The Vanishing Pro-Life Apologist [Archive] - Page 2

ChristianTrader

April 30th 2004, 01:23 AM

The easy one first! A fetus does not breath by any means - it utilizes oxygen directly from the mother's blood. Any "breathing" of the fetus would fill its lungs with amniotic fluid. It would not neccessarily die at this point (a guess, actually) but, at birth, would be highly vunerable to drowning (no guess here).

My point as I explained to Gilgaron, was not the "breathing" of the fetus (On that point I was referring to what the breathing does, the oxygen transfer, and that when one is born, one does the oxygen transfer by breathing through your nostrils.) but instead the point that you should not attempt to stretch how God brought life into a full adult into how an adult "passes on" life to their offspring. Also there is the issue of equating God breathing the breathe of life into man to a being must breath on its own in order to be alive.

You continue to agrue without a basic understanding of pregnancy.

If you would just give a little bit of slack to clarify before saying I dont have a basic understanding of everything, it would be helpful.

Now for Adam - well, Eve actually. It is not said that God breathed in Eve. But she is desginated as the giver of life so it must have happened - yes? It is strange that you do not realize that each was fully formed before God's breathe was applied. As these two are the biblical models of humanity, why would you deny the essentiality of God's breathe for all mankind? And why can you not apply that to the fully formed child at birth.

I do not deny that these two were the first two human beings. I do realize that they were both fully formed, but you seem to forget that I never have made an argument based on form. They were completely inanimate (just bodies), until God breathed into them. It is almost like you are thinking they were alive but God had to give them some secret formula for them to be human beings. Also why are you equating God's breath with being able to breathe?

Biblically, I could not use viable nor can you use zygote or the very early embyonic stage as legal justification for abortion. With your extrapolation of abortion punishment, the Bible does not condem abortion of something in size and shape that would be indistinguishable in the discharge. I leave the biblical discussion of later term abortion for it has sufficiently debunked your insistence on conception as a starting point. Combining your knowledge and mine, the Bible does not speak of conception. It speaks of fully formed individuals and that occurs only at birth.

Does the Bible make a distinction based on ability to do something? No. Therefore for you to make any case against conception, you have to make the argument that God forgot to tell us about crucial distinctions. It makes no distiction based on size or form. So why do you try to force it to do so?

You disavow much of what science says and the Bible is of no help to you. What then is the basis of forcing society to accept conception?

I do not disavow much of what science says, I however know that this is not an issue which Science can solve. It is a definitional issue. The Bible is also much help because it does not differentiate based on what a preborn baby can do.

CT

ChristianTrader

April 30th 2004, 02:03 AM

I realize that. I am merely pointing out that your Biblical citation is ambiguous.

The only point of the John the Baptist reference, was that the Bible does not in differentiate between born and unborn.

I am pointing out an uncertainty in what they could have been referring to Biblically, from the viewpoint of a Hebrew with limited knowledge of gestation.

The point is that there is no distinction given, therefore no distinction is important.

I don't know about that... fertility is very important in ancient culture. Castrating a man would probably carry a similar penalty.

I have left the equivalent punishment argument and gone to the wording the Bible uses to describe what is proper punishment. The Bible says life for a life. So in fact it is saying that you unjustly took a life. Is that not murder?

I hardly think it seals the case if an issue that would not arise for 2000 years was not discussed in an ancient text. The Bible does not discuss the finer points of land ownership on Mars, but that this is omitted does not leave us with a default conclusion to make.

The difference is that the Bible does not say anything about land ownership on Mars. It does say stuff about causing an abortion. Your argument is that important distinctions in the discussion were left out or that God only told half the story. Which just means that God made a mistake.

That this is an ancient text is irrelevant if God is the author (through the various people who wrote it down).

As most Christians are quick to point out, God did not write the Bible, man did. There isn't anything in there about the morality of tissue culture, or animal testing, yet these can be contentious moral issues with some people.

God was the author but man was the writer. God had man write everything he wanted them to write. Many issues are not addressed directly. However they was enough given by God to come to a proper conclusion on such issues. Also because man thinks certain things are contention does not in fact mean that they should be contentious.

CT

Bob Jenkins

April 30th 2004, 02:12 AM

:bjcut:

I do not disavow much of what science says, I however know that this is not an issue which Science can solve. It is a definitional issue. The Bible is also much help because it does not differentiate based on what a preborn baby can do.

CT

I took "evolution" as a mark of science. If you do have a broader meaning, then I apologize.

However, by saying science can not solve a definitional problem, this is mighty close to "disavowing" science.

So what authority will solve the definitional proplem, if not science? Certainly, there is no discussion or statement of conception in the bible. What's left?

Lazy Agnostic

April 30th 2004, 05:09 AM

Back to the "is it murder question".
Was it murder for the Israelitie soldiers to kill all the males and non-virgin females [we can assume this includes pregnant non-virgins] in Numbers31---keeping the virgin females for yourselves? One may assert that God can kill whomever he wants---but shouldn't he do his own butchering? Remember, it wasn't God who gave the order. So perhaps the commandment should read Thou shalt not kill/murder unless told to do so by someone who claims to have spoken with God?

The Bible passage that I am basing myself from is Ex. 21:22-25. There it says that when a person causes harm to the mother or the child, the penalty is whatever that harm is, tooth for tooth etc. up to life for life. So if it is not murder then the life for life does not make much sense.
That refers to the death penalty for those whose mischief results in the death of a man or slave. Mischief resulting in death is the context. If the mischief results in a miscarriage, the penalty is something other than death. We can infer that while a fetus has value, personhood is not conferred. Perhaps the soul is not indwelt until birth; the Bible doesn't say.

No, and that seals the case, unless you want to make the argument that God forgot to include an important distinction in his law code.
The ambiguity in the actions, words, character, and history of Scripture's deity(ies) affects credulity regarding a basis for moral absolutes and divine reality.

That's not to mention discrepancies in the actions, words, character, and history of those who claim a divine-anointing to "just know" truth.

Gilgaron

April 30th 2004, 07:34 AM

The only point of the John the Baptist reference, was that the Bible does not in differentiate between born and unborn.
Neither do most pro-choicers, if it is a late point in development. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, it just occured to me perhaps I was being ambiguous.

The point is that there is no distinction given, therefore no distinction is important.
Is it common to decide that if the Bible does not mention something it is not important? The Bible does not have a definitive guide to edible flora of South America, but that would be very important if you were attempting to evangelize the continent.

Certainly evangelization is more important in Christianity since those people are hellbound, whereas I've been told fetuses are innocent.

I have left the equivalent punishment argument and gone to the wording the Bible uses to describe what is proper punishment. The Bible says life for a life. So in fact it is saying that you unjustly took a life. Is that not murder?
Not all instances in which the Bible advocates the death penalty involve the death of something else, like stoning for adultry. You're begging the question, unless you care to cite a passage that explains the reasoning for that specific punishment for that crime.

The difference is that the Bible does not say anything about land ownership on Mars. It does say stuff about causing an abortion. Your argument is that important distinctions in the discussion were left out or that God only told half the story. Which just means that God made a mistake.
How would it mean God made a mistake if part was lost through copyist error or if you are using the passage in a manner other than intended?

That this is an ancient text is irrelevant if God is the author (through the various people who wrote it down).
My understanding is that the Bible is supposed to be inspired by God and authored by men. There may be disagreement among Christians, I suppose, so perhaps I am both not mistaken about general views while discongruous with yourself.

I consistently see things explained as requiring the vantage point of the historical Hebrew authors to fully understand in a correct fashion.

God was the author but man was the writer. God had man write everything he wanted them to write. Many issues are not addressed directly. However they was enough given by God to come to a proper conclusion on such issues. Also because man thinks certain things are contention does not in fact mean that they should be contentious.

CT
What difference does it make it things should or should not be contentious? Either they are or they are not... that has more to do with intuition than anything else, which is comparably involuntary when compared to other cognitive processes.

OneFollowingHim

April 30th 2004, 09:05 AM

I was confused at first... took me a second to realize you were referring to support of the fetus, I had thought you meant support of an argument. :smile:
That's correct.

A woman is not forced to support her children. At that point it is trivial to relinquish them to the state.Should she be allowed to kill her children though?

You're missing the point that what one is dependent on matters :wink:Are you acknowledging that the baby in the womb is one of us?

OneFollowingHim

April 30th 2004, 09:22 AM

OFH:You are in serious denial. Your post is nothing but name-calling. Where's dlw with his neg reps? He claims to know a weak argument when he sees one and also claims to care deeply about this issue. Hmmmmmmm......

dlw:Bob's post makes more sense when you attach a [I believe] before the words, "Viablity is a crucial point in developement and is completely misunderstood by STR. "

Viability is crucial, but the point I believe STR makes is that the dependency on others can be seen as a change in kind and so viability isn't necessarily the "natural" point to define when someone should be granted legal personhood. Likewise, they seem to go through how arguments made on the basis of physical characteristics are not definitive in settling the matter.

Bob said the siamese example was infantile. From the context, I think he meant not well thought out and somewhat absurd.

If that is his judgment, so be it.

He's dealing with the substance of the arguments of his opponents and not being uncivil in doing so. If he had said that STR was infantile, that would be an ad-hom, but he said their argument was infantile.

dlw
The point is dlw, that Bob made an assertion and while he may have had reasons, he did not offer any explanation for his asertion. Why not? Simply saying that something is infantile does not explain that means. Just like saying viability (apparrently) does not explain what that means, even though it is probably better understood than saying infantile.

I find that you have a double standard. When I made my viability, smiability post you did not grant the same concession by going on to expain what point was made.

You simply neg repped me as though I am not allowed to express disgust with the silliness from those who are twisting the definition of viability to mean only what will support their defense of abortion.

You take a very elitist posture when it suits you.

ChristianTrader

April 30th 2004, 11:35 AM

I took "evolution" as a mark of science. If you do have a broader meaning, then I apologize.

I do not consider evolution a mark of science. I consider it a mark of bad philosophy run amuck.

However, by saying science can not solve a definitional problem, this is mighty close to "disavowing" science.

I do not see your point unless you assume all problems can be solved by experiments. My contention is that decided when life reaches a protectable stage is not something that can be decided by science. We can define what is protectable life and science can help us find out when that stage is reached.

So what authority will solve the definitional proplem, if not science? Certainly, there is no discussion or statement of conception in the bible. What's left?

The Bible does not differentiate between the various stages of preborn life, as being relevant to determine when protection should occur. Therefore by default you are left with conception.

CT

Bob Jenkins

April 30th 2004, 12:21 PM

I do not consider evolution a mark of science. I consider it a mark of bad philosophy run amuck.

I do not see your point unless you assume all problems can be solved by experiments. My contention is that decided when life reaches a protectable stage is not something that can be decided by science. We can define what is protectable life and science can help us find out when that stage is reached.

Science is technology and engineering. Without it you would have no printed bible or internet bible and no chuirches larger than a mud hut. I don't think I've ever met anyone who has such a negative view.

The Bible does not differentiate between the various stages of preborn life, as being relevant to determine when protection should occur. Therefore by default you are left with conception.

CT

Hardly. It certainly assigns differing punishments based on the stage of the fetus. You can not make a leap to conception from fetus - that is all that is recognized. Somehow I don't think you understand the "fashiion of the period" in the history of the church - it has been all over the board on what it considers a fit stage to allow abortions allowing 90 days as a permissable period to abort up to the "quickening" and birth of the fetus. You have just another arbitrary position.

EvoUK

April 30th 2004, 12:28 PM

I go for a while, and look what happens..

:ahem:

I do not consider evolution a mark of science. I consider it a mark of bad philosophy run amuck.

:lol:

I would love to debate you on this topic- you sound like you could be the next jorge and socratism!

My contention is that decided when life reaches a protectable stage is not something that can be decided by science.

That's because what, precisely makes a human is arguable. The closest science can get is to tell you when certain physical characteristics develope- the more we learn about how the brain works the easier this becomes.

We can define what is protectable life and science can help us find out when that stage is reached.

Now all we need to do is define that. In the UK, this is based on viability of the foetus (ie, it's ability to survive outside the womb), and the developement of the CNS.

The Bible does not differentiate between the various stages of preborn life, as being relevant to determine when protection should occur. Therefore by default you are left with conception.

But as you're going to get nowhere quoting what the bible has to say on pretty much any given subject, you'll have to try another method.

ChristianTrader

April 30th 2004, 06:08 PM

Science is technology and engineering. Without it you would have no printed bible or internet bible and no chuirches larger than a mud hut. I don't think I've ever met anyone who has such a negative view.

Exactly were in my statement did you get the idea that I had a negative view of science. Also what does embracing evolution have to do with embracing technology and engineering?

Hardly. It certainly assigns differing punishments based on the stage of the fetus.

Lots like a baseless assertions, some evidence would be helpful.

You can not make a leap to conception from fetus - that is all that is recognized.

If there is no relevant difference between various stages of maturity concerning the right to protection, then why can I not make the leap? To not make the "leap" is to make some arbitrary distinction based on anti-biblical philosophy.

Somehow I don't think you understand the "fashiion of the period" in the history of the church - it has been all over the board on what it considers a fit stage to allow abortions allowing 90 days as a permissable period to abort up to the "quickening" and birth of the fetus.

Does church = Roman Catholics and the Pope? I dont remember swearing allegiance to them at any point. I can agree or disagree with them.

You have just another arbitrary position.

Is this admission that your position is arbitrary? If mine was also arbitrary (which I disagree with), then we would just have to argue personal preference. The person who can get the most votes wins. You would have no moral highground to appeal to against my position.

CT

ChristianTrader

April 30th 2004, 06:20 PM

I go for a while, and look what happens..

:ahem:

:lol:

I would love to debate you on this topic- you sound like you could be the next jorge and socratism!

I am not the next jorge or socratism, I am the first ChristianTrader :smug:

That's because what, precisely makes a human is arguable. The closest science can get is to tell you when certain physical characteristics develope- the more we learn about how the brain works the easier this becomes.

Actually as we learn more it does not necessarily become any easier. The first question (and the main question) is if it is relevant to look at what a preborn is able to do in order to give protection from being killed.

Now all we need to do is define that. In the UK, this is based on viability of the foetus (ie, it's ability to survive outside the womb), and the developement of the CNS.

And I go for the Biblical view that what you can do at a certain stage in life is irrelevant in terms of giving protection against being murdered.

But as you're going to get nowhere quoting what the bible has to say on pretty much any given subject, you'll have to try another method.

