|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 18, 2013 10:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Mostly because they just want to cram their viewpoint down your throat and aren't willing or interested to even hear arguments to the contrary, and they get truly angry at you on a personal level if you're not a kindred spirit.
I'd say that is pretty much my experience with the pro-choice crowd whether on the internet or in person. I've tried writing essay type posts here on positions and of course the pro-choicers chose not to address the points and instead to ridicule me for taking the time to make thoughtful and lengthy posts.
Quote:
I'm truly interested in the viewpoint, but I've yet to encounter a pro-lifer in my personal life who isn't afraid to think about the problems I see with the stance and give me answers that aren't just fingers-in-the-ears regurgitation of the same arguments I'm trying to dig into and understand on a deeper level.
I've yet to encounter a pro-choice person who wanted to do more than hurl insults. The same mantras repeated over and over with no evidence of rational thought or any understanding of the objections of the other side of the debate.
Quote:
I lean pro-choice for various reasons I don't think I've really disclosed here, at least not in any explicit fashion. Some of those are scientific but most aren't. And as such I acknowledge my position has weaknesses and I don't believe there is any True, Right answer to the problem. This is why I am interested in the other side.
There are some truths seem to be readily apparent. But we'll see what you say.
1) The cells of a fetus are multiplying so the fetus is alive.
Do you claim the cells of dead things multiply and follow a self-directed building program? Or do you agree the fetus is alive?
2) The fetus is the product of human conception. The fetus has complete human DNA that is unique from that of the mother.
Given #1 we must conclude the fetus is human life and that that life is a distinct organism, not part of the body of the mother.
If you deny that a fetus is a young human organism explain why the DNA does not identify it as a member of the human species, what species it really is, and why human reproduction produces an organism that is not human.
3) No one asks a pregnant woman if she is going to give birth to a human, an elephant, or perhaps a penguin. Why? Because it is prima facie that human reproduction results in human young.
Do you disagree that if a pregnant woman gives birth she will give birth to a human? Do agree that the organism that is in the womb of a mother does not start out as one species and at some time before exiting the womb change into another species?
4) Embryology texts state an embryo is a human organism. Please explain why embryologists are wrong.
Below is a portion of the writings of an embryologist. I have quoted embryology textbooks previously.
Clicky
Quote:
Every one of the core issues identified above is ultimately distilled down to the question of "When Does Human Life Begin?"
The answer is there in the textbooks of Human Embryology, that "human life" begins at fertilization, or conception, which is the same as fertilization. It has always been there, at least for 100 years. Yet, this simple fact, without referencing Human Embryology, has been parsed and corrupted into questioning whether life even exists at that time, and to redefining "conception" to mean "implantation," just to give two examples.
Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception). Yet, never does one see in the media, nor in the Councils identified above, such a reference, even though it is there in virtually every textbook. We exist as a continuum of human life, which begins at fertilization and continues until death, whenever that may be.
Every Human Embryology textbook, and every human embryologist, not only identifies the continuum of human life, but describes it in detail; which is to say:
At any point in time, during the continuum of life, there exists a whole, integrated human being! This is because over time from the one-celled embryo to a 100-year-old senior, all of the characteristics of life change, albeit at different rates at different times: size, form, content, function, appearance, etc. Actually, the terminology of Human Embryology is important only in the taxonomic sense. It enables human embryologists to talk to one another. This terminology does not compromise nor change the continuum of human life.
Some falsely claim that "marker events" occur during development that change the moral value of the embryonic human being. But, so-called "marker events" occur all throughout life. To devalue the human being by such a false declaration is strictly arbitrary and not based on any science.
The continuum of human life was understood in generic terms even by the ancients. This is why it is dogma in Human Embryology that the fetus is a second patient, and why that dogma is an imperative in clinical medicine.
The fetus is obviously human young. The only real question is "Is it ok for a woman to kill her young?"
Some people say "Yes, it is her body and she can kill whatever is inside her. It has no right to be there." Some play word games and use vague philosophical terms like "person" and claim that the human young are not "persons" so it is ok to kill them.
Of course I don't think immature human organisms should be killed unless the life of the mother is in danger.
I look forward to answers.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 10:40 AM |
|
|
mvassilev:
Quote:
When people have sex, who is involved? The two people of the opposite sex.
