Abortion Is Equal To Murder?

[carpedm9587]

Are you going to argue that a fetus is just a clump of cells, or part of the woman's body, or that it's a vestigial organ? At this point I expect you to.

I believe that any fertilized ovum that is implanted in a context where it can proceed to develop into an independent human organism is a human being. So, to me, the requirements for individualization are fertilization and implantation.

It doesn't deserve a serious response because it's bollocks. Whether or not it's universally agreed to is irrelevant; I'd remind you that the Flat Earth Society exists, people fervently believe in the Mandela Effect, etc. People believe lots of things.

Yes, they do. And when someone has decided that there is no point to discussion, it is pointless to discuss further.

Oh, and thanks for the characterization in your last comment. I have considered the alternative point of view on this; I find it sorely lacking.

I'm not sure what "characterization" you are referring to, but you're welcome, I guess.

[carpedm9587]

If there's no individual there, then why are you opposed to abortion?

Are you asking me?

[Zymologist]

Are you asking me?

Yes, I was asking you.

And by "characterization" I meant your parting comment about me being unwilling to consider alternative points of view.

[firstfloor]

What if a baby is born prematurely and cannot breathe on its own?

Is that a life?

The claim in the OP is that a Zygote is a Human Being. ‘Life’ is a different topic.

[firstfloor]

That is just stupid FF, even for you. Do you really believe that a baby one day away from birth is not human? What is it? A plant?

By the way, if you are not a human being you cannot be murdered. Abortion is legal in the U.S. while murder is not. The reason is clear but the pro-birth terrorists just don’t get it.

[carpedm9587]

Are you asking me?

So, first, I did not say there was "no individual" there. Ergo I am opposed to abortion. I am also opposed to forcing a mature, adult woman to make a medical choice that has to do with her own body. The abortion issue pits two closely held values of mine against one another: respect for life - and respect for liberty. It is the quintessential zero-sum game. That is why I advocate for pre-pregnancy alternatives - to avoid getting to that decision point to begin with.

As for the characterization - I was simply reflecting your own language. Statements like:

To claim otherwise is nonsense...

This is undeniable...

To claim otherwise is hogwash...

It doesn't deserve a serious response because it's bollocks...

These are not responses that suggest an open mind willing to examine the issue. So, why would anyone want to engage if that is the starting place...?

[carpedm9587]

Here's a related question, for pro-choicers or whoever would like to attempt an answer: why should I believe that human non-persons exist?

Because there are things that have the human genome that are not consider a human person. Examples include:

- a severed thumb (or any part of the human body)

- a dead body

These are universally agreed upon. Other examples that are less universally agreed upon include:

- a fertilized embryo in cryogenic freeze

- a dead body in cryogenic freeze

- a brain-dead person in a coma

The world is not as black/white as most of us would wish it to be.

[Zymologist]

Because there are things that have the human genome that are not consider a human person. Examples include:

- a severed thumb (or any part of the human body)

- a dead body

These are universally agreed upon. Other examples that are less universally agreed upon include:

- a fertilized embryo in cryogenic freeze

- a dead body in cryogenic freeze

- a brain-dead person in a coma

The world is not as black/white as most of us would wish it to be.

So in response to that question you'll answer "a severed thumb?"

Ok, yeah. Have fun y'all. This thread is a waste of time.

[carpedm9587]

So in response to that question you'll answer "a severed thumb?"

Ok, yeah. Have fun y'all. This thread is a waste of time.

So I return to my original response - if your mind is closed to the discussion - why waste time discussing?

[seer]

A thumb is most definitely human. Examine the DNA and you will find it contains the entire human genome. It is not a human being, but it is most definitely human (assuming it is part of a human being or was amputated from one
So does a thumb.
Agreed. The question is, what constitutes an "individual." When we delve into that, there are different definitions. Indeed, my own definition is not universally accepted. Some would suggest that fertilization and implantation is not adequate - that individual sustainability is also required. Others would suggest that implantation is not required, and fertilization is adequate. When an "individual" begins is not universally agreed upon. As a consequence, what is and is not moral is not agreed upon.

An individual human being would be one that is genetically unique from other human beings. And a thumb is not an individual, and will never be.

[carpedm9587]

An individual human being would be one that is genetically unique from other human beings. And a thumb is not an individual, and will never be.

I agree. I wasn't saying that it was. I was pointing out that your "complete human genome" is not adequate to define "human being," since any severed part of the human body, or even a dead body, has that characteristic.

[mossrose]

Here's a related question, for pro-choicers or whoever would like to attempt an answer: why should I believe that human non-persons exist?

Starlight, Jim, Tassy, firstfloor, etc., etc., ad nauseum, infinitum........

[One Bad Pig]

So I return to my original response - if your mind is closed to the discussion - why waste time discussing?

Have you considered asking yourself that question? You are amazingly good at torturing words to hang on to your preconceived notions. People get fed up with the lexicographical agony, and you wonder why they leave?

[carpedm9587]

Have you considered asking yourself that question?

Always...

You are amazingly good at torturing words to hang on to your preconceived notions.

So "preconceived" notions are not implicitly a bad thing, unless "preconceived" means "without evidentiary input." Hopefully, we all have notions we have already examined the evidence for, and have arrived at a determination. Otherwise, we are floating in a sea of indecision. It is when our "preconceived" notions are not open to new evidence that we have a problem. That is the sign of a closed mind. Hopefully, I have never been closed to the introduction of new evidence. But if the evidence is evidence I have already considered...how many times is someone expected to re-evaluate the same evidence?

People get fed up with the lexicographical agony, and you wonder why they leave?

Actually, I don't wonder why they leave at all. My experience is that I put forth arguments, and when people are unable to respond to them, they accuse me of "making my own definitions," or "refusing to look at new evidence," or "moving goal posts" or "being disingenuous" or any number of other ad hominem accusations, and then they leave. On the other hand, I disconnect from a discussion when I have repeated the same thing several times and it is still not being reflected back accurately. After a while, repeating the same thing again appears to be a singular waste of time.

I have no doubt the perspective is different from the other side.

[KingsGambit]

I kinda disagree here but only because the laws legalizing abortion don't past the sniff test - they rest on contrived legal fictions which means that in our Constitutional system, they aren't just laws and therefore aren't arbiters of the definition. I'm confused about what the heck JP is arguing - how would an unjust law not be relevant?

The very beginning of the article here http://www.tektonics.org/af/abortion01.php :

It must be counseled that "thou shalt not kill" is not a very good verse to use against abortion -- as shown in Link 1 below, "kill" has the connotation of killing after the manner of a predatory animal, and while one might (in some cases properly) ascribe predatory motives to those in the abortion industry, this doesn't help as much in addressing the act itself.

I do not see how abortion does not fall under that sort of category.