anyone is claiming. But let's not pretend that this is a legal argument, because the law currently stands the other way, which is that abortion is not murder. And if that law changes, it's far more likely to be from a perceived moral precedent thand a perceived legal one.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the rest of your argument I have already pointed out above that all moral and ethical choices are ultimately not based on science -- until a unit of 'good' can be measured, they can't be. So I would say that all moral frameworks are, in the respect that they are all subjective, essentially faith based*.
If something is not based on science it is subjective?
What about deduction? Logic?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the rest of your argument I have already pointed out above that all moral and ethical choices are ultimately not based on science -- until a unit of 'good' can be measured, they can't be. So I would say that all moral frameworks are, in the respect that they are all subjective, essentially faith based*.
If something is not based on science it is subjective?
What about deduction? Logic?
I actually had some ideas about moral systems that may be "inherent", rather than faith _or_ deductively based, off of various dangling threads from discussions with friends, old philosophy courses, and so on. Which I'd be happy to discuss elsewhere. Not here.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the analogy of abortion to murder only makes sense if you start out in the position of believing that abortion is wrong, and possibly equitable with murder.
Well, yes, analogizing abortion to murder does only work if you think abortion is similar to murder. That's such a truism, I'm not sure why you said it
However, the fact that you disagree with that idea doesn't mean that your opponents are inventing their opinions out of whole cloth — ie, "starting from that position". Most of them ARRIVED at that position through some sort of thinking-type process. And they expect that with sufficient explanation and persuasion, they may be able to show other people the process they went through, and bring them around to agree with them.
A similar tactic might work for you if you wanted to try it
quote:But hey, if abortion is illegal, it allows you to say that girl who died of septic shock in some back alley deserved it, because she was a law-breaking would-be murderess slut anyway. Makes sure those other sluts keep their buns properly in the oven, eh?
Yes, I know that's not the point anyone is claiming.
Doesn't stop you from trying to tar your opponents with it anyway, apparently. Seriously, if that's what you think people are saying, then stick to it. If not, then please don't bring up an inflammatory straw man like that because it drags the level of discussion down several notches. But DEFINITELY, whatever you do, don't bring it up and then try to dodge responsibility for having said it by backing out right at the beginning of the next paragraph.
quote:But let's not pretend that this is a legal argument, because the law currently stands the other way, which is that abortion is not murder.
No one's pretending anything. There are people who believe that making abortion legal was not only a bad moral decision, but a bad legal call on the part of the judges that made it. Judges are fallible, and it is within people's rights to criticize the legal basis for their decisions.
quote:And if that law changes, it's far more likely to be from a perceived moral precedent thand a perceived legal one.
All human laws are rooted in human moral values. If the laws about abortion changed because of a value judgment, that would make them exactly like every other law that has ever been made or changed. Wouldn't that be a tragedy.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: If something is not based on science it is subjective?
What about deduction? Logic?
Where logic takes you depends entirely on where you start from and what logical connections you find most valid. That starting place is subjective. What constitutes a logical connection is subjective. It cannot be quantified, it cannot be objectified, it is subjective.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
The law is muddled. Very much so. What would unmuddle it would be to define a point before which there is no human person, and after which there is one. There is a standard in place now, though much violated, and that is the first breath. There have been other standards before. The 'quickening' (no, not from highlander) at around 18-20 weeks is when the mother can typically feel the baby (word used deliberately for propoganda-like effect) moving was probably one of the oldest ones.
I have my own opinion regarding this, I'm sure many people do. Right now the two more common are the first breath one and the moment of conception one. I find both extreme and inappropriate for practical and theological reasons.
As for the concern regarding people with impaired brain function, that is a valid concern, and the Schiavo case clearly illustrates the importance of settling that matter, given the ability for doctors to preserve a body that has no functioning brain. Given how this hinges on what would constitute 'meaningful' brain activity, it is a highly subjective issue as well.
I just happen to think that the two issues are linked in a fundamental way. (That's ALSO completely subjective. If you think about it, most things are. That's what makes this hard and not easy.)
