A human life _usually_ begins at conception ...

[Bill the Cat]

But ...



https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/b...-become-person

The absolute amount of crap in that article is stunning

[firstfloor]

Hitler would agree with you.

I’m not ready to rely on that sort of endorsement, just yet. But thanks for the ‘heads up’.

[Bill the Cat]

Regarding the subject of this thread, it turns out that while life begins at conception, it is not a fact critical to the ethics of abortion and we need first to appreciate the difference between ‘something’ and ‘someone’.

When it comes to members of our species, regardless of stage of development, there is no "something"

[Mountain Man]

The absolute amount of crap in that article is stunning

What else would you expect from a psychologist?

[One Bad Pig]

What else would you expect from a psychologist?

I"m sure that not all practitioners of psychology spew crap, though from the examples in my own family,

[Christianbookworm]

As a Psychology major, I'm a bit offended. Though, the soft sciences certainly do have plenty of weird people. But every field of human knowledge has some mad scientist/artist types. So, it's silly to act as if all the fools had the exact same major in school.

[Mountain Man]

Sorry. I grabbed the broad brush for that one.

[oxmixmudd]

tl:dr

That is actually a well written article and from a purely secular perspectivr provides solid ground to refuse third trimester abortions in any case but the risk of the life of the mother. And it provides a reasonable argument against
Many 2nd trimester abortions. I dont think you can do much better without invoking religious teaching, which would run afoul of the establishment clause.

Jim

[rogue06]

As a Psychology major, I'm a bit offended. Though, the soft sciences certainly do have plenty of weird people. But every field of human knowledge has some mad scientist/artist types. So, it's silly to act as if all the fools had the exact same major in school.

Present company excluded of course but virtually every psych major I've known was a bit of a nutter with some serious issues of their own.

[Mountain Man]

That is actually a well written article and from a purely secular perspectivr provides solid ground to refuse third trimester abortions in any case but the risk of the life of the mother. And it provides a reasonable argument against Many 2nd trimester abortions. I dont think you can do much better without invoking religious teaching, which would run afoul of the establishment clause.

The article uses the old trick of arbitrarily defining "personhood" and then using that to defend abortion. The author draws a vague line at some point after the first trimester, but there is nothing in his argument to prevent someone from moving the line to later in the pregnancy.

[oxmixmudd]

The article uses the old trick of arbitrarily defining "personhood" and then using that to defend abortion. The author draws a vague line at some point after the first trimester, but there is nothing in his argument to prevent someone from moving the line to later in the pregnancy.

I think you are wrong MM. From a secular perspective especially, It is clear there is a difference between the evolving state of the fetus prior to the second trimester and after. You and others are arguing scientifically it is human life, and it is. But that is not a sufficient requirement to confer legal rights. As the author points out, my skin cells are also human life. I just don't see how any of us can win a secular argument governing those very early stages that is based on the idea those early stages are in fact the equivalent of the 2nd or 3rd trimester state of the fetus*, because it is fairly easy to show they are not from a scientific perspective. All the parts have not yet been created. Until that process well underway at the very least, the critical elements that make the fetus able to eventually function as a human being just simply don't exist yet. And if along the way certain critical elements don't form (e.g. the brain, brain stem, heart, etc), it will never be a human person. Especially, as I've tried to point out earlier, if the brain does not develop. If all that develops is a brain stem, the heart will beat, the body will live, but it is not a human person and never will be.

Jim

*I think that at best we could legally make it manslaughter, but I'm not sure even that would pass a secular test with no ties to religious belief.

[Mountain Man]

As the author points out, my skin cells are also human life.

They are living cells, but they are not lifeforms. It's a significant distinction that is regularly dismissed by anybody advancing this particular line of reasoning.

I just don't see how any of us can win a secular argument governing those very early stages that is based on the idea those early stages are in fact the equivalent of the 2nd or 3rd trimester state of the fetus, because it is fairly easy to show they are not from a scientific perspective.

We can't win a secular argument, period, because it is based on an arbitrary valuation of which lives deserve legal protection. Once we concede the premise that human life is not objectively valuable in and of itself then abortion at any stage of the pregnancy -- and even after! -- becomes fair game as far as the secular worldview is concerned.

[oxmixmudd]

They are living cells, but they are not lifeforms. It's a significant distinction that is regularly dismissed by anybody advancing this particular line of reasoning.