Not always opposite. 
Elodin:
Quote:
I'd say that is pretty much my experience with the pro-choice crowd whether on the internet or in person. I've tried writing essay type posts here on positions and of course the pro-choicers chose not to address the points and instead to ridicule me for taking the time to make thoughtful and lengthy posts.
Quote:
I've yet to encounter a pro-choice person who wanted to do more than hurl insults. The same mantras repeated over and over with no evidence of rational thought or any understanding of the objections of the other side of the debate.
You know, that's how we see you. Maybe you should think about it for a minute instead of blaming everyone else but yourself? I'm pretty sure this problem lies on both sides of this "conflict".
Also, you said "debate", but it's not a debate when you're repeating a few things (that is: human DNA, embryologists, we're no elephants or penguins) for everything we say. And debate CAN'T go on when you're so sure about what you say that you're not even considering that maybe WE are right - and I'm pretty sure you're not considering anything we said since you're not even giving answers to our questions yet you have another questions which already were answered.
Maybe some free thinking would be helpful in that case.
I am pro-choice. Was this post full of insults and misunderstanding?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 10:49 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:19, 18 May 2013.
|
Quote:
I've yet to encounter a pro-choice person who wanted to do more than hurl insults. The same mantras repeated over and over with no evidence of rational thought or any understanding of the objections of the other side of the debate.
You are dreaming as always. It is you who dodges all of the questions or answering to them in "I'm rubber and you're glue" kind of way just like you did now and it is you who is stuck with the embryo=person blunt logic.
Quote:
Some play word games and use vague philosophical terms like "person" and claim that the human young are not "persons" so it is ok to kill them.
Since your 1,2 ignores the fact that an organism of a specie evolves into a person and not is so from the first second, and 3 and 4 are deliberately absurd logical fallacies that pretend pro-choicers say embryologists are wrong and humans give birth to other species, I'll skip right into this. Person is not some vague philosophical term that is used only in academic circles, it is quite a simple word. It is the actual self or individual personality of a human being and it does EVOLVE over time UNLESS you believe in some miraculous soul that is put in the brainless embryo, the minute it's conceived. (What happens to an embryo when it goes to heaven btw, is it given a personality from the sky?) When a person becomes truly a person and under which conditions what legal rights does he have are not questions for embryologists (science) to answer. So, when you answer to these questions as "the second it is conceived", YOU TOO are coming to a subjective, ideological (in the broadest sense) decision and not talking from the view point of an embryologist (science). Why do I think the answer of pro-choicers makes much more sense than yours, because it is the brain that contains our consciousness, hence our intellect, emotions, perception... in short, it is at that level of development we even start to become the thing which makes us the actual self or individual personality of a human being.
And since ALL of your arguments are based on ignoring that fact first and not caring for all the other issues that comes second (overpopulation, rape victims, oppression of women, unwanted, unhappy children in orphanages, higher crime rates and poverty...) that will be caused by treating every zygote as an individual with rights.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 18, 2013 11:56 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:58, 18 May 2013.
|
Sadly many abortion supporters pretty much refuse to answer questions or engage in dialogue in any meaningful way. They'll also deny simple biological facts that even abortion providers now acknowledge. Abortion is the taking of a human life. The killing of a human being. I think their inability to admit simple biological facts point to their knowledge, at some level, that abortion is morally wrong and they can't bring themselves to truly face the horrible thing they advocate.
Below is a portion of an article that has some quotes from Planned Parenthood and some abortion providers and prominent abortion defenders from around the world.
Clicky
Quote:
Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.
Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:
I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.1
On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:
We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life… the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?2
Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes:
Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.3
David Boonin, in his book, A Defense of Abortion, makes this startling admission:
In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.4
Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes:
It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.5
Bernard Nathanson co-founded one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world (NARAL) and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America. In 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he states, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy..."6 Some years later, he would reiterate:
There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.7
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 12:41 AM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 03:24 AM |
|
|
Elodin, you're unbelievable. Who told you that the fetus isn't a human organism, we all acknowledge that fact. All this wall of bold text has NOTHING contradicting with what I told you. Actually one of the quotes sums it up quite well: The point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter? This is what I've been telling you when I talk about the distinction between an organism and a person, the difference between being a characteristic DNA and an actual self.