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, the fact that you disagree with that idea doesn't mean that your opponents are inventing their opinions out of whole cloth — ie, "starting from that position". Most of them ARRIVED at that position through some sort of thinking-type process. And they expect that with sufficient explanation and persuasion, they may be able to show other people the process they went through, and bring them around to agree with them.
A similar tactic might work for you if you wanted to try it
When you make an analogy that only stands up for those who pre-accept a premise, you aren't convincing anyone. You're preaching to the choir. That there may be a thinking process that makes the analogy apt is not a given.
quote:Doesn't stop you from trying to tar your opponents with it anyway, apparently. Seriously, if that's what you think people are saying, then stick to it. If not, then please don't bring up an inflammatory straw man like that because it drags the level of discussion down several notches. But DEFINITELY, whatever you do, don't bring it up and then try to dodge responsibility for having said it by backing out right at the beginning of the next paragraph.
No one will say it, and I'm not going to be castigated for suggesting someone has, thank you. I'd just as soon not derail things for the sake of someone expressing indignation at being so misrepresented by a straw man blah blah blah.
When people express the idea that a certain number of women dying or suffering so that a certain number of fetuses won't die is an acceptable trade, there's an unpleasant underlying thread that the lives of the would-be aborters, fully developed, thinking, feeling human beings, are of a lesser value. Of course, no one would express that, given the politically correct blah blah blah.
quote:No one's pretending anything. There are people who believe that making abortion legal was not only a bad moral decision, but a bad legal call on the part of the judges that made it. Judges are fallible, and it is within people's rights to criticize the legal basis for their decisions.
And there's people who believe that shooting at an doctor who performs abortions is a righteous act, because it prevents what to their eyes is murder.
I don't happen to agree that abortion is murder. Thus far both law, and if polls are to be believed, a majority of Americans agree.
And having sat through an extended labor, I find that those who condone forcing a woman who doesn't want her child to go through that process consider themselves morally superior somewhat laughable.
quote:All human laws are rooted in human moral values. If the laws about abortion changed because of a value judgment, that would make them exactly like every other law that has ever been made or changed. Wouldn't that be a tragedy.
Extremely debatable. Arguably, we don't have laws against murder and theft simply because we find murder and theft morally repugnant, but because if murder were legal no one would feel safe to walk in the street, and if theft were legal no one could safely practice commerce, and society would wither. Against which test, the legality of abortion's cost to society becomes the real issue, not a malleable and transitory moral idea.
Which may be why some would prefer to make it a moral issue. " "
quote:Right now, the law has it both ways. Yes, the law contends abortion is legal, fine. But if a pregnant woman is badly mugged and miscarries as a result, in 34 states, the mugger can be prosecuted for manslaughter (and in a few, forms of murder). So, which is it? If it is not human, as the law contends, then he should only be guilty of the destruction of property, with a value of only the mineral composite, about $7. This would be a misdemeanor with no jail sentence. But we have several cases where we have people in prison for this type of crime; we've also convicted people on double homicide for murder of a pregnant mother.
Arguably, it is the desire of the mother to bring the baby to term that makes the difference. A woman who has an abortion performed has, lost "$7 of mineral composite"; a woman who loses a pregnancy she planned to bring to term has lost a potential child, and seen all her discomfort during her pregnancy, all her planning and all her wishes for her child, come to nothing.
Admittedly, the law has its issues, and it's difficult to quantify or legally identify matters of desire and intent.
quote:What we have done with abortion and medical practice laws in states is that we haven't made the concept of aborting a child fully "legal" we've just made an "exemption" for practitioners, which in turn has made them some very wealthy people.
I have to disagree with the latter.
First, virtually every doctor who practices abortion in this country receives death threats, and has to live in a state of heightened security and fear for themselves and their family. Many doctors choose not to perform abortions at all, for just this reason.
Secondly, OB/GYN malpractice insurance is incredibly expensive. A doctor who takes it upon themselves to perform such procedures is agreeing to take a huge hit. Either they're paying it out of pocket, or their institution is paying it, and paying the doctor a lower salary as a result.