Actually this is big boy school, science texts wont help you now. :hehe:

One may not like the Bible as it talks about science or even history, but everyone accepts that it is golden in terms of philosophy, even without agreeing with its conclusions.

CT

EvoUK

April 30th 2004, 07:39 PM

The first question (and the main question) is if it is relevant to look at what a preborn is able to do in order to give protection from being killed.

At the moment the foetus has to be viable outside the womb.

And I go for the Biblical view that what you can do at a certain stage in life is irrelevant in terms of giving protection against being murdered.

Your opinion is noted- however you do realise that if you wish to do anything about it you'll have to come up with a better reason than the bible.

Actually this is big boy school, science texts wont help you now.

Quite the contrary- this is mostly to do with medical ethics- and is decided predominantly based on medical (scientific) knowledge.

Though your attempt to throw back the obvious (that the bible isn't adequate as reason to ban abortion) is noted...

One may not like the Bible as it talks about science

I've yet to see anything in the bible scientific which wasn't known even then...

but everyone accepts that it is golden in terms of philosophy, even without agreeing with its conclusions.

You'll find that isn't true. It isn't true in such a small community as TWeb, and certainly isn't true worldwide.

Personally, I found it rather pedestrian at best, horrific at worst.

ChristianTrader

April 30th 2004, 09:17 PM

At the moment the foetus has to be viable outside the womb.

Nope, it at conception. You know we can do this all weekend.

Your opinion is noted- however you do realise that if you wish to do anything about it you'll have to come up with a better reason than the bible.

Actually I can use whatever reason I like to use, the only reason I need is a reason that a majority of people will accept. Or conversely just show that all other reasoning is arbitrary.

Quite the contrary- this is mostly to do with medical ethics- and is decided predominantly based on medical (scientific) knowledge.

Not so fast. Before anyone can even appeal to any scientific information (such as when a preborn's heart starts beating or brain patterns are detectable) one has to decide if such info is relevant for the discussion (when protectable life begins). I have yet to see others justify the relevance.

Though your attempt to throw back the obvious (that the bible isn't adequate as reason to ban abortion) is noted...

Once again it is an adequate reason, whether you accept it or not is a separate question.

You'll find that isn't true. It isn't true in such a small community as TWeb, and certainly isn't true worldwide.

Personally, I found it rather pedestrian at best, horrific at worst.

I apologize for using the term "golden". My point was that it is as legitimate as any other philosophical texts. In my view way more legitimate.

CT

EvoUK

April 30th 2004, 09:36 PM

Nope, it at conception. You know we can do this all weekend.

You're quite right- you can disagree with me for as long as you want- however, the main difference here is that what I am saying is right as far as the law is concerned (which is what I was saying)- ie, that currently the foetus has no rights before it's considered viable outside the womb.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, you thought I was offering only my opinion, rather than my opinion and the official stance also...

Actually I can use whatever reason I like to use, the only reason I need is a reason that a majority of people will accept.

You can indeed use any reason you want- however, like I said, the only way you can actually do anything about it is to come up with something better. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you not reading what i'm saying properly? I do so dislike having to repeat myself.

Or conversely just show that all other reasoning is arbitrary.

You mean as arbitary as choosing a holy book answer?

Before anyone can even appeal to any scientific information (such as when a preborn's heart starts beating or brain patterns are detectable) one has to decide if such info is relevant for the discussion (when protectable life begins).

And if you keep up with the entire conversation- you'll find I said this:

That's because what, precisely makes a human is arguable. The closest science can get is to tell you when certain physical characteristics develope- the more we learn about how the brain works the easier this becomes.

So what I said is in keeping with the conversation, as well as your quote which I was replying to.

I have yet to see others justify the relevance.

You arbitarily choose conception as when a human life begins. This is most likely because you view it as an event (as well as rather more irrelevent religious beliefs)- so your conclusion is a predictable one, given your main presence. However, as far as I, and science, is concerned, it's a process, meaning, quite simply, that it developes into a human being. Therefore viability is a logical conclusion to reach given this conclusion.

What aspects of human beings are present at the moment of conception? All I can think of is human DNA- and that isn't enough to aquire rights in and of itself.

Once again it is an adequate reason, whether you accept it or not is a separatequestion.

No more adequate than us not being able to eat burgers merely because some religions view cows as sacred.

Mere religious reasons are not adequate reason to do anything outside of a theocracy.

In my view way more legitimate.

Again, your opinion is noted- and again, I must remind you that that's all it is- an opinion. Nothing will happen/change if that's all you provide as reason why we should limit abortion.

"I want abortion illegalised"

"why?"

"Coz I believe it's wrong- it goes against my interpretation of the bible..."

We could try that from another angle:

"We should ban eating cows"

"why?"

"because I believe they're sacred"

ChristianTrader

May 1st 2004, 12:18 AM

You're quite right- you can disagree with me for as long as you want- however, the main difference here is that what I am saying is right as far as the law is concerned (which is what I was saying)- ie, that currently the foetus has no rights before it's considered viable outside the womb.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, you thought I was offering only my opinion, rather than my opinion and the official stance also...

Um, in a thread concerning when protectable life begins (when actual life begins is unquestioned) do you really think what the current legal position is adds anything to the conversation?

Also I stated that the main question is whether it is relevant to look at what a preborn can do in order to give protection from being killed. How in the world does the current legal position have relevance to that question. Unless you were trying to say something to the effect, "some judges in some court answered the question in this fashion, therefore the answer is X."

You can indeed use any reason you want- however, like I said, the only way you can actually do anything about it is to come up with something better. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you not reading what i'm saying properly? I do so dislike having to repeat myself.

There tends to be problems with people complaining about the position of others when all they have is: "My friends and I like my definition and do not like yours, therefore your position is wrong". Or there is the similar: "I do not like your definition because if I accepted it, it would inconvenience me and my friends. Therefore we like our definition because it allows us more convenience."

Also as I said the first time, as long as I have the numbers I can argue as I wish. (Of course you could just appeal to the courts and override the majority-Just like abortion was legalized in the first place).

You mean as arbitary as choosing a holy book answer?

Still waiting for a better answer than "I don't like your standard", before a real conversation can begin.

You arbitarily choose conception as when a human life begins. This is most likely because you view it as an event (as well as rather more irrelevent religious beliefs)- so your conclusion is a predictable one, given your main presence. However, as far as I, and science, is concerned, it's a process, meaning, quite simply, that it developes into a human being. Therefore viability is a logical conclusion to reach given this conclusion.

Well first off we both view where life begins as an event. I put the event at conception and you put it at viability. Next, science has nothing to say here. Again all science can say is what happens when (Science can tell us when one is viable outside of the womb but it cannot tell us that this fact is important). We have to decide if it is something relevant in the discussion. You seem wanting to admit this, and then deny it in the next breath. Since you cannot lean on science to give weight to your decision, then you are at least as arbitrary as you claim that I am. You have just arbitrarily chosen that human life is not protectable at birth. You have to get to a certain age before you can be protected.

Now what you might have meant is life is a process that continues to one dies instead of saying becoming a human being is a process.

What aspects of human beings are present at the moment of conception? All I can think of is human DNA- and that isn't enough to aquire rights in and of itself.

What in this statement is not arbitrary? You just claim by your authority that is this not enough to "acquire" protection rights.

At conception, one is a single cell organism, that is a unique young homo-sapien. Previous to this, one is not a unique homo-sapien but instead precursors of one.

No more adequate than us not being able to eat burgers merely because some religions view cows as sacred.

Mere religious reasons are not adequate reason to do anything outside of a theocracy.

You would not be forced to not abort because the Bible said so, you would be forced because people accept the Bible as being valid. And again, my reasons are what compared to your "I just dont like it" reasoning?

Again, your opinion is noted- and again, I must remind you that that's all it is- an opinion. Nothing will happen/change if that's all you provide as reason why we should limit abortion.

"I want abortion illegalised"

"why?"

"Coz I believe it's wrong- it goes against my interpretation of the bible..."

As an aside, you forgot the Bible is the Word of God part of my answer.

But Two can play at this game.

"I want abortion to stay legal"

"Why"

"Cause it would be very inconvenient otherwise"

CT

Gilgaron

May 1st 2004, 02:52 PM

Should she be allowed to kill her children though?
The justification I have been giving would not permit that, no.

Are you acknowledging that the baby in the womb is one of us?
The argument I've been using works if we confer personhood to the fetus. It is why it is a powerful argument to use, because it says 'even if I concede for the sake of argument that a zygote is a person, abortion is still permissible'.

Personally, I am against late term elective abortions. At that point it is dangerous to the mother, and in a late term it can be argued that the mother has given the fetus squatters rights, as it were. Given more mature brain activity personhood is less ambiguous. Most pro-choice people are against late term and in favor of early term. Drawing a line can be arbitrary, yes, but no less so than conception is, anyway.

OneFollowingHim

May 2nd 2004, 07:22 AM

The justification I have been giving would not permit that, no.

The argument I've been using works if we confer personhood to the fetus. It is why it is a powerful argument to use, because it says 'even if I concede for the sake of argument that a zygote is a person, abortion is still permissible'.

Personally, I am against late term elective abortions. At that point it is dangerous to the mother, and in a late term it can be argued that the mother has given the fetus squatters rights, as it were. Given more mature brain activity personhood is less ambiguous. Most pro-choice people are against late term and in favor of early term. Drawing a line can be arbitrary, yes, but no less so than conception is, anyway.
Thanks for that answer.

Conception begins the life of all of us. In that regard, the fertilized egg is a person. He or she is exactly they same as each one of us when we were at that stage of our life.

You don't qualify "late term." If "late term" qualifies the baby in the womb for squatters rights, why not "early term"? Does it really matter how long the baby is in there?

Look at it this way. Women know that sex can cause pregnancy (most anyway, some may not, but that's another topic). Preganancy = Baby. That's precisely why they want to get rid of her. They don't want a baby. And it's convenient to just kill it. The pregnancy ends, no more baby.

Since women know that after conception a new life begins, should they be allowed to escape the responsibility to that new life? They had a need or desire for sex and sex can result in pregnanacy and pregnancy results in a baby.

With your squatters rights argument, the mother should be responsible at every stage of her childs life, not just the "late term" portion of the pregnanacy.

Bob Jenkins

May 2nd 2004, 07:54 AM

Thanks for that answer.

Conception begins the life of all of us. In that regard, the fertilized egg is a person. He or she is exactly they same as each one of us when we were at that stage of our life.

You can say "I beleive a fertized egg is a person" but you can not say is is unequivically. You have only subjective opinion as I do for a later point. I do wish you would make the distinction inseatd of continuing to imple certitude.

You don't qualify "late term." If "late term" qualifies the baby in the womb for squatters rights, why not "early term"? Does it really matter how long the baby is in there?

Yes, in law it is of prime importance.

Look at it this way. Women know that sex can cause pregnancy (most anyway, some may not, but that's another topic). Preganancy = Baby. That's precisely why they want to get rid of her. They don't want a baby. And it's convenient to just kill it. The pregnancy ends, no more baby.

Pregnacy does not equal baby. It sometimes (50% of the time , I'm told) equals miscarrage. You are stating an absolute and it is either uneducated or disengenious.

Since women know that after conception a new life begins, should they be allowed to escape the responsibility to that new life? They had a need or desire for sex and sex can result in pregnanacy and pregnancy results in a baby.

Yes according to the law the have a greater right to control of their bodies. (in the first trimester and mostly in the second)

You repeat the mistake of the above - contraception does not make it to live birth about half the time.

With your squatters rights argument, the mother should be responsible at every stage of her childs life, not just the "late term" portion of the pregnanacy.

Actually, you fail to make the distinction that the state assumes more and more responsibility for abortion/continuing to full term. while the mother always has responsibility - that is the law. The problem is that you do not agree with her exercise of responsibilty.

You must begin to realize the law is what is - not a bunch of "should be's" Given the law, it is disengious for some to label abortion as murder. Roe V Wade has been confirmed, in it's structure, ever since the ruling was made (and that includes at least two cases by one of the strongest conservative courts in history) and abortion remains legal

OneFollowingHim

May 2nd 2004, 08:33 AM

Bob Jenkins

May 2nd 2004, 09:50 AM

Bob, Bob, Bob. Abortion is not only about law. You make it sound so isolated, so sterile. Morality and law are not mutually exclusive. I guess you have to make it sound that way so that women can go on terminating pregnancies. To go on ending the lives of their children. The line of reasoning that says each one of us starts out exactly the same way as the baby in the womb is perfectly valid. And has consequences beyond abortion.

Actually, I make it sound that way because:

- It is the law.
- because I am tired of going round and round with your insistance that only your opinion should be accepted and to h*** with anyone else.
- because I am tired of abortion being called murder.
- It is the law
- because law and morality may be correspondant but are not
congruent.
- because I have respect for a woman's right to her body.
- It is the law
- because I am tired of being impuned for wanting to kill.
- because the validity of an opinion is does not require elimination of other valid opinions.
- It is the law.

We have both made points for our opinion and you completely reject mine without respect. I do not lack respect for your opinion even in not agreeing with it.

My curtesy is beginning to fade so I will re-iterate the only opinion that counts - It is tha law.

HRG_new

May 2nd 2004, 10:04 AM

Bob, Bob, Bob. Abortion is not only about law. You make it sound so isolated, so sterile. Morality and law are not mutually exclusive. I guess you have to make it sound that way so that women can go on terminating pregnancies. To go on ending the lives of their children.

No, that would be homicide. We are talking about embryos and fetuses, not about children. Tips how to distinguish the former from the latter can be had on demand.

The line of reasoning that says each one of us starts out exactly the same way as the baby in the womb is perfectly valid. And has consequences beyond abortion.

But "I" did not start as a non-sentient embryo. A non-sentient entity cannot be an "I". "I" am not a thing; "I" am a process running on brain hardware. It's that running process that maintains my identity when the molecules which make up my body are replaced by others or when I should someday get a liver/kidney/heart transplant. Once that process has stopped irreversibly, a living human body (aka a human life) is said to be brain-dead and may be killed without qualms.

This identity resides in the brain. If someday brain transplants will be medically feasible, we will not say that somebody got a new brain, but that someone got a new body.

Thus "I" cannot be identical to an organism without a working brain.

EvoUK

May 2nd 2004, 10:17 AM

Um, in a thread concerning when protectable life begins (when actual life begins is unquestioned) do you really think what the current legal position is adds anything to the conversation?

Yup- I think it’s a factor.

How in the world does the current legal position have relevance to that question.