Will you insist on ignoring the content of the replies and copy pasting the same sermon over and over again until the thread is 300 pages long? At this point, all you are achieving is making everybody think pro-lifers are hard-headed bigots who wont even listen to what has been said.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 03:48 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:54, 19 May 2013.
|
There has never been a delicate balance in nature Fred. 99 percent of the species that had existed are extinct and vast majority of them were extinct before humans even got on the field. Balance (in the wild) is an illusion we create because we lack long-term perspective.
I also sincerely recommend to stop talking about your own posts as great, the most important point made, high quality, etc etc. They are not awful at best and you are not as good as you think you are, praising yourself all the time doesn't help.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 05:37 AM |
|
|
@Fred: You're odd. And I think we get it.
@Elodin:
Quote:
1) The cells of a fetus are multiplying so the fetus is alive.
Do you claim the cells of dead things multiply and follow a self-directed building program? Or do you agree the fetus is alive?
Seeing as you want someone to answer your questions, let's start with this, hmmm?
Well, as Artu said none of us claim that the death of a fetus doesn't involve death (I mean seriously...), our disagreement is on where it becomes legally protected by society. So yes, the cells are in fact alive. How they are organized is what makes them matter, though. 
Quote:
2) The fetus is the product of human conception. The fetus has complete human DNA that is unique from that of the mother.
Given #1 we must conclude the fetus is human life and that that life is a distinct organism, not part of the body of the mother.
If you deny that a fetus is a young human organism explain why the DNA does not identify it as a member of the human species, what species it really is, and why human reproduction produces an organism that is not human.
I don't think any of us has honestly claimed that a fetus will become/ contains the DNA of anything but a human.  Whether or not it is actually an individual (Aka, has a personality, will, etc) or the ability to be and individual (Aka, has all the necessary parts (*cough*a brain*cough*) to be capable of holding a personality or will) is where we are making the distinction here.
As such, the not-really-a-question question here is really not a valid counter to any rational arguments I have seen presented here, but Ill answer it anyway. Yes, the collection of cells is unique. Just like the cells in a mole (the kind that grows on your foot), but with a far greater potential for growth into an individual.
My counter question to you is, What constitutes an "Individual" to you?
Quote:
3) No one asks a pregnant woman if she is going to give birth to a human, an elephant, or perhaps a penguin. Why? Because it is prima facie that human reproduction results in human young.
Do you disagree that if a pregnant woman gives birth she will give birth to a human? Do agree that the organism that is in the womb of a mother does not start out as one species and at some time before exiting the womb change into another species?
Please see the above question's answer for the reason why this question would most likely not be valid in a normal discussion. But to answer your question, yes. Most likely a human will be born. There is a pretty decent chance that the mother will lose the child somehow, however, so I cannot say, "Yes, a child will always be born from a fetus."
Oh, and actually, despite having human DNA a fetus will go through multiple stages of organism forms, and will not look human in any way for all but the last ones. (Weird alien-fish-thing is the first recognizable form, if I remember correctly) So technically from a physical development standpoint a human will go through multiple different species of organism before settling on human. Just a natural process of evolutionary development (I guess... and so do embryologists).
That last paragraph is just a fun fact, not an actual argument.
Quote:
4) Embryology texts state an embryo is a human organism. Please explain why embryologists are wrong.
And this is just a question designed to make anyone not agreeing with you look stupid... but the funny thing is that no one has stated through the course of this thread (or at least its more recent pages) that a human embryo is not human.
In fact, no one has ever stated that it does not have human DNA or that given the right environment that it will develop into anything other than a human being.
Which is something that you have been ridiculing posters in this thread for doing for the last 5 or so posts you have made... and I'm sorry, but that is a strawman fallacy. No one here thinks that a child of two humans will be anything other than a human. Not a single person. Seriously.