Doctors, generally, make a comfortable salary, no question. But a doctor who wanted to get rich would be insane to go into abortion. A specialty like heart surgery or plastic surgery would pay far more money and not have to worry about suspicious packages arriving on their doorstep, a factor no amount of money can really remedy.
quote:You want to say "kill the tiny human lives inside them." My point is at what point is this a 'tiny human life' in the first place? This is essential.
Going back to the question I asked that you didn't answer: If a human embryo isn't human life, what is it? It's not dead, so it must be alive. If it's alive, what is it? An acorn sown into the ground will only grow up to be an oak or die. It will not grow to be a pig or a potato. In that sense, it IS an oak, just at the earliest stage of development. We give lots of different names to humans at various stages of development. Baby, toddler, child, tween, teenager, adolescent, young adult, gen x'r, and so on. These names don't turn it into something other than human. What makes an embryo any different than a baby, other than a matter of time? One's more fragile than the other, but then so is the acorn more fragile. A squirrel does a fine job of eating the acorn, but will find it impossible 300 years older.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You want to say "kill the tiny human lives inside them." My point is at what point is this a 'tiny human life' in the first place? This is essential.
Going back to the question I asked that you didn't answer: If a human embryo isn't human life, what is it? It's not dead, so it must be alive. If it's alive, what is it? An acorn sown into the ground will only grow up to be an oak or die. It will not grow to be a pig or a potato. In that sense, it IS an oak, just at the earliest stage of development. We give lots of different names to humans at various stages of development. Baby, toddler, child, tween, teenager, adolescent, young adult, gen x'r, and so on. These names don't turn it into something other than human. What makes an embryo any different than a baby, other than a matter of time? One's more fragile than the other, but then so is the acorn more fragile. A squirrel does a fine job of eating the acorn, but will find it impossible 300 years older.
Actually, the acorn is more sturdy than a seedling. The seedling needs water in proper amounts, the right kind of soil, and plenty of light. The acorn doesn't need anything other than a hiding place from a squirrel. And, ultimately, in form purpose and function, an acorn is not an oak. It is an acorn. It is what it is. What it isn't is a tree. You don't point at an acorn and say, "look at that tree," because it isn't a tree. It is something other than a tree. It could possibly become a tree, but the odds are against it.
An embryo is an embryo. It is what it is. What it isn't is a person, just like any other part of a body that is not attached to a functioning human brain. And from the moment of conception it could possibly become a person, but the odds (even with modern medicine) are against it.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that pregnancy is hard for many women is one reason I'm slowly but surely coming around to the position that abortion should be legal until some point at which the fetus typically looks like a human. This also would ensure that women could always use birth control pills and other devices that sometimes prevent implantation of embryos.
Once a fetus looks like a human, I wouldn't allow the killing of it (except incidentally as a result of a medical procedure that tries to save both the fetus and the mother) because I have a suspicion that people are biologically wired at least in part to be altruistic to other human-looking creatures and that to ignore that wiring might be dangerous. But I doubt we have any immediate impulses to defend tiny cell clumps that don't look or think like us to any degree but that vastly complex scientific process tell us are distinct organisms of our species. If that means I have to answer "no" to the question "Do you believe that all human organisms are equal?", well, so be it.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A fetus is obviously uniquely human towards the end of the first trimester, definately no later than the very beginning of the second trimester.
There was a magazine (I think Time) that had a series of pictures of embryonic and fetal development by week for several different species, including human. As I recall it wasn't until about the 12th week that a human fetus looked different from a chimpanzee one. The difference between pigs, cows, and human was very clear by the eighth week. But it's been a while and I can certainly be wrong.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abortion should have legal limits on the issue of when, not if.
I believe that during the first trimester is OK. As long as it doesn't have a heart beat. It's obviously a complex issue, and really up to the individual. However, aborting when it has a heart beat is quite inhumane and should be illegal...One of those things where if you are going to do it - make up your mind and do it ASAP. In the first few weeks is best, when it is only a cluster of cells with the potential for life, but not the actualization.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I beleive the heart first starts around week 5 or 6, which is actually before even the most primitive parts of the brain start to function (it's about week 8 when the brain stem is functional).
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: As I said before regarding tumors, an arm cannot function independent of the body to which it genetically belongs. Chop it off, it dies. If you will, it's a tool of the body. If it becomes gangrenous, it may become a parasite. But at no point did it ever have the potential to become a seperate entity capable of independent life.