Because we came to the current legal position based on what we know about development of the z/e/f as well as various court cases throughout the years.

"My friends and I like my definition and do not like yours, therefore your position is wrong".

No, it’s more like “you haven’t given any logical reason why you came to your conclusion, so I have to assume you’ve arbitrarily chosen it, until you do so”.

Also as I said the first time, as long as I have the numbers I can argue as I wish. (Of course you could just appeal to the courts and override the majority-Just like abortion was legalized in the first place).

Oh, you have got to be joking- abortion has been around as long as human civilisation has- hell, it predates it. There are more restrictions now on abortion than there used to be a couple hundred years ago. The “good old days”, where women were respected, abortions were illegal etc are a myth.

Still waiting for a better answer than "I don't like your standard", before a real conversation can begin.

Give justification for your standard. I’ve been waiting for a few posts now- and the closest you’ve gotten was a vague biblical quote.

Well first off we both view where life begins as an event.

Nope. You view it as an event, therefore you conclude it’s a human being at conception (the earliest possible stage). I view the development of the z/e/f into a human being as a process. Therefore, I conclude it becomes an ethical consideration when it’s viable outside the womb.

Again all science can say is what happens when (Science can tell us when one is viable outside of the womb but it cannot tell us that this fact is important).

The more we learn about the human brain the better we can become at distinguishing when abortion becomes an ethical consideration. Medical ethics are quite a big thing in science- from all aspects of it from drug testing to surgery.

I’d like to know how the foetus being viable outside the womb (i.e., no longer being dependant on the mother) is unimportant in the abortion issue.

We have to decide if it is something relevant in the discussion.

I consider it self-explanatory. Perhaps you can explain why it’s not important.

Since you cannot lean on science to give weight to your decision, then you are at least as arbitrary as you claim that I am.

Ultimately, it’s all arbitrary- pretty much everything we discuss in this issue will be. Why arbitrary decide that it’s not ok to kill another human being? Well, due to our social instincts, the answer is obvious to both of us.

When I discuss abortion, I talk mainly about 1st trimester abortion. As the child gains sentience, however, it becomes aware and grows a central nervous system, allowing it to feel pain. This then becomes a decision based on medical abnormalities. In my opinion, the best choice to go through after the 2nd trimester is adoption, and even that can lead to some level of guilt, perhaps.

You have just arbitrarily chosen that human life is not protectable at birth.

Quote me or retract the statement. I have said no such thing.

You have to get to a certain age before you can be protected.

Z/e/f has to be at a certain stage of development before having them aborted becomes an ethical issue IMO yes.

What is your reason for wanting abortion to be illegal from conception, exactly? I’m genuinely interested, because your argument has basically seen you on the offensive- and I’ve yet to see you really defend and clarify your position.

Now what you might have meant is life is a process that continues to one dies instead of saying becoming a human being is a process.

both are true.

What in this statement is not arbitrary?

Ok- a cancerous growth has human DNA, and it’s distinct from the person it grew from (being the result of a genetic mutation). Should we give rights to the cancerous growth? Does it have the right to stay on the persons body? So you see, having human DNA by itself isn’t good enough reason to extend rights- the fact that you probably believe it to be such a silly example shows this.

You just claim by your authority that is this not enough to "acquire" protection rights.

As you’re arguing, then I take it you think having DNA is good enough reason to acquire rights. Why?

"I want abortion to stay legal"

"Why"

"Cause it would be very inconvenient otherwise"

Quaint. Although technically, we don’t have the ability to deal with the situation that would occur were all abortions to be made illegal- it’s irrelevant at the moment. First you have to show that it’s worthy of the same rights as you or me.

ChristianTrader

May 2nd 2004, 02:38 PM

Yup- I think it’s a factor.

Not in determining what is the right thing to do.

Because we came to the current legal position based on what we know about development of the z/e/f as well as various court cases throughout the years.

We came to the current legal position based on certain assumption that different stages of development are to be granted different rights to protection. Since I challenge that assumption, I do not see how citing court cases is relevant here.

No, it’s more like “you haven’t given any logical reason why you came to your conclusion, so I have to assume you’ve arbitrarily chosen it, until you do so”.

Yo Pot, its friend Kettle.

Actually, I have given my logical reasoning, but you just do not like it. I have stated (at least to the same effect) that previous to conception, there is the mother's egg and the father's sperm. After conception, you have a living, unique, homo-sapien. Every distinction (for the case of protectable life) made after conception is arbitrary.

Oh, you have got to be joking- abortion has been around as long as human civilisation has- hell, it predates it.

Um just like murder and rape have been around for very long times. Your point?

Also what does your response have to do with my statement that preceded it? I just talked about the legality of abortion. So unless you are trying to argue that abortion has always been legal, then I do not see the point of your statement.

There are more restrictions now on abortion than there used to be a couple hundred years ago. The “good old days”, where women were respected, abortions were illegal etc are a myth.

Of course there are more restriction, because it was previously illegal. It is very hard to place restriction on a procedure that is completely illegal. This is like making the point (if marijuana was just made legal) that there were more legal restriction on it after being made legal than when it was illegal. True but so what?

Also I thought one of the arguments to legalize abortion was the coat hanger argument. You mean that was a lie?

Give justification for your standard. I’ve been waiting for a few posts now- and the closest you’ve gotten was a vague biblical quote.

Since you wrote this in response to my asking you to justify your standard, I think it is okay to now assume that you cannot do so and hence are arbitrary. So what we have is a person who is completely arbitrary complaining about a person that uses the Bible. Humm....

Nope. You view it as an event, therefore you conclude it’s a human being at conception (the earliest possible stage). I view the development of the z/e/f into a human being as a process. Therefore, I conclude it becomes an ethical consideration when it’s viable outside the womb.

Okay if you view it as a process, you then are arbitrarily dictating when the process is over and one is a human being (at viability). Why not choose when the "process" begins instead of ends?

Also one thing that you need to explain to me. How can viability truly be your standard for being a human being. For viability changes as technology changes. Lets say technology progresses to the point where a baby can survive one month after conception on the outside (due to a special bubble). He is now a human being after a month? A baby a month after conception, can do the same things a baby a month after conception could always do. Therefore being a human being is not about what one can do, but instead what one is dependent on? That is the height of arbitrariness.

Next, what about differences in technology in different countries. It is possible that certain technologies are only available in rich countries, does that mean that in the US one would become a human being in one month and deserve protection, while in other countries you become a human being at five months and abortion is okay until then?

The more we learn about the human brain the better we can become at distinguishing when abortion becomes an ethical consideration. Medical ethics are quite a big thing in science- from all aspects of it from drug testing to surgery.

First you would have to assume that the maturity of the brain is relevant in this discussion. Please justify.

I’d like to know how the foetus being viable outside the womb (i.e., no longer being dependant on the mother) is unimportant in the abortion issue.

It is unimportant because it is arbitrary to say being dependent on the mother is somehow less cool than being dependent on some sort of machine. What is so important about not being dependent on the mother or is it just something arbitrary again.

I consider it self-explanatory. Perhaps you can explain why it’s not important.

If it is so self-explanatory then you should not have a problem explaining it. Or is self-explanatory another way of saying, I cannot justify my position but if you disagree you are just stupid.

Ultimately, it’s all arbitrary- pretty much everything we discuss in this issue will be. Why arbitrary decide that it’s not ok to kill another human being? Well, due to our social instincts, the answer is obvious to both of us.

Ah, you finally admitted it, your position is arbitrary. Since it is arbitrary, you really cannot fight against any other position, except by the I do not like your position argument.

You have just acknowledge one of the number one problem with atheism, the lack of objective ethics. The whatever a society does is right argument. You know there are things that are wrong, regardless of what a society says, but you cannot defend it from your atheistic position.

And no, the answer is not obvious to me. For I see not murdering a human being as being objectively good and murdering a human being as being objectively evil and against the nature of God.

When I discuss abortion, I talk mainly about 1st trimester abortion. As the child gains sentience, however, it becomes aware and grows a central nervous system, allowing it to feel pain. This then becomes a decision based on medical abnormalities. In my opinion, the best choice to go through after the 2nd trimester is adoption, and even that can lead to some level of guilt, perhaps.

But this is again is completely arbitrary. Why is sentience (being able to feel pain etc.) necessary before one can be protected. Not only that but why is sentience necessary to be protected if one is inside the mother but not necessary if one is instead inside of some high tech machine? Convenience?

Quote me or retract the statement. I have said no such thing.

I apologize. I mistyped. I meant to say, "You have just arbitrarily chosen that human life is protectable at birth." I think it would be even better to say that you have arbitrarily chosen that human life is protectable at viability.

Z/e/f has to be at a certain stage of development before having them aborted becomes an ethical issue IMO yes.

Why?

What is your reason for wanting abortion to be illegal from conception, exactly? I’m genuinely interested, because your argument has basically seen you on the offensive- and I’ve yet to see you really defend and clarify your position.

Ive been asking you the same question with no answer. One thing is that it is the only non-arbitrary position, and second if there is any question about life or being hood, the tie must go to the preborn (for right to life is the most important right). Third, the Bible's position is that those who take the life of the preborn should be punished "life for life". (Definitely not in that order of importance).

What is your defense again?

Ok- a cancerous growth has human DNA, and it’s distinct from the person it grew from (being the result of a genetic mutation). Should we give rights to the cancerous growth? Does it have the right to stay on the persons body? So you see, having human DNA by itself isn’t good enough reason to extend rights- the fact that you probably believe it to be such a silly example shows this.

First, is cancerous growth the only thing that can result from a genetic mutation? If not then why did you use it as an example, besides some emotional points.

Next, if a professional was to look at the dna of a women, and then compare it to the dna of a tumor inside her and her unborn babu's dna, would they have trouble telling the difference between the two? Also can a tumor have a different blood types than the "host"?

Also given more time, does not change what you are, it just changes your maturity level. A cancerous tumor does not become anything else but a old cancerous tumor.

As you’re arguing, then I take it you think having DNA is good enough reason to acquire rights. Why?

I dont think "having" human dna is a reason to acquire rights. A monkey could be injected with such and it would not have any extra rights. My argument is that the right to life is not is not to be conferred based on maturity level.

Quaint. Although technically, we don’t have the ability to deal with the situation that would occur were all abortions to be made illegal- it’s irrelevant at the moment. First you have to show that it’s worthy of the same rights as you or me.

Well I think we were basically good before abortion was legalized so why not now? Also I do not think that all abortion would stop because it was made illegal. It was happening before it was made legal so it will happen after it is made illegal again.

No, first you need to show why your position of level of maturity is not arbitrary, versus the position where level of maturity is not factored into the equation, instead just the beginning of life is.

CT

EvoUK

May 2nd 2004, 04:39 PM

Your argument has been hashed out ad nausiem on this very thread already:

It's human in the same sense that my fingernails are human. They certainly aren't feline! Yet my fingernails do not have (or deserve) Constitutional protection because they are not people, they are not human beings.

[…]

the fetus is not a "being", at least not in the earlier stages. It is not sentient, it has no successfully developed brain, no CNS, no consciousness. No personhood.

[…]

You're still missing the point. There's a difference between a human life and a human being. I personally believe that a fetus in its latest stages IS a human being because the brain is developed enough to warrant it. Some of my fellow atheists may disagree, and that's okay. But in the earlier stages, there just isn't anything there that resembles a brain and CNS capable of supporting sentience... and that is really what we're protecting when we pass laws that protect "people". We don't bestow Constitutional protections onto hands and limbs because everyone knows those things are just a part of a person. You can still be a person without them. The brain on the other hand is an organ we cannot exist as a person without. Brain damage changes personalities, destroys and distorts memories, and sometimes kills a person altogether even if their heart is still beating.

It's arbitrary. Like the age of consent.

[…]

According to you, we have to ask "What IS a person who is too
young to vote but old enough to have sex? What is it about them
that deserves precisely these rights?"
The answer is that there is, and need be, nothing.

[…]

Perhaps the real disagreement here is not over the rights
a fetus should have, but the foundation of rights themselves:
divine law, natural law, man-made law, ...

[…]

Also it is not obvious that everything we choose to call a "human being"
necessarily deserves the right to life. I would say that fetuses,
which you can call "human beings" if you like,
only get the right to life at a certain age or stage of development.
Exactly when is arbitrary and up for negotiation.
This is just like the age of consent, the voting age, etc. These are
all arbitrary (what is the difference between someone one day before
his 18th birthday and one day after?) but for ease of implementation
we have to put a sharp dividing line somewhere.

[…]

The fact that states have laws requiring that human beings in need
should be treated, and that no-one agitates for applying those laws
to embryos that will die by natural causes unless there is medical
intervention, shows that no-one really, in practical terms,
thinks of an embryo as a human being.

DNA only lets you decide what is human, not what is a human being.

[…]

Any of the tissues in my body are human. None would be called a human being, even if it was one I cannot live without.

Pro-life people seem to equivocate and decide that simply by virtue of the embryo being a human embryo it deserves the rights of a human being.

The point was that the "unique human DNA" argument is not convincing because it includes human cell cultures.

But the fact remains that an embryo at the time most abortions take place is as sentient, self-aware etc. as a fingernail, or a cell culture.

Personally, I think that abortion starts to become an ethical consideration when it has a functioning CNS, and even more so when it's viable outside of the womb (late term abortions, which I'm against unless in extreme
circumstances). That would be my stance on the matter.

[…]

The argument usually works in one of two ways- either stating that the zygote has human DNA (therefore being "human"), and then stating that i's "alive", finishing up by concluding that it's therefore human life. or merely assert that it's a human being from the moment of conception and leaving it there.

We can leave out the latter as merely an assertion, but the former we can go further into.

It's regarded as obvious that the zygote is 'alive', because you can just ask any biologist and they'll tell you that all functioning cells are alive. Therefore, the zygote is a living human, right?

When we say of another human 'he is alive', we are not talking about the biological use of the word, whether we know it or not. We are usually actually talking about their posession of a mind. The person can see you, think about you, and talk to you. In other words, they posess a personality. This becomes obvious when you think about 'brain death'. A body can essentially lose its brain, but remain 'alive' by the biological definition: it can still breath, digest, probably reproduce with a bit of help (don't think too hard about that one) and some stimulus response in bound to stick about, even if its rudimentary automatic cellular stuff. This person is nevertheless dead. There is no person there for us to talk to, or to think about us. If we loved them, we should mourn their passing.

[…]

No pro-choicer who actually knows what he's talking about will deny that a zygote/embryo/foetus is human. It contains Human DNA, so is human by definition. What they will deny is that a z/e/f is a human being. Whilst the pro-lifers make continuous assertions that z/e/f are human beings, they have never actually shown this to be the case.