Now, a far better question would have been, "If an embryo is human, then explain why it isn't an individual". Which has been answered ad nauseum for the last 8 or so pages of this thread. But question number 4 as it stands? That is in no way shape or form a question that any serious high school debate team would use in an actual debate. And that should give you a little inkling as to how relevant it is to the current discussion.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 07:37 AM |
|
|
@fred
I also mentioned the issue of overpopulation many times and even talked about the possibility of abortion becoming mandatory in the future, after a couple has certain amount of kids. The thing is, if you totally focus on that aspect and dismiss the others, in the eyes of a pro-lifer, you are suggesting murder to deal with overpopulation which can even justify genocide at some point. The very core of the issue consists of the fact that abortion in the early stages of pregnancy is not murder to begin with. Once you establish that, the rest of the case resolves anyway.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 08:44 AM |
|
|
A bit strange that only males here say how should be done, while they will never be in that position.
A women should be able to decide whether she procreates or not. Sometimes a pregnancy is the most desired thing ever, other times you just don't want it for tens of reasons: already big family, not enough income, not enough mature, not enough love or many others. On paper life is sacred, in real not so. We are already too many and vomiting our wretch over the planet. Why insist so much on preserving life at any cost when you cannot guarantee its further quality? You can call abortion murder, what about when you eat a good dinner and during your self-complacency swallowing 100 kids die from famine somewhere, you call it how? If you feel responsible for abortions, then do your job properly, fight for every life which burns out prematurely and do no exception.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 08:58 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:44, 19 May 2013.
|
Well, kind of ironic since you are also one of the males who keeps on talking about the subject. That's about the male/female demographics of HC, I guess. Like most nerdland, it mostly consists of male members. As of now, of course it should be women's choice but we can't now what the conditions will be in a future of... say 40 billion people. History showed us again and again, when the **** hits the fan rights get suspended or even modified permanently.
MOD EDIT: Pls. don't bypass language filters.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 09:21 AM |
|
|
I think what is important is practical self investment when your convictions are so straight. If one cares about babies killed in the womb and militates for preserving life at any state, then he should first adopt an unwanted baby, this is what I call consistency and credibility.
I would subscribe to many of Elodin's ideas if I wasn't absolutely sure by now that in real life, he does not care much about and slips them conveniently now and then. Theory vs pragmatism, pragmatism always wins unless you are really special.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 09:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I've yet to encounter a pro-choice person who wanted to do more than hurl insults. The same mantras repeated over and over with no evidence of rational thought or any understanding of the objections of the other side of the debate.
You are dreaming as always. It is you who dodges all of the questions or answering to them in "I'm rubber and you're glue" kind of way just like you did now and it is you who is stuck with the embryo=person blunt logic.
You are making false statements as always.
Quote:
Some play word games and use vague philosophical terms like "person" and claim that the human young are not "persons" so it is ok to kill them.
Since your 1,2 ignores the fact that an organism of a specie evolves into a person and not is so from the first second, and 3 and 4 are deliberately absurd logical fallacies that pretend pro-choicers say embryologists are wrong and humans give birth to other species, I'll skip right into this.
Sorry, but "person" is a philosophical term and has nothing at all to do with evolution. An organism is either a person from the beginning of his existence or he never will be a person. The questions are questions intended to be answered, not to be avoided.
Quote:
Person is not some vague philosophical term that is used only in academic circles, it is quite a simple word. It is the actual self or individual personality of a human being and it does EVOLVE over time UNLESS you believe in some miraculous soul that is put in the brainless embryo, the minute it's conceived.
You are the only one bringing in philosophy and religion. I've been talking science. And no, there is no consensus about any meaning for the word "person" in philosophy. Yes, person is a simple word and used by most people they simply mean human being.
What is not vague is that the FACT that the embryo is a living human organism. To you it is ok to kill innocent human life if it is not in your self-defined "special" group of humans that you call "persons."
I reject the notion of "person" and "not person" categories in the human species. An organism is either human or not human. History has proved how very dangerous claims are that not all humans are people.
Quote:
(What happens to an embryo when it goes to heaven btw, is it given a personality from the sky?)
Not a topic for the abortion thread. But in short an embryo is a complete human being, body, soul, and spirit. The spirit and sould will go to the with the Lord. While man is an integrated whole, theologically it is generally said a man is a spirit with a soul who lives in a body. The spirit is mans "divine spark" part that is able to commune with and receive revelation from God, the soul is essentially the mind, will, and emotions of man (at least on the "natural" level) and what the body is is obvious. The spirit and soul can be distinguished between but never separated and sometimes the words are used as synonyms. When a believer or innocent sees God upon the death of the individual (or the second coming of Christ) he will "be like him for he shall see him as he is." So the spirit and soul of the young human will become mature and morally perfect.