I think you must qualify that with 'higher', but you make a good point. The zygote / embryo are in fact the first stages in the development a complex higher lifeform, not simply individual members of such a life-form, which is what skin cells are. And that distinction should not be dismissed in these discussions. So expressing it that way usefully captures the fact these early states are not 'just a mass of cells' which is typical of pro-choice argumentation. But even given that, the life-form is not yet formed, and so one can't go much beyond that either. This is different from the fact that once we reach the end of the first trimester, we effectively have a complete human form that will now grow and develop to the point it is viable outside the womb.

We can't win a secular argument, period, because it is based on an arbitrary valuation of which lives deserve legal protection. Once we concede the premise that human life is not objectively valuable in and of itself then abortion at any stage of the pregnancy -- and even after! -- becomes fair game as far as the secular worldview is concerned.

MM - we need to win the secular arguments. Our legal system is secular and can not be based on one particular religious system of belief. We need to stop or reduce the number of children slaughtered for convenience. If we can create a national conscience that recognizes that there is almost no difference between a baby 2 weeks or even a month before birth through reasoned argumentation, we should be able to legally push back against the reasoning that says the mothers rights up to and in some cases a few moments after birth are superior to and eclipse those of the child they are creating. Yes, I recognize the viral pro-choice people could care less. But MOST people in this country I believe need only to have this argument rationally and carefully presented to realize and support limitations on abortion that are based on recognition of the fact that there is a point where it is no longer mostly about the mothers rights. That there is another life here now that can feel and think and is aware of and can react to what is happening. Those arguments can't carry down to the early stages of embryonic development - but we must make them and we must push back against what is happening now were even attempts to stop convenience based 3rd trimester abortions are resisted and struck down.

Fanaticism will not do that. Most of you feel I was fanatical as I launched into my criticisms of Donald Trump. And you could not hear me at all. Most of you dismissed everything I said because I was just too over the top as you saw it. That was my mistake. Well, we in the evangelical community are dealing with abortion in a similar way. Yes, we believe this is a child from conception. Yes we believe it is wrong to kill them. But we can't influence what is going on in our country and our world on this subject if we deal with it fanatically.

And honestly, this is not just a 'strategy'. It's the only true reality on this issue. Only the hardest of people (or perhaps people indoctrinated with he current rationale and no actual experience with their own or a relatives baby) can actually understand how these late term abortions proceed, and understand there is no significant difference between that one month baby they hold and goo goo over and the baby in the mothers womb that has only a month or 3 weeks to go, and still support a womens 'right' to terminate that life because it is inconvenient to her or her family.

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

I think you are wrong MM. From a secular perspective especially, It is clear there is a difference between the evolving state of the fetus prior to the second trimester and after.

There is a difference between EVERY stage. That's why they are called stages.

You and others are arguing scientifically it is human life, and it is.

No we aren't. We are arguing that it is a distinct member of our species, not just "human life"

But that is not a sufficient requirement to confer legal rights.

The UVVA already confers rights at all stages.

As the author points out, my skin cells are also human life.

And the author is an idiot. That's a fallacious non sequitur.

I just don't see how any of us can win a secular argument governing those very early stages that is based on the idea those early stages are in fact the equivalent of the 2nd or 3rd trimester state of the fetus*,

It's already been secularly proven by embryologists that human beings in those stages are not fundamentally different, except for maturation. Using visual differences to separate them into 2 different kinds of things is just as wrong as using visual differences between caterpillars and moths to say they aren't the same individual member of their species.

because it is fairly easy to show they are not from a scientific perspective.

Yeah, no it isn't, because they aren't different in anything except maturation and specialization.

All the parts have not yet been created.

Lack of wings does not mean an instar of the monarch butterfly isn't an individual Danaus plexippus.

Until that process well underway at the very least, the critical elements that make the fetus able to eventually function as a human being just simply don't exist yet.

You're inventing arbitrary criteria lines on what makes us human beings. What makes us human beings is what biology has always held - human DNA, self-contained and self-directed along the path of human growth and development. That excludes all of the stupid "skin cells" arguments" as well as the "if it only had a brain/heart/lungs/etc"

And if along the way certain critical elements don't form (e.g. the brain, brain stem, heart, etc), it will never be a human person.

Yes it will. It will just be a dead human person.

Especially, as I've tried to point out earlier, if the brain does not develop. If all that develops is a brain stem, the heart will beat, the body will live, but it is not a human person and never will be.

Yes it will. And it will be treated as such legally.

[Sparko]

I think you must qualify that with 'higher', but you make a good point.
Jim

A skin cell is not an organism. It is merely a part of an organism. A zygote IS an organism. That is the distinction. The zygote is a complete human organism at that particular state of development.