[…]

I see the intrinsic value in a human being (You, myself, or even Shrub). I see no intrinsic value in human life (skin cells, zygotes, finger nails etc).

I see absolutely no reason why a z/e/f, which isn't viable by itself outside of the womb should be granted the same rights as you or myself. To move this discussion out of the loop we've found ourselves in- perhaps you can address this question.

I might remind you that the example of gem stone, given in definition of intrinsic by Love-Warrior, has much less value in a crude state and the value, at that point, is assign by the potential of the gem stone. The ultimate value is, of course, much greater later and is out of proportion to the manufacturing process.

OneFollowingHim

May 3rd 2004, 06:32 AM

Actually, I make it sound that way because:

- It is the law.
- because I am tired of going round and round with your insistance that only your opinion should be accepted and to h*** with anyone else.
- because I am tired of abortion being called murder.
- It is the law
- because law and morality may be correspondant but are not
congruent.
- because I have respect for a woman's right to her body.
- It is the law
- because I am tired of being impuned for wanting to kill.
- because the validity of an opinion is does not require elimination of other valid opinions.
- It is the law.

We have both made points for our opinion and you completely reject mine without respect. I do not lack respect for your opinion even in not agreeing with it.

My curtesy is beginning to fade so I will re-iterate the only opinion that counts - It is tha law.Okay, so it's the law. Does that make it right? I like what Koukl says about abortion, so I'll use it here.

From the OP in this thread...

Let's put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

Bob Jenkins

May 3rd 2004, 07:15 AM

Okay, so it's the law. Does that make it right?
...

Yes

Gilgaron

May 3rd 2004, 03:04 PM

Thanks for that answer.
You're welcome.

Conception begins the life of all of us. In that regard, the fertilized egg is a person. He or she is exactly they same as each one of us when we were at that stage of our life.
We can easily go back before then... once most of you was probably corn. Why only go back that far?

You don't qualify "late term." If "late term" qualifies the baby in the womb for squatters rights, why not "early term"? Does it really matter how long the baby is in there?
Yes. There would need to be a reasonable period of time for a woman to realize she is pregnant, consider her options, and schedule the procedure. Furthermore, the longer the fetus is in there the further it develops... no matter where a person draws their arbitrary line the longer you have development the closer you get to it, if you don't cross it.

Early is also safer for the mother.

Look at it this way. Women know that sex can cause pregnancy (most anyway, some may not, but that's another topic). Preganancy = Baby. That's precisely why they want to get rid of her. They don't want a baby. And it's convenient to just kill it. The pregnancy ends, no more baby.
Begs the question. I can also end the process that results in a baby by having a vasectomy, yet this is not abortion.

Since women know that after conception a new life begins, should they be allowed to escape the responsibility to that new life? They had a need or desire for sex and sex can result in pregnanacy and pregnancy results in a baby.
Taking reasonable precautions against pregnancy leaves you in a weaker position.

Even if we were to concede the point for sake of argument, stepping into a dark alley in a bad neighborhood would put one at higher risk for being mugged, yet it is not the person's fault for being mugged that they entered the alley.

With your squatters rights argument, the mother should be responsible at every stage of her childs life, not just the "late term" portion of the pregnanacy.
Your terminology begs the question. Is she also responsible for the lives of the unfertilized ova and fertlized ova that do not implant that could have been brought up in vitro had she saved them by carefully monitoring her physiology at all times?

OneFollowingHim

May 3rd 2004, 06:28 PM

Okay, so it's the law. Does that make it right?Yes
So, might makes right. If Dr. Peter Singer was in charge, and killing 3 month children was law, that would be right too?

OneFollowingHim

May 3rd 2004, 06:41 PM

You're welcome.

We can easily go back before then... once most of you was probably corn. Why only go back that far?

Yes. There would need to be a reasonable period of time for a woman to realize she is pregnant, consider her options, and schedule the procedure. Furthermore, the longer the fetus is in there the further it develops... no matter where a person draws their arbitrary line the longer you have development the closer you get to it, if you don't cross it.

Early is also safer for the mother.

Begs the question. I can also end the process that results in a baby by having a vasectomy, yet this is not abortion.

Taking reasonable precautions against pregnancy leaves you in a weaker position.

Even if we were to concede the point for sake of argument, stepping into a dark alley in a bad neighborhood would put one at higher risk for being mugged, yet it is not the person's fault for being mugged that they entered the alley.

Your terminology begs the question. Is she also responsible for the lives of the unfertilized ova and fertlized ova that do not implant that could have been brought up in vitro had she saved them by carefully monitoring her physiology at all times?So you think aborting a fertilized human egg is no more wrong than eating corn-on-the-cob, having a vasectomy, or a woman having her monthly period? Is that the point you're making?

Da Lone-Warrior

May 3rd 2004, 06:46 PM

OneFollowingHim

May 3rd 2004, 07:23 PM

So you think aborting a fertilized human egg is no more wrong than eating corn-on-the-cob, having a vasectomy, or a woman having her monthly period? Is that the point you're making?

I think the point is that since the newly-fertilized human egg isn't a human being that aborting it is not murder.

One can still view this as "tragic" or not a good thing, but not see it as murder.

dlw
You're consitent. Making other people's points for them that is. Do you do that for everyone? Oh, no, not for everyone. I know at least one person you neglected to make the point for.

Da Lone-Warrior

May 3rd 2004, 07:42 PM

You're consitent. Making other people's points for them that is. Do you do that for everyone? Oh, no, not for everyone. I know at least one person you neglected to make the point for.

I've never seen any evidence that others did not understand your basic position. Hence, my inconsistency.

dlw

Gilgaron

May 3rd 2004, 09:17 PM

DLW probably understands my position better than I do :wink: Who he chooses to back up is his own business. He's under no obligation to be egalitarian.

My point is that it is no less arbitrary to choose conception as your dividing line. Justification is what is important, there are no easy answers.

The difference between a fertilized and unfertilized ovum is a few chromosomes.

PennyDreadful

May 3rd 2004, 09:29 PM

From what I've gathered, a human being, in your eyes, must be sentient. Please define sentient in terms of how you would argue.

EvoUK

May 3rd 2004, 09:40 PM

For this particular case (abortion) it's viability outside the womb predominantly. As has been mentioned, any line we place will be, at its heart, arbitary. Defining it as human right fom conception produces all sorts of problems in any practical sense, and is unworkable in reality (no, this doesn't come under "convenience", however, we do need to be able to do something if we make it legal/illegal).

With regards to a z/e/f with no developed CNS and brain etc- I don't see any ethical problem in having it aborted. So this includes the 1st trimester abortions (when most abortions are carried out)- I have no problem with it. As the CNS and brain becomes more developed, it becomes more of an ethical issue until finally, when the foetus is viable outside the womb, I don't think it should be aborted (a baby at that point is little different to one just been born IMO) unless in relevent medical circumstances.

I.e. I think there should be reasonable limits and regulations on abortion- but I see absolutely no reason for it to be illegalised completely (which I feel is a rather extremist view- much like the view it should be aborted legally, with no problems up until birth is extremist).

PennyDreadful

May 3rd 2004, 10:37 PM

For this particular case (abortion) it's viability outside the womb predominantly.
So sentience is defined as to how well one lives in a certain location, whether that be alone, naked, on the North Pole, or outside the womb?

As has been mentioned, any line we place will be, at its heart, arbitary. Defining it as human right fom conception produces all sorts of problems in any practical sense, and is unworkable in reality (no, this doesn't come under "convenience", however, we do need to be able to do something if we make it legal/illegal).
I'm willing to tackle those problems. I do agree that absolute adherence to the law, and acceptance of one's responsibilities for breaking it is unworkable in reality, but I thank God for forgiveness. =)

With regards to a z/e/f with no developed CNS and brain etc- I don't see any ethical problem in having it aborted. So this includes the 1st trimester abortions (when most abortions are carried out)- I have no problem with it. As the CNS and brain becomes more developed, it becomes more of an ethical issue until finally, when the foetus is viable outside the womb, I don't think it should be aborted (a baby at that point is little different to one just been born IMO) unless in relevent medical circumstances.
If *measurable*, or *detectable* brainwaves are the criteria you need to prevent an abortion, consider the following:

Brainwaves are measurable by less than two months' gestation. A lot of women find out that they are pregnant after this passes.
I would hope that we're not so arrogant as to think we have reached the zenith of scientific knowledge, i.e., is it possible our instruments are unable to detect or measure fetal brain activity?
The brain has completely formed no more than one month post-ovulation.

Da Lone-Warrior

May 3rd 2004, 11:00 PM

PennyDreadful,

another point that must be considered is that our ability to make the laws of where we live consistent with what we believe is right-conduct will always be limited.

I also personally believe that the relatively early onset of some brain-activity should be the basis for personal conservativism regarding abortion. Though, I don't think that abortafacient technologies that prevent the formed zygote from attaching to the womb should be prohibited.

However, I strongly doubt that we could ever legally prohibit elective abortion in the US in the near future any early than the end of the first trimester. And I also believe that our ability to make some legal restrictions will depend on whether we accept the political futility of permanently making all abortions illegal again.

In general, when you seek political reforms, if your proposed changes are more moderate and provoke the vested interests less then you are more likely to be succesful in whatever changes are proposed. Then, one's political capital/activism can be redirected to measures that discourage 1st trimester abortions and that help save already-born lives, such as those in the under-developed world.

dlw

PennyDreadful

May 3rd 2004, 11:37 PM

another point that must be considered is that our ability to make the laws of where we live consistent with what we believe is right-conduct will always be limited.
Agreed.

Though, I don't think that abortafacient technologies that prevent the formed zygote from attaching to the womb should be prohibited.
Sounds like the prohibition of life to me.

However, I strongly doubt that we could ever legally prohibit elective abortion in the US in the near future any early than the end of the first trimester. And I also believe that our ability to make some legal restrictions will depend on whether we accept the political futility of permanently making all abortions illegal again.
Thank God for faith, HOPE, and love. =)

In general, when you seek political reforms, if your proposed changes are more moderate and provoke the vested interests less then you are more likely to be succesful in whatever changes are proposed.
I'm not sure if moderation interests me all that much. *wink*

Then, one's political capital/activism can be redirected to measures that discourage 1st trimester abortions and that help save already-born lives, such as those in the under-developed world.
I do of course appreciate the other aspects of the pro-life movement (prevention of unnecessary death, infanticide, genocide, euthanasia and abortion) but I am only human. I can only do, at most, a few things of this callibre at a time. One of the arguments I tend to run up against is that in order to save one life, I must save them all. This is ludicrous, and impossible, but I will do my part, and right now I'm concentrated on illegalizing (at least) partial birth abortion.

PennyDreadful

Da Lone-Warrior

May 4th 2004, 12:55 PM

Sounds like the prohibition of life to me.

But it isn't murder since the newly-formed zygote doesn't have any brain-activity and that is a necessary ingredient for it to be considered at a mininum a human being.

Thank God for faith, HOPE, and love. =)

Our Hopes for the future rest in the lord. In any particular issue regarding the sinfulness of this world we still must pray the serenity prayer asking for the serenity to accept the things we cannot change and the courage to change the things we can change and the wisdom to tell the difference. Pro-lifers that insist we must strive to make almost all abortions illegal again haven't demonstrated much wisdom, IMO.

I'm not sure if moderation interests me all that much. *wink*

An unwillingness to accept limitations will make feasible changes less likely to happen since the opposition will be more likely to refuse to compromise. That will then result in more abortions taking place than otherwise would.

I do of course appreciate the other aspects of the pro-life movement (prevention of unnecessary death, infanticide, genocide, euthanasia and abortion) but I am only human. I can only do, at most, a few things of this callibre at a time. One of the arguments I tend to run up against is that in order to save one life, I must save them all. This is ludicrous, and impossible, but I will do my part, and right now I'm concentrated on illegalizing (at least) partial birth abortion.

We are fallible in our judgements as to what is most important.

The PBAban will not prevent abortions. It will make doctors need to use a different abortion technique.

My proposal is to press for a constitutional amendment that would permit the legal redefinition of when human life begins by a nat'l referendum that would require a 75% majority to pass. This would make elective abortions illegal after certain stages throughout the country. The precise stage would be subject to change as the hearts of the majority of the country are changed.

What makes this work, though, is that it simultaneously makes legal change possible and ensures that there will be limits to legal changes. That guarantees that pro-choice opposition will not be that strong and so a constitutional amendment is feasible.

dlw

Gilgaron

May 4th 2004, 02:58 PM

Here (http://www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html) is a page I just Googled up that may be helpful.

EvoUK

May 4th 2004, 03:30 PM

So sentience is defined as to how well one lives in a certain location, whether that be alone, naked, on the North Pole, or outside the womb?

No, not merely on location. As I said later in the previous post- a foetus an hour before it’s born and a baby an hour later aren’t that different (their locations are the only things that have really changed in any meaningful way).

It’s the ability of the foetus to survive by itself which is dependant- its viability. Yes, if I were left in the artic, I would die without the proper shelter and clothing (humans are depressingly inadaptable physically)- however, I also do not rely on my mothers body to give me food and oxygen. An unviable foetus does. That’s all that viable means in any practical terms.

I'm willing to tackle those problems.

I would be interested to see what you think these problems would be, and how they can be tackled. Not as a debate point as such, rather just a personal interest.

Brainwaves are measurable by less than two months' gestation. A lot of women find out that they are pregnant after this passes.

Gilgaron has posted a link that deals with this.

I would hope that we're not so arrogant as to think we have reached the zenith of scientific knowledge, i.e., is it possible our instruments are unable to detect or measure fetal brain activity?

Good thing laws etc aren’t set in stone isn’t it?

ChristianTrader

May 4th 2004, 05:11 PM

Your argument has been hashed out ad nausiem on this very thread already:

Why did not you just say you did not want to play anymore.

Argument Set 1

It's human in the same sense that my fingernails are human. They certainly aren't feline! Yet my fingernails do not have (or deserve) Constitutional protection because they are not people, they are not human beings.

Um, one moment there partner. Fingernails are a part of the human to with they are attached. This is different from the unborn for they are unique individual human beings that are dependent and inside of another human being for a certain period of time in their early development.

Since this is the case, you have not shown why the preborn/unborn are not deserving of constitutional protection against murder.

the fetus is not a "being", at least not in the earlier stages. It is not sentient, it has no successfully developed brain, no CNS, no consciousness. No personhood.