Human embryos are genetically unique, and given time and basic care, will become seperate and independent of their hosts. You don't gestate your arm or leg so that it can one day fall off and run free.
Yes, and until the embryo becomes an independent entity, it is still part of the mother. If the embryo cannot survive without the mother, then how is it independent human life? It is like a tumor; cut it off and it dies. The potential for being human life means nothing. Embryos die of complications all the time; they never got to become independent entities. Indeed, I have the potential to become the president of the United States; does it mean I will be or that you have to treat me like one - it's not the same, but all the same, potential shouldn't mean anything .
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A baby can't survive without someone caring for him or her, either.
However, there is no specific need for that care-taker to be any specific person, which is not the case for an implanted embryo or underdeveloped fetus.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, there is no specific need for that care-taker to be any specific person, which is not the case for an implanted embryo or underdeveloped fetus.
So, again, the instant an artificial womb is developed those fetuses (embryos are not aborted) will become human beings.
Again, an awfully strange definition of human being.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: (embryos are not aborted)
First off, I have already stated when I think something is a human being, and it has nothing to do with wombs -- artificial or otherwise. I will not argue a postition that you put into my mouth.
Second off, the comment I quoted above is especially remarkable, since a) a fetus is ( by definition ) something that exists after the 8th week of pregnancy and b) the majority of abortions occur before the 8th week is reached. This creates a conundrum. Either there are substatially fewer abortions being performed than are being reported, or someone got their terminology wrong.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First off, I have already stated when I think something is a human being, and it has nothing to do with wombs -- artificial or otherwise. I will not argue a postition that you put into my mouth.
First, I didn't do that. I didn't say anything about your definition.
I was responding to a very specific definition of human being. I'm sorry I didn't do an extensive search to see what your view was when you inserted yourself into this conversation to challenge my response to that specific definition. Regardless, I put no words in your mouth.
That aside, I except the fact that you weren't actually responding to my point. Since what you posted strengthens my point, I'll move along. Thank you for supporting my argument.
As for the terminology, you're right. But for the 8-week thing, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The numbers I keep seeing are 88% of abortions between 6 and 12 weeks.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I was responding to a very specific definition of human being. I'm sorry I didn't do an extensive search to see what your view was when you inserted yourself into this conversation to challenge my response to that specific definition. Regardless, I put no words in your mouth.
That aside, I except the fact that you weren't actually responding to my point. Since what you posted strengthens my point, I'll move along. Thank you for supporting my argument.
As for the terminology, you're right. But for the 8-week thing, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The numbers I keep seeing are 88% of abortions between 6 and 12 weeks.
If your point is that viability is irrelevant, then I would tend to agree. If your point is that either 'at first breath' or 'at the moment of conception' metrics are best, then I would disagree. However, the point is still correct that a baby is not tied to an individiual the same way as an embyo is, at this specific point in time. So the argument that a baby is dependent for its support is not really a valid comparison at all. Tangentially, I suspect that artificial wombs would be prohibited. I can't be the only one who found 'Brave New World' to be unsettling in that regard.
As for the majority of abortions being performed by the eighth week:
Admittedly, this data is incomplete, but since it is dealing with a percentage instead of raw numbers I doubt it is substatially off the mark.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your point is that viability is irrelevant, then I would tend to agree. If your point is that either 'at first breath' or 'at the moment of conception' metrics are best, then I would disagree. However, the point is still correct that a baby is not tied to an individiual the same way as an embyo is, at this specific point in time. So the argument that a baby is dependent for its support is not really a valid comparison at all.
It is when you're talking definition of human life - which we were - and not when abortion should be allowed. Because it means that the definition of humanity is based on humanity's technical prowress - an untenable definition at best.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It is when you're talking definition of human life - which we were - and not when abortion should be allowed. Because it means that the definition of humanity is based on humanity's technical prowress - an untenable definition at best.
So far as a perfect and absolute definition would go, yes. I think the VetaMega was making a point from a more practical point of view with regards to the law, which is currently contradictory in regards to this matter.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