Any future questions along this line should be an a religion thread.
Quote:
When a person becomes truly a person and under which conditions what legal rights does he have are not questions for embryologists (science) to answer.
Like I said science can't answer philosophical questions and "person" is a philosophical term. I predicted earlier in the thread pro-abortionists would have to run to philosophy to try to justify abortion because science has demolished their previous claims.
Western societies are supposed to be based on the concept of human rights, with the right to life being the most fundamental of these rights. Science answers the question of "when does human life begin?" It says at conception.
There is no inalienable right to kill one's child. There is an unalienable right to life.
No, the brain is NOT the start of the actual individual. The human organism is one continuous life from conception to death. The unique human DNA means that embryo is a unique (individual) human organism.
That organism matures but not change its nature. It is always human from embryo to 100 year old man. If you kill "Bob" when he is an embryo you have killed BoB. If you kill the organism when it is 100 years old you have still killed Bob. Bob is Bob and was always Bob from the moment of his conception. To say otherwise is to "bob and weave" to try to avoid the devastating punches of the truth.
Quote:
So, when you answer to these questions as "the second it is conceived", YOU TOO are coming to a subjective, ideological (in the broadest sense) decision and not talking from the view point of an embryologist (science).
I've been appealing to science and saying science has definitively answered the question of when human life begins. I've rejected the categorization of humans into "persons and "non-persons" but said if any human is a person we all are, from youngest to oldest, from sickest to the most fit, from the least mentally gifted to the most amazing genius.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 09:28 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:30, 19 May 2013.
|
Personhood, vagueness, and abortion
Quote:
The ill-conceived "love of neighbor" has to disappear, especially in relation to inferior or asocial creatures. It is the supreme duty of a national state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy... in order to secure the maintenance of a hereditarily sound and racially pure fold for all eternity. The life of an individual has meaning only in the light of his meaning to his family and to his national state.
Dr. Arthur Guett (the Nazi Director of Public Health), (1935) The Structure of Public Health in the Third Reich:
If being human does not entitle one to human rights then the concept of human rights is meaningless. Any definition of the philosophical word person that does not include every living human is open for abuse and is ordinarily exclusionary to advance an agenda.
If the measurement of the value of human life is someone's arbitrary definition of "personhood" all of us potentially find ourselves someday on the wrong end of that ruler. History has proved this.
As I noted earlier in the thread the claim a fetus is not a person does not and cannot come from science. The opinion on who is an who is not a person is merely a philosophical opinion, and opinion for which there is no proof and can be no proof. "Personhood" is inherently vague and is no basis for law.
Are we to value an arbitrary philosophical opinion or should our focus be the established scientific fact that a human individual is created at the moment of conception? I think the later must be the basis of our laws, not philosophical meandering based upon a word and concept that that has no consensus build around it and no scientific basis.
Killing that innocent human organism in the womb takes away the two things he has--his life and his future. Abortionists should not be allowed to deny the fundamental human right of life to their children.
Quote:
This I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I would fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about.
--Steinbeck, East of Eden
Abortion is the destruction of an innocent human individual. This should be unacceptable in a society that claims to value human rights.
Personhood and abortion
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 09:28 AM |
|
|
Salamandre:
Quote:
I think what is important is practical self investment when your convictions are so straight. If one cares about babies killed in the womb and militates for preserving life at any state, then he should first adopt an unwanted baby, this is what I call consistency and credibility.
Why? The two aren't related at all. That's like saying, "If you don't like murder, why don't you personally pay would-be murderers not to murder?"
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 09:37 AM |
|
|
In the context they ARE related. Elodin said:
"Killing that innocent human organism in the womb takes away the two things he has--his life and his future"
Considering that an abortion means refusal of the baby, non abortion in that case would result in an abandoned baby. If you take the responsibility to claim he will have a future and a life, then you must personally ensure he WILL indeed have one.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 10:15 AM |
|
|
Elodin, we give you our reasons with a clear embodiment of logic (although you falsely claim otherwise) and in return all you say comes down to "no, it's not like that." Why is it not like that, nobody knows, I guess because you say so. What defines an individual is not an embryological question, so you can not seek the answer in that area, is that so hard to grasp. You are in the same zone with us the minute you bring in morality and rights, these are all abstract values and when they should be operative has nothing to do with embryology. That is the plain simple thing I've been saying from the start.
Also, the laws we speak of are not theoretical, they have been around for decades, do you see any democracy turning into Nazi Germany because of that? What is this non-sense with the Third Reich quotes. Can't you really see the difference between terminating a zygote and sending people into gas chambers or do we have to spell it out for you.
Quote:
the soul is essentially the mind, will, and emotions of man
So? What happens to the soul of a brainless embryo when it dies... If you say a soul is what you described above, it actually means he has no soul, because it is an indisputable fact that you can not have a mind, will or emotions before a brain.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 10:40 AM |
|
|
It's strange that a person as scientifically apt and knowledgable as you, Elodin, is persitently ignoring the terminology that is used throughout the whole world when talking about "persons" still in the womb. Just for your information, since you do seem to mistake a couple of things.
A "baby" is a BORN human, outside the womb. Babies can "die" and babies can be "killed".
If there has been a conception, it is called "embryo" for about the first 10 weeks of its existance. If an embryo ends its existance it's called "Early Pregnancy Loss" when it happens within the first 6 weeks of a pregnancy.
From week 11 onwards the embryo is called the "fetus". Until week 24 of a pregnancy it's highly improbable that a fetus can survive when it comes to what WAS called "spontaneous abortion", but what IS called now (since "abortion" is used for the deliberate thing) "miscarriage".
After that the phase begings when survival of a prematurely born fetus becomes more and more likely. If a fetus in that stage is born dead, it's called "stillbirth".
Now, you may want to refrain from using the wrong terms here. No one is speaking about "babies", no one is speaking of killing them. Except you, that is, but if you want to speak about killing babies, just open up another thread.
WE are talking about voluntary and deliberate abortion of embryos and fetusses.
If you want to come up with the point, that it's all the same - it's not, as much as you are not a baby either. This become clear when you look at what HAPPENS with Early Pregnancy Losses. (The prospective mothers/parents MAY at their discretion do with a stillbirth what they like, that is they may bury it or not, if not it will end in the pathology of the hospital and after that it will be cremated; but that's the stillbirths, that is, the fetusses born after week 24, which are those considered as having a viable chance to survive if born too early and develop to a baby; late term abortions are generally forbidden (with only a few exceptions), and I think no one here is interested in allowing them or debating them.)
So what happens with EARLY PREGNANCY LOSSES? Are they treated like persons that just died? Are they getting names? What do you think how many Embryos are just flushed through the toilet, the not-to-be-mother not even really knowing what really happened? And the miscarriages? Is a 4 month old miscarried fetus buried? Nope. Most of the time it will happen in a hospital, and the miscarriages are ending in the pathology (to determine the reason of the miscarriage) and are either cremated or disposed of as bio-waste.
So while embryos and fetusses are early stages of the human life cycle, a couple of them seem "preliminary" in a way, so preliminary, in fact, that we - as a race - do not concede "personhood" to the embryos and fetusses involved.
One reason here is, that there are many early pregnancy losses, and if early pregnancy losses would be given the same status then stillbirths or even neonatal deaths, we'd have been mourning and grieving much more than we are doing it anyway.
Humanity has apparently always known, that the thing called "human life" may start with conception, but that it becomes RELEVANT, VALID and PERSONAL only in later stages of the pregnancy phase. It's a development, and if the development ends early, the life that was ended has been "too potential" still to be recognized as a "death".
Now. Of course, FROM THAT we canNOT simply draw the conclusion that it is absolutely okay to deliberately abort embryos or fetusses, provided it's done early enough.
This is NOT a question of SOCIETAL MORAL, at least not in my opinion. In my opinion there is an overwhelming majority of people who would accept the notion that while they generally would reject abortions in general for moral reasons, that there might be valid individual reasons in which an abortion would be simply the smaller evil. It starts with the fetus being a threat for the life of the mother, it goess on with (especially) young rape victims or the victims of home abuse will come to mind - but also cases with a high probability (or even certainty) that the baby would be extremely handicapped (with other factors adding, say, poor and/or single parent and so on).
Now, the decisive step from conceding that there are viable exceptions from a law forbidding abortions in general, but allowing certain exceptions, to a law that generally allows abortions without investigating whether the reasons are "valid", is not a MORAL question, but simply a question, how much a society and it's body of laws, law-making and government in general, TRUSTS in their members to be able to make the right decisions for themselves.
Persons like Elodin, who immediately start about "abortions to avoid giving up a certain lifestyle", which basically means, having a lot of "irresponsible" sex and taking the easy way out when the inevtiable happens, do NOT trust them, but that mistrust is based on the realization that they live in a society that has an educational problem and that is of course not a wrong realization (the origins and reasons for that problem are clearly a thing to be debated in a different thread).
Doubtlessly, there ARE these persons that simply make their life easy, as there are criminals - but are we supposed to be a society that makes things difficult for all, just to avoid some to abuse the system?
1st world society is now in a position to actually lead a good life, full of fun and good things, and sex is clearly on the forefront. Whether that's moral or not, society is vibrating from it: every picture, every advertisement, fashion, culture, all is touting it, and as long as education isn't flawless, as long as contraceptions isn't foolproof, allowing abortions is just the reasonable way to keep unhappiness and misery at a minimum.
As with mostz things, it's not a question of moral principles, but one of "lesser evils".
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 11:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, we give you our reasons with a clear embodiment of logic (although you falsely claim otherwise) and in return all you say comes down to "no, it's not like that." Why is it not like that, nobody knows, I guess because you say so. What defines an individual is not an embryological question, so you can not seek the answer in that area, is that so hard to grasp.
Nah, I appeal to science. Science has decisively established when human life begins, as if even the most casual observer should not have known it.
And embryology tells us that the embryo is a UNIQUE (INDIVIDUAL) human organism. He is "his own organism," very distinct form his mother and his father, having obtained half of his DNA from each. He is an individual human. A member of the human species.
Now you want to redefine what individual means? The embryo is a specific, unique member of the human species.
You are trying to redefine "individual" as a synonym of your mythical "person" class of humans and I've have none of it. A human organism is an individual member of the human species.
Quote:
You are in the same zone with us the minute you bring in morality and rights, these are all abstract values and when they should be operative has nothing to do with embryology. That is the plain simple thing I've been saying from the start.
Like I've been saying, the only question is "Is is moral for humans to kill their young who pose not threat to them."
The question of when life begins, on if the embryo is human, on if the embryo is an organism rather than a mere blob of tissue has all been settled in favored of pro-life people. You have only one argument to resort to. That it is moral for humans to kill their young.
Quote:
Can't you really see the difference between terminating a zygote and sending people into gas chambers or do we have to spell it out for you.
Nope. A murderer is a murderer. The only difference is some young girls have been deceived by the abortion mill industry that wants to kill their baby for money.
Quote:
Quote:
the soul is essentially the mind, will, and emotions of man
So? What happens to the soul of a brainless embryo when it dies... If you say a soul is what you described above, it actually means he has no soul, because it is an indisputable fact that you can not have a mind, will or emotions before a brain.
I've already told you that the answer I gave to your question about the spirit/soul of an embryo is the only discussion of a soul you will get from me in this thread. Take it to the religion thread if you want an answer and I've give you an answer, not that I think you actually are seeking an answer.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 19, 2013 11:58 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:09, 19 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Nah, I appeal to science. Science has decisively established when human life begins, as if even the most casual observer should not have known it.
And embryology tells us that the embryo is a UNIQUE (INDIVIDUAL) human organism. He is "his own organism," very distinct form his mother and his father, having obtained half of his DNA from each. He is an individual human. A member of the human species.
All science can deliver to you is the fact that the embryo has unique DNA, which nobody denies anyway. So it is an individual if you take the word as in a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item. That meaning of the word, as you can see, may even refer to items. But individual also is a synonym of person, and we've looked at what person means: The actual self or individual personality of a human being. (Which brings us back to the necessity of a brain again.) In that sense an embryo isn't considered a human being, as JJ said it very well, if it dies, its treated as bio-waste. A nurse can flush it down the toilet, would they do that to an actual baby, no.
Legal or moral, rights themselves don't belong in the field of positive sciences. They are abstractions, things we decide on and execute. They don't exist in the universe without us applying them. So, it's totally up to us how they will operate.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