Here the old sentient question. First, why is sentient any less arbitrary than any other criteria for protectable life. Second, it seems that the proper view is you have a human being if one has potential to gain to become sentient or you would have to say that those in comas are not human beings. Third, a person can be seriously harmed even if they do not recognize (now or at anytime in the future) that they have been harmed.

You're still missing the point. There's a difference between a human life and a human being.

An arbitrary distinction of course.

I personally believe that a fetus in its latest stages IS a human being because the brain is developed enough to warrant it.

Once again an appeal to personal authority.

Some of my fellow atheists may disagree, and that's okay. But in the earlier stages, there just isn't anything there that resembles a brain and CNS capable of supporting sentience... and that is really what we're protecting when we pass laws that protect "people".

Humm so your position is one deserves protections because they have the potential to be sentient (your words were capable of supporting sentience), instead of actual sentience? If so you are arbitrarily excluding the very young because they also have the same potential.

Next, how we have written the laws is pretty irrelevant to how we should write them.

We don't bestow Constitutional protections onto hands and limbs because everyone knows those things are just a part of a person. You can still be a person without them. The brain on the other hand is an organ we cannot exist as a person without. Brain damage changes personalities, destroys and distorts memories, and sometimes kills a person altogether even if their heart is still beating.

Brain damage can do all you say, but is a person who is brain damaged no longer a person or less of a person?

It seems that the sentient argument comes down to no harm done if you do not know about it, and that is just plain wrong.

Argument Set Two

It's arbitrary. Like the age of consent.

[…]

According to you, we have to ask "What IS a person who is too
young to vote but old enough to have sex? What is it about them
that deserves precisely these rights?"
The answer is that there is, and need be, nothing.

First, the question of when does protectable life begins is much bigger and has larger consequences than when one can drive etc., so one must be super careful in coming to answer. Second, when one keeps running into the issue of doing arbitrary things, one question that one should ask is why do I need to do anything at all? What are the consequences of not doing this arbitrary things?

Perhaps the real disagreement here is not over the rights
a fetus should have, but the foundation of rights themselves:
divine law, natural law, man-made law, ...

Wow that is a big and good question there. However it still skirts the question. Regardless of how you answer that question, the same issue will rise up. For example with man-made law, one must still solve the question of what is the proper man made law for this situation.

Also it is not obvious that everything we choose to call a "human being"
necessarily deserves the right to life. I would say that fetuses,
which you can call "human beings" if you like,
only get the right to life at a certain age or stage of development.
Exactly when is arbitrary and up for negotiation.
This is just like the age of consent, the voting age, etc. These are
all arbitrary (what is the difference between someone one day before
his 18th birthday and one day after?) but for ease of implementation
we have to put a sharp dividing line somewhere.

Again why do we even need to make the arbitrary choice? Unlike consent and voting, if one did not make a choice somewhere, one would either never be able to vote etc. or one would be able to vote as soon as one could hold a pen or touch a screen.

The fact that states have laws requiring that human beings in need
should be treated, and that no-one agitates for applying those laws
to embryos that will die by natural causes unless there is medical
intervention, shows that no-one really, in practical terms,
thinks of an embryo as a human being.

First a question, because someone dies of natural causes does that mean that their family has the right to sue for violation of state law? Next, there is the problem of differing medical opinion. One doctor can say one procedure is necessary for life and another one can say that it is not necessary for life. Next, when a pre-born is sick, this society has worked really hard to develop techniques to help save their lives. Lastly, it is a bit hard to yell and scream about medical treatment for mandated medical treatment for the preborn when it is completely legal to butcher them. To do otherwise is to put the cart in front of the horse.

Argument Set 3

DNA only lets you decide what is human, not what is a human being.

Well, duh. Fortunately my argument is not that anything with human dna is an individual unique human being. The argument is that at conception, there is a transformation from parts of other human being (sperm and egg) to a new individual living human being. One sign of it being a human being is its unique dna code.

Any of the tissues in my body are human. None would be called a human being, even if it was one I cannot live without.

Okay, and if you became pregnant you would have a "tissue" (don't exactly like this use of the term) that would be a human being inside of you.

Pro-life people seem to equivocate and decide that simply by virtue of the embryo being a human embryo it deserves the rights of a human being.

There is no equivocation here. It is on your side, for in order to say a human pre-born is does not deserve protection rights, one has to make some arbitrary distinction. Even in your statement, you assume this arbitrary distinction and then speak as if the other side is the arbitrary one.

Argument Set 4

The point was that the "unique human DNA" argument is not convincing because it includes human cell cultures.

Again, the argument is not the unique human DNA issue. It is that the new human being that came into existance at conception, has a unique human DNA. That other things have unique DNA is not of any consequence.

But the fact remains that an embryo at the time most abortions take place is as sentient, self-aware etc. as a fingernail, or a cell culture.

All your stating is that one cannot be harmed unless they know they are being harmed. That is just nonsense.

Argument Set 5

Personally, I think that abortion starts to become an ethical consideration when it has a functioning CNS, and even more so when it's viable outside of the womb (late term abortions, which I'm against unless in extreme
circumstances). That would be my stance on the matter.

First problem, viability does not necessary have to come after functioning CNS. It usually does today but tomorrow is a different question. If this was to happen, then protectable life is determined by technology versus what one is able to do. Which standard do you want to use? Also do you also believe that a person can only be harmed if they know that they are being harmed?

The argument usually works in one of two ways- either stating that the zygote has human DNA (therefore being "human"), and then stating that i's "alive", finishing up by concluding that it's therefore human life. or merely assert that it's a human being from the moment of conception and leaving it there.

An egg or sperm has human dna so the human dna is not that impressive. The issue is an unique human dna resultant from the transformation that occurs at conception and the living or alive aspect.

We can leave out the latter as merely an assertion, but the former we can go further into.

To be fair, is that assertion any less valid than anything you have put forward?

It's regarded as obvious that the zygote is 'alive', because you can just ask any biologist and they'll tell you that all functioning cells are alive. Therefore, the zygote is a living human, right?

Basically.

When we say of another human 'he is alive', we are not talking about the biological use of the word, whether we know it or not. We are usually actually talking about their posession of a mind. The person can see you, think about you, and talk to you. In other words, they posess a personality. This becomes obvious when you think about 'brain death'. A body can essentially lose its brain, but remain 'alive' by the biological definition: it can still breath, digest, probably reproduce with a bit of help (don't think too hard about that one) and some stimulus response in bound to stick about, even if its rudimentary automatic cellular stuff. This person is nevertheless dead. There is no person there for us to talk to, or to think about us. If we loved them, we should mourn their passing.

First off you are using the issue of how we use words in order to define the preborn from being human beings. Because we usually use wording in a certain way, does not mean that it would not be valid to use wording in a different way.

Secondly, Would we call a person brain dead if we knew that in a month or two their brain would start working again. We would probably begin using a term like hibernation. If this was possible, then one would not be allowed to just pull the plug on the person. Therefore the using the analogy of what happens at the end of life and that which happens at the beginning of life does not hold.

No pro-choicer who actually knows what he's talking about will deny that a zygote/embryo/foetus is human. It contains Human DNA, so is human by definition. What they will deny is that a z/e/f is a human being. Whilst the pro-lifers make continuous assertions that z/e/f are human beings, they have never actually shown this to be the case.

Again this is a definitional question. It is trivial to define the preborn as not human beings and then say "you cannot show them to be human beings".

I see the intrinsic value in a human being (You, myself, or even Shrub). I see no intrinsic value in human life (skin cells, zygotes, finger nails etc).

The problem here is that you keep equating skins cells, finger nails and zygotes. The first two are a part of a human being, while the last one is not. It is a unique, individual, living human being, that is very dependent on another human for life.

I see absolutely no reason why a z/e/f, which isn't viable by itself outside of the womb should be granted the same rights as you or myself. To move this discussion out of the loop we've found ourselves in- perhaps you can address this question.

Well, viability is a technology question, not a question of what the preborn is able to do at the current time. It seems a bit nutty to define a person as being a human being based on the technology available at the hospital that they are born in.

Argument Set 6

I might remind you that the example of gem stone, given in definition of intrinsic by Love-Warrior, has much less value in a crude state and the value, at that point, is assign by the potential of the gem stone. The ultimate value is, of course, much greater later and is out of proportion to the manufacturing process.

And 26 year old Phd scientists are more productive and valuable than 1 day old children. Your point is what?

CT

PennyDreadful

May 4th 2004, 05:36 PM

No, not merely on location. As I said later in the previous post- a foetus an hour before it’s born and a baby an hour later aren’t that different (their locations are the only things that have really changed in any meaningful way).

It’s the ability of the foetus to survive by itself which is dependant- its viability. Yes, if I were left in the artic, I would die without the proper shelter and clothing (humans are depressingly inadaptable physically)- however, I also do not rely on my mothers body to give me food and oxygen. An unviable foetus does. That’s all that viable means in any practical terms.
So whereas you rely on other forms of life to live in the North Pole (animals for food and clothing, if you were to do things the hard way; human touch and correspondence, which I'm not so sure as yet that anyone can do without) a fetus is labeled a parasite for a dependence on its mother, yet you are a viable human being?

I would be interested to see what you think these problems would be, and how they can be tackled. Not as a debate point as such, rather just a personal interest.
You yourself said that many problems arise from the idea that a human is such at the moment of conception. I do admit that I don't know everything (thank God =)) so I would like to know, outside of convenience, when a human life was first thought of as unviable at conception and therefore unworthy of life. There are many other things I would like/need to know, but as of now my main tactic is to convince a mother considering abortion that she think less of herself and more of her child (in most cases. I am of course willing to concede that not ALL women kill their children as a means of self-preservation).

Gilgaron has posted a link that deals with this.
Interesting. It seems the studies differ. Shall we formulate mutually acceptable results or just agree to disagree on this particular aspect?

Good thing laws etc aren’t set in stone isn’t it?
Yes, quite. =)

PennyDreadful

May 4th 2004, 05:53 PM

But it isn't murder since the newly-formed zygote doesn't have any brain-activity and that is a necessary ingredient for it to be considered at a mininum a human being.

Our Hopes for the future rest in the lord. In any particular issue regarding the sinfulness of this world we still must pray the serenity prayer asking for the serenity to accept the things we cannot change and the courage to change the things we can change and the wisdom to tell the difference. Pro-lifers that insist we must strive to make almost all abortions illegal again haven't demonstrated much wisdom, IMO.
Just as our hopes for the future rest in the Lord, so does the Lord hold the only right to give and take life. God knew me before he formed me in my mother's womb. I find it intellectually and spiritually dishonest to assume that brain-activity is a minimum requirement for status as a human being whereas the bible clearly states otherwise.

An unwillingness to accept limitations will make feasible changes less likely to happen since the opposition will be more likely to refuse to compromise. That will then result in more abortions taking place than otherwise would.
Granted, I could have used a better phrase. In other words, I am not so likely to give up. I am not fool-hardy, and I will take what ground I can gain, but I will not stop trying to gain more. I thank God for my limitations, for the weak shall be made strong. May the moderators forgive me if I misuse copyrighted material, but in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, his character Screwtape wrote to Wormwood: "If he is of the more hopeful type, your job is to make him acquiesce in the present low temperature of his spirit and gradually become content with it, persuading himself that it is not so low after all. In a week or two you will be making him doubt whether the first days of his Christianity were not, perhaps, a little excessive. Talk to him about "moderation in all things." .... A moderated religion is as good for us as no religion at all––and more amusing."

We are fallible in our judgements as to what is most important.
Agreed.

The PBAban will not prevent abortions. It will make doctors need to use a different abortion technique.

My proposal is to press for a constitutional amendment that would permit the legal redefinition of when human life begins by a nat'l referendum that would require a 75% majority to pass. This would make elective abortions illegal after certain stages throughout the country. The precise stage would be subject to change as the hearts of the majority of the country are changed.

What makes this work, though, is that it simultaneously makes legal change possible and ensures that there will be limits to legal changes. That guarantees that pro-choice opposition will not be that strong and so a constitutional amendment is feasible.
I love this idea, I think it's wonderful. =) I pray it will go through. I'm glad you are of a more legalistic mind, whereas I prefer to concentrate on individual cases. It takes all kinds.

God bless,
PennyDreadful

EvoUK

May 4th 2004, 05:57 PM

Why did not you just say you did not want to play anymore.

Though I find it mildly interesting, I wouldn’t call it a game precisely.

The point was that you bring up an argument already discussed in the thread previously- I quoted some of the posts made by various members to show it.

As for the rest of your post that are directed at other members- although I have a good feeling about what they were getting at, I won’t be presumptuous enough to answer for them.

I’ll send them a pm to let them know a newbie has joined in this old thread.

viability does not necessary have to come after functioning CNS. It usually does today but tomorrow is a different question.

and apples may stop falling to the floor tomorrow, what’s your point?

If this was to happen, then protectable life is determined by technology versus what one is able to do.

that comes under the loose category “hurdle we’ll jump when we come to it”. In other words, there’s no point planning for a step in our technology that may or may not happen in the future as reason to stop 1st trimester etc abortion.

Also do you also believe that a person can only be harmed if they know that they are being harmed?

Nope.

The issue is an unique human dna resultant from the transformation that occurs at conception and the living or alive aspect.

A cancer is “alive” and has unique DNA.

To be fair, is that assertion any less valid than anything you have put forward?

That assertion is our starting point- it is what we have now. You wish to change it from what it is now to the extremist version- which is total illegalisation. We don’t give things rights to anything as a standard. It has to be first shown, or given (depending on the case) that it is worthy of receiving these new rights.

Basically.

Woe betide anyone who tries to argue using something as screwy as the English language…

Because we usually use wording in a certain way, does not mean that it would not be valid to use wording in a different way.

the point of the quote being that many have (and you seem to agree, given your previous response) pointed to the fact that a zygote is biologically alive. We can keep bodies biologically alive for weeks after the person has died. Biologically “alive” merely means biologically functioning, it again has nothing to do with us lending rights to something.

Therefore the using the analogy of what happens at the end of life and that which happens at the beginning of life does not hold.

Again you use technology we may have in the future as a reason to show the analogy fails- however, your rebuttal doesn’t make sense. Suppose we could revive a brain-dead person (given the biological factors involved, this is highly unlikely to happen- especially not in the immediate future)- what does that show now? Nothing.

Again this is a definitional question.

“human beings” is just a phrased used so we all know what we’re talking about- it saves time rather than saying “a human with at least X rights, and able to gain Y rights at a certain, arbitrarily chosen age” etc.

It is trivial to define the preborn as not human beings and then say "you cannot show them to be human beings".

we don’t merely define human beings to exclude z/e/f, but, using the definition of human beings, have concluded that z/e/f doesn’t fit the criteria.

The problem here is that you keep equating skins cells, finger nails and zygotes. The first two are a part of a human being, while the last one is not.

for all intensive purposes, a non-viable z/e/f is very much part of someone’s body. It can’t live by itself without acting as a parasite on the female and stealing her oxygen, food etc. that is what z/e/f do- irrelevant of the mental images we get of parasites, this is how they survive.

living human being

Why? Because it contains human DNA and is biologically alive?

Why should we give it rights based on those mere criteria- adding on the fact that it lives by stealing its mothers resources. Again- we’re talking about the time when most abortions occur, not late term abortions- I just want to keep this at the forefront on your mind- I separate them myself.

Well, viability is a technology question, not a question of what the preborn is able to do at the current time.

meaning at the moment, there is no valid argument until this technology which allows us to take every z/e/f made daily and implant it in another woman etc. back to the unworkable solutions” bit again.

seems a bit nutty to define a person as being a human being based on the technology available at the hospital that they are born in.

You man as nutty as merely claiming that we should give rights to something based merely on its DNA? As I said- we don’t automatically grant rights to anything without reason- you haven’t given a reason.

So whereas you rely on other forms of life to live in the North Pole (animals for food and clothing, if you were to do things the hard way; human touch and correspondence, which I'm not so sure as yet that anyone can do without) a fetus is labeled a parasite for a dependence on its mother, yet you are a viable human being?

Yup- I can function by myself. A non-viable z/e/f can’t.

There are many other things I would like/need to know, but as of now my main tactic is to convince a mother considering abortion that she think less of herself and more of her child

I’d say if she wanted an abortion, then she is perfectly within her rights to have one, should she choose to. It’s her decision, and I wouldn’t be presumptuous enough to try to choose for her.

Interesting. It seems the studies differ. Shall we formulate mutually acceptable results or just agree to disagree on this particular aspect?

All the sientific studies I have seen have agreed ith his link- I found one that disagreed with it once- but it was from a right-wing pro-life site, so I don’t honestly believe it.

Da Lone-Warrior

May 4th 2004, 06:25 PM

Just as our hopes for the future rest in the Lord, so does the Lord hold the only right to give and take life. God knew me before he formed me in my mother's womb. I find it intellectually and spiritually dishonest to assume that brain-activity is a minimum requirement for status as a human being whereas the bible clearly states otherwise.

I'm afraid the Bible does not clearly state otherwise. God knew me before he formed me in my mother's womb doesn't strictly refer to the moment of conception, since the author wouldn't have known anything as much about the fetal development process as we do today.

Granted, I could have used a better phrase. In other words, I am not so likely to give up. I am not fool-hardy, and I will take what ground I can gain, but I will not stop trying to gain more. I thank God for my limitations, for the weak shall be made strong. May the moderators forgive me if I misuse copyrighted material, but in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, his character Screwtape wrote to Wormwood: "If he is of the more hopeful type, your job is to make him acquiesce in the present low temperature of his spirit and gradually become content with it, persuading himself that it is not so low after all. In a week or two you will be making him doubt whether the first days of his Christianity were not, perhaps, a little excessive. Talk to him about "moderation in all things." .... A moderated religion is as good for us as no religion at all––and more amusing."

Choosing moderate targets for political changes and accepting the futility of remaking the laws of our countries the same as what we would prefer does not mean watering down our faiths.

I love this idea, I think it's wonderful. =) I pray it will go through. I'm glad you are of a more legalistic mind, whereas I prefer to concentrate on individual cases. It takes all kinds.

God bless,
PennyDreadful

Feel free to share it with others. If they have questions about it, please refer them back to here.

dlw

AtheistArchon

May 4th 2004, 06:34 PM

Um, one moment there partner. Fingernails are a part of the human to with they are attached. This is different from the unborn for they are unique individual human beings that are dependent and inside of another human being for a certain period of time in their early development.

- They're not unique human beings just because you say they are. They may have unique DNA, but then so does a mutated tissue cell. And let's not forget, we don't bestow rights unto DNA... we bestow rights onto people.

- A fingernail or a red blood cell (fingernail is actually a bad example, especially when we consider that fingernails are, in fact, mostly dead cells) is a product of the human engine, just like a zygote. Neither has a CNS, neither has a functional brain, and a functional brain is absolutely necessary before we can possibly have personhood. Everything else... blood, hearts, eyes, hands, legs... everything else is just flesh.

Since this is the case, you have not shown why the preborn/unborn are not deserving of constitutional protection against murder.

- But it's not the case. :smile:

Here the old sentient question. First, why is sentient any less arbitrary than any other criteria for protectable life.

- Because the Constitution protects personhood, not non-sentient human life like, erm, blood cells. Simple as that. Bestowing rights upon a non-sentient thing would be stupid. Do you not agree?

Second, it seems that the proper view is you have a human being if one has potential to gain to become sentient

- Aha, potential. If we agree that a zygote has the POTENTIAL to eventually BECOME a person, then we also agree that it is not a person right now. Ergo, it is not immoral to destroy it.

or you would have to say that those in comas are not human beings.

- That's a gray area, I'll admit. It depends on what causes the coma... is it brain damage? If the brain isn't functional, then the person is dead. If the coma is merely a recovery phase of unconsciousness, then no, I'd say the person still exists.

Third, a person can be seriously harmed even if they do not recognize (now or at anytime in the future) that they have been harmed.

- Huh?

An arbitrary distinction of course.

- I've shown how it is specific: personhood requires a brain. Zygotes lack this. Ergo, a zygote is not a person.

Once again an appeal to personal authority.

- Correct. And an admitted personal opinion, too.

Humm so your position is one deserves protections because they have the potential to be sentient (your words were capable of supporting sentience), instead of actual sentience?

- At very least, yes. A functional brain is the very least one requires before they can be considered a person... zygotes lack this... therefore... well, you've caught on by now I believe.

If so you are arbitrarily excluding the very young because they also have the same potential.

- Uh, what?

- Look, it's very simple. Do 1 year olds have functional brains? Yes? Very good, we've passed my minimum test for personhood.

- How confusing is this, really?

Next, how we have written the laws is pretty irrelevant to how we should write them.

- Perhaps. Unfortunately, exactly what that "should" is depends on more than one's religious faith. Meanwhile, there's a club called the U.S.A. where we all live by an agreed-upon code called the Constitution. If you don't agree with the Constitution, you can't be in the club. Those written laws are the ones I'm using when I talk about human rights and to whom we bestow them to.

Brain damage can do all you say, but is a person who is brain damaged no longer a person or less of a person?

- It depends. How extensive is the damage? I'd estimate that 100% brain death = 0% personhood, but that's as far as I'm willing to speculate.

It seems that the sentient argument comes down to no harm done if you do not know about it, and that is just plain wrong.

- I have no idea what you mean here. Are you saying sentience floats around in the air, disembodied from a material brain, or perhaps it exists within cytoplasm?

ChristianTrader

May 4th 2004, 07:46 PM

Though I find it mildly interesting, I wouldn’t call it a game precisely.

The point was that you bring up an argument already discussed in the thread previously- I quoted some of the posts made by various members to show it.

As for the rest of your post that are directed at other members- although I have a good feeling about what they were getting at, I won’t be presumptuous enough to answer for them.

I’ll send them a pm to let them know a newbie has joined in this old thread.

Come on now. My post (two posts ago) contained things that had never been answered on this thread (and still have not been answered). Instead of attempting to answer them, you brought up other objections to my position. FYI, I have completely read this thread before I posted on it for the first time. So I knew that what I asked you had not been answered.

and apples may stop falling to the floor tomorrow, what’s your point?

that comes under the loose category “hurdle we’ll jump when we come to it”. In other words, there’s no point planning for a step in our technology that may or may not happen in the future as reason to stop 1st trimester etc abortion.

The point was for you to choose your standard and not try to play two positions at once. That way I could refute you and then we could be done. Playing the viability and the sentient game at the same time, allows you to keep saying "but you did not answer this" over and over again.

Nope.

Then I guess your going to need to explain the sentient position a bit more fully. Because killing the preborn harms by taking/robbing him/her of life. I have not seen a justification for this actions.

A cancer is “alive” and has unique DNA.

Perhaps you will check out the answer from the post that you did not want to respond to.

"First, is cancerous growth the only thing that can result from a genetic mutation? If not then why did you use it as an example, besides some emotional points.

Next, if a professional was to look at the dna of a women, and then compare it to the dna of a tumor inside her and her unborn babu's dna, would they have trouble telling the difference between the two? Also can a tumor have a different blood types than the "host"?

Also given more time, does not change what you are, it just changes your maturity level. A cancerous tumor does not become anything else but a old cancerous tumor."

That assertion is our starting point- it is what we have now. You wish to change it from what it is now to the extremist version- which is total illegalisation. We don’t give things rights to anything as a standard. It has to be first shown, or given (depending on the case) that it is worthy of receiving these new rights.

Remember extreme is a relative position, and is based on where your looking. For example, all rape is illegal. That is a very extreme position depending on from what perspective one is viewing the subject. I do hope that no one would try to come along and moderate the position. Therefore I hope you agree that calling something extreme or moderate does not give it any extra points or take away any extra points for the position. The only question is if it is the right or the wrong position.

Next, the cleanest way for me to defend my position is to start with the legal position of protectable life, then ask you to show me in a non arbitrary way why protectable life does not reach all the way to my position. If you cannot show a non arbitrary way, then I need to ask you why does the arbitrary spliting between protectable life and non protectable life have to be made.

Woe betide anyone who tries to argue using something as screwy as the English language…

I do prefer the use of German when arguing such issues. It feels more scientific.

the point of the quote being that many have (and you seem to agree, given your previous response) pointed to the fact that a zygote is biologically alive. We can keep bodies biologically alive for weeks after the person has died. Biologically “alive” merely means biologically functioning, it again has nothing to do with us lending rights to something.

The problem with using the analogy from the end of life to the beginning of life is that if you keep the pre-born biologically alive, it will be develop everything that we you ask for. If we the same thing, happened to a person at the end of life, they would not be considered dead and would not be forced to give up their right to life.

And your just assuming that which you cannot support: That a preborn has to be able to "do" certain things in order to deserve rights. That in fact is the point of contention.

Again you use technology we may have in the future as a reason to show the analogy fails- however, your rebuttal doesn’t make sense. Suppose we could revive a brain-dead person (given the biological factors involved, this is highly unlikely to happen- especially not in the immediate future)- what does that show now? Nothing.

I was not saying anything about technology that could come about in the future. I seriously doubt that it will ever come about. My point was using brain death as the point of death makes sense at the end of life, but using brain waves/ sentience etc. makes no sense at the early part of life.

“human beings” is just a phrased used so we all know what we’re talking about- it saves time rather than saying “a human with at least X rights, and able to gain Y rights at a certain, arbitrarily chosen age” etc.

I guess that is why I like the term, protectable life. It gets to the heart of the issue.

Again why do we have to make the arbitrary decision for protectable life vs. non protectable life?

we don’t merely define human beings to exclude z/e/f, but, using the definition of human beings, have concluded that z/e/f doesn’t fit the criteria.

The issue again is not what is human being vs. what is not a human being, the issue is what is protectable vs. non protectable life. Let's say that I was to say okay, the preborn is not a human being it is just a protectable life. Then we would be back at why you think certain arbitrary characteristics are necessary in order to gain the title of protectable life.

for all intensive purposes, a non-viable z/e/f is very much part of someone’s body.

Only if you arbitrarily decide if one gets X amount of support from a person, then they are a part of someone's body. A born baby is also very dependent on his/her mother and even gets all their food from the mother.

Also if a baby is born very premature and is hooked up to a machine, do they become a part of that machine because they are so dependent on it?

It can’t live by itself without acting as a parasite on the female and stealing her oxygen, food etc. that is what z/e/f do- irrelevant of the mental images we get of parasites, this is how they survive.

First off their is no "stealing" involved. The baby was invited/forced to its position. The baby did not conspire with someone to get its position inside the woman. Also why is there a certain level of independence required to become a protectable life? Another arbitrary rule?

Why? Because it contains human DNA and is biologically alive?

It would be helpful if you didnt dice my quote up in such a fashion, the entire quote was.

"The problem here is that you keep equating skins cells, finger nails and zygotes. The first two are a part of a human being, while the last one is not. It is a unique, individual, living human being, that is very dependent on another human for life.
"
The issue is that after conception, you have an innocent, non-aggressive (aggresion implies intent), individual unique human being.

Why should we give it rights based on those mere criteria- adding on the fact that it lives by stealing its mothers resources. Again- we’re talking about the time when most abortions occur, not late term abortions- I just want to keep this at the forefront on your mind- I separate them myself.

Again no stealing is going on. Also I am talking about all abortions and not just late term ones.

meaning at the moment, there is no valid argument until this technology which allows us to take every z/e/f made daily and implant it in another woman etc. back to the unworkable solutions” bit again.

You got that wrong as usual. Technology has already allowed the time for viability to be earlier than when no technology was available. So the argument is valid today. However as it improves the issue will get stickier and stickier.

So a person becomes a human being earlier today than 20 years ago because technology has changed? And being a human being just means that you are not extremely dependent on the mother? You could just as dependent on a machine but be a human being?

You man as nutty as merely claiming that we should give rights to something based merely on its DNA? As I said- we don’t automatically grant rights to anything without reason- you haven’t given a reason.

You have are the one who has not give a reason why they are arbitrarily denying rights based on arbitrary criteria?

Yup- I can function by myself. A non-viable z/e/f can’t.

A child born and attached to an expensive machine, seems to have a hard time functioning by him/herself

I’d say if she wanted an abortion, then she is perfectly within her rights to have one, should she choose to. It’s her decision, and I wouldn’t be presumptuous enough to try to choose for her.

That is only because you do not agree that the child has protectable life. If you accept that premise, then you could do not thing but attempt to stop her from terminating the child's life.

CT

EvoUK

May 4th 2004, 10:34 PM

My post (two posts ago) contained things that had never been answered on this thread

Actually, they had- You may not accept them- but that’s beside the point. It’s why I’ve been busy Pming the people I quoted to get them in here- Atheist Archon has already responded I believe.

So I knew that what I asked you had not been answered.

I take it you mean “you” plural- I didn’t address all the points brought up in the thread- only a few of them. There were enough of us for it not to make a difference.

The point was for you to choose your standard and not try to play two positions at once.

I’ve chosen it- a long time ago I might add.

Playing the viability and the sentient game at the same time

We must be having problems with communication. Why do you separate them as though they were completely different subjects? Personally, I’ve only spoken about viability- sentience in any real form develops after one is born IMO, and isn’t a huge issue.

Then I guess your going to need to explain the sentient position a bit more fully.

I do believe you’re quoting someone else and attributing it to me… [shrug]

The question was:

“Do you also believe that a person can only be harmed if they know that they are being harmed?”

Which IMO is a bit of a silly question- especially as we’re talking about abortion, and viability develops before any real sense of “self” does.

Because killing the preborn harms by taking/robbing him/her of life.

Now you’re talking about viability. As I don’t consider it a human being (ie, not having yet been granted the same rights to life as a human being such as yourself), I don’t consider it murder. I don’t differentiate between 1st trimester abortions and operations to have one appendices removed.

I have not seen a justification for this actions.

Given- we don’t consider it a human being, ergo, we don’t attribute the same rights etc to it as we do other human beings. Sure, it’s possible it might develop into a human being, but by saying that, we have to logically agree it isn’t one yet. Which effectively ends the argument there.

First, is cancerous growth the only thing that can result from a genetic mutation?

I can give you a list if you wish…

not then why did you use it as an example, besides some emotional points.

It’s a more famous one. Everyone knows what a cancerous growth is, and most people know how it’s caused. It’s an easy example to make- and the person I’m discussing it with (usually) grasps what I mean. The fact that it may be used as an emotional argument never occurred to me.

Next, if a professional was to look at the dna of a women, and then compare it to the dna of a tumor inside her and her unborn babu's dna, would they have trouble telling the difference between the two? Also can a tumor have a different blood types than the "host"?

Both the mother, the tumour, and the z/e/f would have different DNA.

Probably not.

Nope.

Also given more time, does not change what you are, it just changes your maturity level. A cancerous tumor does not become anything else but a old cancerous tumor."

And if you admit that a z/e/f becomes a human being, then you also have to admit it isn’t one yet- which is what I’ve been saying all along.

That is a very extreme position depending on from what perspective one is viewing the subject.

I’m sure the rapist is miffed that he can’t sexually abuse his victims- my heart bleeds for him. That aside, it’s a poor example- you’re comparing a z/e/f with the same sentience/self-awareness as a red blood cell (remember, we’re still talking about 1st trimester abortions here), and is also totally non-viable outside the womb- to a woman who is self-aware, is viable without having to feed like a parasite off her mother, and is non-consensual.

No analogy is perfect, but that’s worse off than most.

Next, the cleanest way for me to defend my position is to start with the legal position of protectable life, then ask you to show me in a non arbitrary way why protectable life does not reach all the way to my position.

you’re making a claim, then asking me to prove it wrong, without even attempting to prove it right yourself- my original question (which I asked many posts ago I might add) still stands- why, given the fact that we don’t grant rights to anything without reason- should we grant rights to a z/e/f with the same self-awareness, same sentience as any cell in the woman’s body?

The fact that it might possibly develop into a human with these rights is irrelevent- it hasn’t done so yet, so they don’t apply yet.

Plus- Atheist Archon has already addressed this question in the post previously.

If you cannot show a non arbitrary way, then I need to ask you why does the arbitrary spliting between protectable life and non protectable life have to be made.

Why can’t you answer a very simple question? You’ve been avoiding it for many posts now, attempting to put me on the defence- when you’re the one making a new proposal.

You suggest that we should grant rights to something, based on it’s potential- correct? That’s basically what it comes down to. It can potentially become a human- so therefore it should be given the same rights as a human. Why? Why should we bestow rights to things which for all intensive purposes, are no different from any cell in ones body? I can understand if you were discussing late-term abortions- but we’re not. We’re discussing 1st trimester abortions- where the difference between a z/e/f and a skin cell for example, are negligible. It’s not a human yet, why should it be treated like one yet?

An example from society- a 17yo can’t vote yet. Should we give him a ballet paper because he has the potential to vote in the future? Should we lock him up because he has the potential to become a rapist? Why not burry him now- after all, he’s a potential corpse…

I do prefer the use of German when arguing such issues. It feels more scientific.

Heh- it reminds me too much of Welsh…

but using brain waves/ sentience etc. makes no sense at the early part of life.

so on top of your claim that because it has the potential for becoming a human being, we also have the potential to make technology to keep the baby without the mother.

Aside from it being irrelevant now- you still haven’t explained how you would deal with the results socially.

Again why do we have to make the arbitrary decision for protectable life vs. non protectable life?

Aside from obvious evolutionary instincts like feeling murder is abhorrent etc- I’d like to hear any law that is, in the end, not arbitrary. At the end of the day, the system isn’t perfect, but works. If you dislike it- I’d love to hear a better one. Why make the voting age 18? I can’t think of a reason really- it has to be some age. Why make it legal to have sex from 16+ (18+ if you’re homosexual)? Same reason. Why make it legal to have abortions in the first trimester, with more regulations the closer the z/e/f gets to birth? It’s a different situation than the examples above because in all the examples above, they are viable, sentient etc. the z/e/f certainly before the legal limit for non-restrictive abortions has none of these- and doesn’t for a while after the legal limit.

I don’t see any room for an analogy to be honest.

The issue again is not what is human being vs. what is not a human being, the issue is what is protectable vs. non protectable life.

They’re one and the same. It’s not protect able because it’s not a human being- yet.

Let's say that I was to say okay, the preborn is not a human being it is just a protectable life.

Then you’d still have to explain why something which you’ve already admitted isn’t a human being should deserve a right to life. Why should it? Animals more sentient and viable than a z/e/f at the stages of development we’re talking about have no such rights to life. What makes the z/e/f so special?

Only if you arbitrarily decide if one gets X amount of support from a person, then they are a part of someone's body.

The foetus has haemoglobin which has a higher affinity for oxygen than its mothers. This is so it can steal the oxygen it needs from the mother. Same with food and waste. The baby is utterly dependant on its mother for support in every aspect. A viable foetus isn’t. By that point, anyone can take care of it given the right conditions.

You like the word arbitrary- as though it makes someone’s argument weaker. I can give reasons why I view the issue as I do. All you can come up with is “potential”, and demanding that I make a non-arbitrary rule for something which is ultimately arbitrary- but chosen at that point for good reasons.

A born baby is also very dependent on his/her mother and even gets all their food from the mother.

A born baby can be given up for adoption. A non-viable foetus can’t.

Also if a baby is born very premature and is hooked up to a machine, do they become a part of that machine because they are so dependent on it?

Premature babies are viable. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be able to be hooked up. They’d die.

Premature babies occur in the later stages of abortion- our main contention lies in the earlier stages.

First off their is no "stealing" involved.

Given how the baby survives- yes it is.

The baby was invited/forced to its position. The baby did not conspire with someone to get its position inside the woman.

there was no breaking an entering, agreed. You’re point? I can invite a mate into my house- if he nicks something, he’s still stolen from me.

But that isn’t what you’re getting at, right?

why is there a certain level of independence required to become a protectable life?

What do you think viable and non-viable means?

The issue is that after conception, you have an innocent, non-aggressive (aggresion implies intent), individual unique human being.

This is a point of contention- I see no reason to call it a human being. I see a zygote, I see an embryo, and I see an early stage foetus, but not a human being. It may develop into one, but it isn’t one yet. I, nor society as a whole, give rights based on potential.

Also I am talking about all abortions and not just late term ones.

We only really disagree on early term abortions- as I’m against late-term abortions on demand also- once the foetus is viable.

Technology has already allowed the time for viability to be earlier than when no technology was available. So the argument is valid today. However as it improves the issue will get stickier and stickier.

True- but that only means you have the potential to form any real case in the future- once you work out a workable solution to making all abortion illegal- AND granting them rights to life straight from conception.

So a person becomes a human being earlier today than 20 years ago because technology has changed?

No- we’ve just realised it. Personally, even if we were able to take a zygote out of a woman’s body and grow it in a vat, I doubt it will make abortion illegal- such a procedure will be expensive, and thus rare.

We know when the brain and CNS develops and we know then they develop signs of sentience. This particular bit is no longer an issue- you want to merely make it a human being worthy of rights before these properties develop- and you’ve yet to state why- the closest you’ve gotten is claiming that it’s a human being. Quaint- now describe why we should award it rights.

And being a human being just means that you are not extremely dependent on the mother?

A viable foetus can survive outside the womb- the properties to make it into a human being are still developing- though very much in the later stages. For simplicity, it’s considered a human being from then.

You have are the one who has not give a reason why they are arbitrarily denying rights based on arbitrary criteria?

[sigh]

Personhood is a quality that arrives with the development of the brain. There is no other organ in the entire body that accounts for it. A zygote has none of these properties. There is no reason to grant the rights offered to people to something which is not yet a person. Much like we do not offer rights to life to the vast majority of the animal kingdom also.

That is why it is not considered a human being. What, according to you, makes a single celled organism (ie, the zygote immediately after conception) a human being? If you can argue for why it’s a human being from conception- you might get further, and I might be able to stop repeating myself.

A child born and attached to an expensive machine, seems to have a hard time functioning by him/herself

The only reason it can live with the help of the machine is because it’s viable. You can’t do that with a zygote- or even an embryo.

PennyDreadful

May 5th 2004, 12:03 AM

I'm afraid the Bible does not clearly state otherwise. God knew me before he formed me in my mother's womb doesn't strictly refer to the moment of conception, since the author wouldn't have known anything as much about the fetal development process as we do today.
You have a point. But as I told Queen in the "Abortion Holocaust?" post, since Christ came to save us all, including the unborn, they deserve more respect and should have a fighting chance.

Choosing moderate targets for political changes and accepting the futility of remaking the laws of our countries the same as what we would prefer does not mean watering down our faiths.
I'm not out to reshape our entire country.

Feel free to share it with others. If they have questions about it, please refer them back to here.
I certainly will. =)

HRG_new

May 5th 2004, 01:26 AM

I can't help noticing the tactics of Christian Trader:

1) asking his opponents to justify their positions, without justifying his own;

2) calling every distinction which they make "arbitrary".

If you think about it, picking the moment when two sets of chromosomes have come sufficiently close is as arbitrary as picking the moment when the umbilical cord is cut.

BTW, all adherents of the "unique DNA" argument should remember that this unique DNA is produced at meiosis, not at conception.

Gilgaron

May 5th 2004, 07:25 AM

Well, duh.Glad you agree, but it seems to be something I have to point out repeatedly.

Fortunately my argument is not that anything with human dna is an individual unique human being. The argument is that at conception, there is a transformation from parts of other human being (sperm and egg) to a new individual living human being. One sign of it being a human being is its unique dna code.THere are a variety of non-human beings that have unique genetic code circulating in my blood and lymph. Yours, too, unless you are heavily immunocompromised. A person reading this might even be immunocompromised due to chemotherapy to kill some genetically unique non-human beings growing in some of their tissues.

But, as you've said, you think this is only part of being a human being. If the zygote does not have all necessary traits to be a human being, then it is not a human being. I'd argue unique DNA is not even relevant to personhood in any way, and point to twins.

Okay, and if you became pregnant you would have a "tissue" (don't exactly like this use of the term) that would be a human being inside of you.So you believe a single genetically unique tissue can be a human being?

There are a variety of tumors that satisfy those conditions. They are not human beings.

So, unique DNA does not yeild us a human being. A tissue of such cells does not yield us a human being.

There is no equivocation here. It is on your side, for in order to say a human pre-born is does not deserve protection rights, one has to make some arbitrary distinction. Even in your statement, you assume this arbitrary distinction and then speak as if the other side is the arbitrary one.Your position is arbitrary, as is mine. Conception is a process, not an instant. You're still drawing a line in the sand that can just as easily be drawn other places. Justify your position. Why draw it at conception? If we draw it there can it even do the work you require of it?

albert

May 5th 2004, 11:55 AM

the question of when does protectable life begins is much bigger and has larger consequences than when one can drive etc., so one must be super careful in coming to answer.

How could I disagree with being super-careful?! Fine. But the fact that life and death are involved is not special to this debate. Speed limits are an issue of life and death. It is quite clear that a 55mph speed limit on highways saves lives. Yet the speed limits have all been raised to 65+ in the last few years because of...guess what...convenience. Convenience can, apparently, outweigh life. Those who would like to drive in the safe 55mph world are simply out of luck. Every time congress votes to put money into one project and not another (missiles vs kidney dialysis) it is a matter of life and death.

why do I need to do anything at all? What are the consequences of not doing this arbitrary things?
[...]
Again why do we even need to make the arbitrary choice? Unlike consent and voting, if one did not make a choice somewhere, one would either never be able to vote etc. or one would be able to vote as soon as one could hold a pen or touch a screen.

It is not clear what you mean by "not doing this arbitrary things": you have to set a threshold somewhere. Assigning the right to life at conception is doing something. I guess doing nothing would mean having no laws at all!

For example with man-made law, one must still solve the question of what is the proper man made law for this situation.

What is the best speed limit for the road I live on? Hoping that there is a unique "proper" answer is rather optimistic. In real life we have to do the best we can to balance out all the pros and cons and muddle through to something that will be imperfect but workable.
I would be happy if pro-lifers would agree that this is a difficult issue and participate in reasonable negotiations on where to draw the line, instead of jumping to an extreme and then accusing anyone who doesn't jump with them of being murderers, irrational, etc.

First a question, because someone dies of natural causes does that mean that their family has the right to sue for violation of state law? Next, there is the problem of differing medical opinion. One doctor can say one procedure is necessary for life and another one can say that it is not necessary for life. Next, when a pre-born is sick, this society has worked really hard to develop techniques to help save their lives. Lastly, it is a bit hard to yell and scream about medical treatment for mandated medical treatment for the preborn when it is completely legal to butcher them. To do otherwise is to put the cart in front of the horse.

OK, here is a slightly more concilatory version of the point I am trying to make, mostly copied from a post I made elsewhere:
If you honestly believe that embryos are fully human, then giving 100% effort to stopping elective abortion and 0% effort to saving embryos from spontaneous abortion is not morally defensible. Just because it is difficult is no excuse. Millions of human beings die each year of cancer (often incurable) and heart disease (usually incurable), yet there are major groups like the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association that work and lobby tirelessly for medical research and treatment to prevent these deaths. Maybe saving embryos from spontaneous abortion is as difficult as curing cancer: in that case where is the analogous "American embryo society" trying to save endangered embryos? If pro-life people really thought embryos were fully human, and wanted to save their lives, wouldn't they devote significant effort to the major danger that a typical just-fertilized egg faces in its future? The major danger it faces is not elective abortion, but spontaneous abortion, which kills over half of them.

ChristianTrader

May 5th 2004, 12:14 PM

I can't help noticing the tactics of Christian Trader:

1) asking his opponents to justify their positions, without justifying his own;

Um my position is that there is no objective difference between proclaiming protective life at viability over against saying that it happens at conception. How exactly would you like me to justify that position?

2) calling every distinction which they make "arbitrary".

That is because they cannot justify making the distinction at a certain place over another place. The very definition of arbitrary. Then there is still the issue of reasoning why they should make the distinction at all.

If you think about it, picking the moment when two sets of chromosomes have come sufficiently close is as arbitrary as picking the moment when the umbilical cord is cut.

Huh? Sufficiently close? I am not seeing any relevance to this discussion here.

BTW, all adherents of the "unique DNA" argument should remember that this unique DNA is produced at meiosis, not at conception.
[/quote]

Okay, I would appreciate a link (Not to this - Definitely not saying that you are wrong) and to know how long after conception this meiosis occurs? And if meiosis can be considered a part of conception?

CT

EvoUK

May 5th 2004, 01:26 PM

how long after conception this meiosis occurs

Uh- what do you think meiosis is?

That is because they cannot justify making the distinction at a certain place over another place. The very definition of arbitrary. Then there is still the issue of reasoning why they should make the distinction at all.

Which definition of arbitary are you using?

1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference
3) Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute
4) Not limited by law; despotic

It can't be #1, as we've given reasons for the descision (i.e. something isn't just given rights, it needs to be shown why something deserves them, and a zygote doesn't deserve it).

It is #3 by definition- i.e. it's already been defined by law.

It isn't #4 because we have no dictatory to tell us at his/her whim that abortions should be legal.

You must therefore mean #2, however it has more simularities with #1 than #2, simply because, unlike yourself, we can (and have- repeatedly) give reasons why we have decided to make the law what it is today.

ChristianTrader

May 5th 2004, 03:56 PM

Which definition of arbitary are you using?

1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference
3) Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute
4) Not limited by law; despotic

It can't be #1, as we've given reasons for the descision (i.e. something isn't just given rights, it needs to be shown why something deserves them, and a zygote doesn't deserve it).

#1 and #2 are basically interchangable. And this is in where I have been focusing my fire. First off we both admit that human life begins at conception correct? If not then we need to fight over that point before proceeding (This is agreed to by all scientists). So the question then becomes when does protectable life begins. I say it begins at the same point as life, while you say it begins later. My argument is that you arbitrarily claim some trait needs to have been developed in order to deserve the right to life.

When I say arbitrary, I mean that you cannot defend it over against someone else's view, (in this case later or earlier) besides the protest "I do not like your definition".

Next, I claim that being a living distinct homo-sapien is enough to deserve the right to life. (previous to conception there is no distinct individual, but instead parts of the mother and father).

The only objective question in this entire argument is when life begins. Everyone agrees on when this occurs, so the onus is on you to justify some arbitrary distinct on top of the objective one.

It is #3 by definition- i.e. it's already been defined by law.

It isn't #4 because we have no dictatory to tell us at his/her whim that abortions should be legal.

I was not talking about #3 or #4

You must therefore mean #2, however it has more simularities with #1 than #2, simply because, unlike yourself, we can (and have- repeatedly) give reasons why we have decided to make the law what it is today.
[/quote]

You have given arbitrary reasons.

Lastly, the the unborn was protected by the constitution's #14 amendment until the early 1970's. This was due to the term person being synonymous with being human. When the supreme court redefined the term, it led to the new arguments that we see today.

CT

ChristianTrader

May 5th 2004, 04:29 PM

How could I disagree with being super-careful?! Fine. But the fact that life and death are involved is not special to this debate. Speed limits are an issue of life and death. It is quite clear that a 55mph speed limit on highways saves lives. Yet the speed limits have all been raised to 65+ in the last few years because of...guess what...convenience. Convenience can, apparently, outweigh life. Those who would like to drive in the safe 55mph world are simply out of luck. Every time congress votes to put money into one project and not another (missiles vs kidney dialysis) it is a matter of life and death.

It is actually an even bigger question than the speed limit. Raising the speed limit can raise the possibility of a fatal accident a certain number of percentage points while abortion is 99.999% probability of death.

It is not clear what you mean by "not doing this arbitrary things": you have to set a threshold somewhere. Assigning the right to life at conception is doing something. I guess doing nothing would mean having no laws at all!

Placing life at any point but conception is arbitrary because every other criteria for life besides that reached at conception is an arbitrary add on. There is also the problem of grading humans based on what they can do verses, what they are.

What is the best speed limit for the road I live on? Hoping that there is a unique "proper" answer is rather optimistic. In real life we have to do the best we can to balance out all the pros and cons and muddle through to something that will be imperfect but workable.

There is no unique proper answer there, however that does not mean all questions have no unique proper answer.

Also I see only cons in allowing a person to be killed because they are less valuable due to their lack of skills.

I would be happy if pro-lifers would agree that this is a difficult issue and participate in reasonable negotiations on where to draw the line, instead of jumping to an extreme and then accusing anyone who doesn't jump with them of being murderers, irrational, etc.

I think the only reasonable place to draw the line is the only objective place in this argument, when live begins which happens at conception.

As I wrote to EvoUk, something is extreme based on one's point of view. I believe that any other view besides the right to life at conception is extreme. This type of talk gets us no place.

OK, here is a slightly more concilatory version of the point I am trying to make, mostly copied from a post I made elsewhere:
If you honestly believe that embryos are fully human, then giving 100% effort to stopping elective abortion and 0% effort to saving embryos from spontaneous abortion is not morally defensible. Just because it is difficult is no excuse. Millions of human beings die each year of cancer (often incurable) and heart disease (usually incurable), yet there are major groups like the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association that work and lobby tirelessly for medical research and treatment to prevent these deaths. Maybe saving embryos from spontaneous abortion is as difficult as curing cancer: in that case where is the analogous "American embryo society" trying to save endangered embryos? If pro-life people really thought embryos were fully human, and wanted to save their lives, wouldn't they devote significant effort to the major danger that a typical just-fertilized egg faces in its future? The major danger it faces is not elective abortion, but spontaneous abortion, which kills over half of them.

There are a couple major issues involved here. One is lack of unlimited resources: Researchers and money. Therefore there will always be a rationing between what you think will do the most good at a certain point in time. At this point resources spent on helping a preborn that is four months from conception make it to the end, seem to be better spent. In other words, because the priority is below other endeavors does not mean that anyone believes that the preborn is not fully human right after conception.

Next, there is even the question that if massive resources were spent to prevent spontaneous abortions, would it actually extent the life of those preborn by a substantial amount (for there was probably a reason that you spontaneously aborted). But again this question, will be asked to a greater degree when we have finished handling other big issues.

Another difficult part would be finding woman who volunteered to participate in finding out if they had a preborn baby inside them before they missed their period. I do not think that government would have the right to compell a person to do such. Just like the gov. cannot compel parents to take their children to see certain doctors even when they are sick. However the government can still compel parents to not murder their children.

CT

albert

May 5th 2004, 07:22 PM

One is lack of unlimited resources: Researchers and money. Therefore there will always be a rationing between what you think will do the most good at a certain point in time.

Thank you for understanding the essence of my argument. But note: when human life is at stake there is usually some strong lobbying and advocating for resources. Heart disease activists and cancer activists compete for medical resources. How come no pro-lifers are competing for medical resources to save embryos from spontaneous abortion?

At this point resources spent on helping a preborn that is four months from conception make it to the end, seem to be better spent. In other words, because the priority is below other endeavors does not mean that anyone believes that the preborn is not fully human right after conception. Next, there is even the question that if massive resources were spent to prevent spontaneous abortions, would it actually extent the life of those preborn by a substantial amount

But how come the priority of embryos is so much lower that they get 0% of the pro-life resources? A hundred years ago cancer was close to 100% fatal, and yet with a great medical effort we have partly overcome it. Don't you feel embryos deserve the same help to get a better chance at survival? Why should they wait, when tens of millions of them are dying every year..?

(for there was probably a reason that you spontaneously aborted).

Yes, perhaps those embryos would become very disabled people if they lived.
Does that lessen their claim to your help?

Another difficult part would be finding woman who volunteered to participate in finding out if they had a preborn baby inside them before they missed their period. I do not think that government would have the right to compell a person to do such. Just like the gov. cannot compel parents to take their children to see certain doctors even when they are sick. However the government can still compel parents to not murder their children.

Yes there are difficulties. Is that a reason for doing nothing?
Where are the voluntary screening programs and awareness programs staffed by concerned pro-lifers, seeking to help as many embryos as possible to survive? How come they are not doing anything at all to save those little lives?

Placing life at any point but conception is arbitrary because every other criteria for life besides that reached at conception is an arbitrary add on. There is also the problem of grading humans based on what they can do verses, what they are.

I think that is circular reasoning. "What are the criteria for life?" is what we are unable to agree on.
Once you have a criterion, everything is clear. Choosing the criterion is where some arbitrariness comes in.

There is no unique proper answer there, however that does not mean all questions have no unique proper answer.

True. As I said, you can always optimistically hope that there is one. But, as I argued before (and above), defining life to start at conception is not a uniquely good answer: it leads to its own set of problems.

Also I see only cons in allowing a person to be killed because they are less valuable due to their lack of skills.

Well, whether it is a person is the question at issue.

As I wrote to EvoUk, something is extreme based on one's point of view. I believe that any other view besides the right to life at conception is extreme. This type of talk gets us no place.

OK, if you have zero flexibility in your position then such talk is indeed fruitless. I was just checking.

ChristianTrader

May 5th 2004, 10:49 PM

I think that is circular reasoning. "What are the criteria for life?" is what we are unable to agree on.
Once you have a criterion, everything is clear. Choosing the criterion is where some arbitrariness comes in.

Do you know of any scientist (or anyone with half a clue) who does not believe that a unique individual human life begins at conception? My claim of arbitrariness comes in because, most people who support legal abortion then try to add an extra hurdle beyond the establishment of a new life.

True. As I said, you can always optimistically hope that there is one. But, as I argued before (and above), defining life to start at conception is not a uniquely good answer: it leads to its own set of problems.

Again who disagrees with this definition? The only issue is if one deserves the right to a protected life from the point of conception on or at some later point.

Well, whether it is a person is the question at issue.

Well in fact that is not the issue. The issue is if having certain skills are necessary beyond being a living individual human being. When a advocate of abortion uses the term person, they usually mean that a preborn has to have certain skills and abilities in order to deserve life. The issue is if that is necessary.

OK, if you have zero flexibility in your position then such talk is indeed fruitless. I was just checking.

I could only be flexible if I did not believe that abortion is murder. Since I do, to ask me to be more flexible is to ask me to be flexible in allowing murder. You might think I am nutty for my position, but at least give me the benefit of actually believing in my position.

CT

AtheistArchon

May 6th 2004, 12:21 AM

Do you know of any scientist (or anyone with half a clue) who does not believe that a unique individual human life begins at conception? My claim of arbitrariness comes in because, most people who support legal abortion then try to add an extra hurdle beyond the establishment of a new life.

- Just a friendly reminder, I've addressed most of your points on page 19. :smile:

- This one in particular is important, because I see you're using the stereotypical language of the religious right: "human life". We do not protect "human life", and we should never use such a broad label. We protect people, and that requires personhood.

- Let me know if I can elaborate any on my previous points.

HRG_new

May 6th 2004, 01:35 AM

#1 and #2 are basically interchangable. And this is in where I have been focusing my fire. First off we both admit that human life begins at conception correct? If not then we need to fight over that point before proceeding (This is agreed to by all scientists).

Do you mean that an ovum is either not human or not alive ? Besides, "protectable human life" is not a scientific term, and by no means synonymous with "human life", which includes ova and HeLa cultures.

So the question then becomes when does protectable life begins. I say it begins at the same point as life, while you say it begins later.
My argument is that you arbitrarily claim some trait needs to have been developed in order to deserve the right to life.

Just as you arbitrarily exclude HeLa cultures (human life) from the protection, or arbitrarily claim that every human life deserves the full protection we, as sentient, self-aware humans, grant to each other.

That's what I meant about your tactics: with you, it's always the other fellow's point of view which is arbitrary, but you don't recognize the arbitrary character of your own. Motes and beams come to mind.

EvoUK's point remains valid: a stance for which one gives rational reasons is not arbitrary.

When I say arbitrary, I mean that you cannot defend it over against someone else's view, (in this case later or earlier) besides the protest "I do not like your definition".

But that's exactly what you are doing: you don't like the definition by the PC side of "protectable human life".

Next, I claim that being a living distinct homo-sapien is enough to deserve the right to life. (previous to conception there is no distinct individual, but instead parts of the mother and father).

And on what basis do you make this claim, so that it is not arbitrary ? I can equally claim that an entity which does not breathe, digest and excrete on its own is not an individual. "Unique DNA" fails as a criterion for individuality (monozygous twins, genetic mosaics).

BTW, since the sperm cell has its own unique DNA and is separate from the father, how can it be a part of the father ?

The only objective question in this entire argument is when life begins.

Some 3.5 billion years ago :wink:

Everyone agrees on when this occurs, so the onus is on you to justify some arbitrary distinct on top of the objective one.

No, it is your task first to justify your claim that "human life" and "protectable human life" are synonymous.

See albert's argument (which I have made myself elsewhere) that the relation between money spent for cancer research and money spent for preventing spontaneous abortions contradicts any equality between those two concepts.

Lastly, the the unborn was protected by the constitution's #14 amendment until the early 1970's. This was due to the term person being synonymous with being human. When the supreme court redefined the term, it led to the new arguments that we see today.

Sorry, but this is a complete misunderstanding of the law. "Person" was always synonymous with "human, born, alive". When and whereever abortion was criminal, it was never regarded as murder, and carried a much smaller penalty. This would have violated equal protection if the 14th had anything to say about fetuses. Quite to the contrary: the amendment protects the rights of pregnant women to liberty and body integrity.

IOW, it is the PL side who wants to redefine "person" to include "zygote, embryo, fetus" - but not "sperm cell, ovum, HeLa culture". Arbitrariness abounds .... :teeth: