The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[BradCube]

Saying that you have top keep a pregnancy despite contraception use is like saying it is your fault if you are in a road accient because you were travelling and therefore asked for the accident despite reasonable precautions as travelling within speed limits and using a seatbealt.

It makes no sense.

Saying that you have to keep an abortion is not quite like that but rather saying that you should deal with the injuries from your accident since you knew there was a risk that you could end up hurt if you travelled on roads.

It does not mean that you asked for it or even desired it, but rather, that you have to deal with it.

 

[*Minka*]

Notice that in my conclusion that I made I stated that it is logically impossible to define us as anything different or indifferent from other life forms other than the physcial attributes we pertain to.

So in other words while I believe that I cannot logically prove that human is any more then biological matter, the opposite also rings true in that I cannot prove that it isn't anything more then biological matter.

It is for this reason that I don't think the vegetarian comment sits so well, since we must first have proof that we are nothing more then matter or that other living organisms have the same level of right to existance.



But until this happens we do not have the potential for human life. As a single entity a sperm or egg is no more human then an acorn is a tree (which is another flawed analogy in the essay). It is only once both the egg and sperm are brought together that we have the potential for human life.

Key word = potential.

At that point it is potential human life, not a human life.

 

[BradCube]

Key word = potential.

At that point it is potential human life, not a human life.

Potential when seperated. By saing "once both the egg and sperm are brought together" I simply meant that they are brought into the same context and not literally together. I would suggest that it would be hard to argue that we are not dealing with human life from the point of conception simply because it doesn't look like the human life we see everyday.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Potential when seperated. I would suggest that it would be hard to argue that we are not dealing with human life from the point of conception simply because it doesn't look like the humans we see everyday.

My response to this from the original thread:

If you can prove using any accountable method whatsoever that the foetus is not alive from conception and doesn't have a soul, then you might have more validity to your argument...just because you can't physically prove something doesn't mean it isn't true.

Very well then, seeing as you asked nicely:

While there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:

1. Organization - Living things are composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

From Wikipedia


Keeping this in mind let us examine the foetus. In doing so we discover that it does not exhibit several of the above characteristics.

1) A foetus from the moment of conception does not have the ability to metabolise.

2) A foetus from the moment of conception does not have the ability to grow (this only occurs once it enters the uterus, correct me if im wrong).

3) A foetus, from the moment of conception, is unable to respond to stimuli.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It isn't established that it is wrong for the foetus to be there, merely unfortunate as opposed to a person trespassing which is.

The analogy goes further if you read it, but if you still have problems, that's cool. I don't want to claim it's perfect to prove that abortion is always right, just that it's a good way of showing how just because you've done something voluntarily doesn't mean you've conceeded your rights.

As pregnancy is not a 'wrong' or a 'violation' in a consensual situation between two adults it makes it an innapropriate analogy to base an argument on.

The fetus making demands on your body when it has no right to do so would make it a wrong.

i.e. Regardless of my stance, the arguments and analogies she sets forth don't satisfy my viewpoint - and I outlined some of my reasons for thinking so, which I thought may be pertinent since you responded to something I said with that essay.

Yea that's fine.

What I say is that there is a difference between permissions granted and burden of responsibility held between the two acts and that its enough of a difference that I don't believe the analogy is satisfactory.

Well you see, the analogy goes further than just the break-in scenario, but again it's fine.

It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

Fair enough tho, let's agree to disagree because I'd prefer to not argue too much with people that for all practical purposes come to the same conclusion as me. The main point of me spamming this essay was to get a reply from bshoc whom simply stated that he believes abortion is wrong because a fetus has a right to life, I think the past argumenting here has shown that at the very least it is contentious whether if a fetus is a living human with a right to life that it automatically means abortion should be made illegal.

 

[BradCube]

My response to this from the original thread:



Very well then, seeing as you asked nicely:

While there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:

1. Organization - Living things are composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

From Wikipedia


Keeping this in mind let us examine the foetus. In doing so we discover that it does not exhibit several of the above characteristics.

1) A foetus from the moment of conception does not have the ability to metabolise.

2) A foetus from the moment of conception does not have the ability to grow (this only occurs once it enters the uterus, correct me if im wrong).

3) A foetus, from the moment of conception, is unable to respond to stimuli.

Forgive me for my lack of knowledge in this area but I may need some things explained to me.

1) If a foetus from the moment of conception does not have the ability to metabolise, where does it gather energy from to reproduce?
2) I would have assumed that there was growth even from the point of conception. How do we know there is not? Is there a way to look at the individual cells to see if they are increasing in size? Also I thought that the egg was fertilized whilst on the wall of the uterus.
3) Also how do we know that it does not respond to stimuli? Are you saying that if we somehow managed to poke it there would be no reaction whatsoever?

Again forgive me for my ignorance, but I don't do biology and as such am not informed in the area.

 

[BradCube]

Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

This got me thinking. I think the key issue here is that in the first instance she has left herself at risk for the purpose of extra pleasure. In the second she is at risk out of neccesity to pro-create. Like I was saying in earlier posts, the counter for this seed is not to destroy the seed, but rather deal appropriately with the one that smashed the windows down and came and planted it on the carpet (rapist).

Fair enough tho, let's agree to disagree because I'd prefer to not argue too much with people that for all practical purposes come to the same conclusion as me.

That therefore means that you cannot use examples which kami has shown to be illogical as a rebutal for those who come to different conclusions. Also I thought kami said that he was pro-choice and not neccesarily pro-abortion?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think the key issue here is that in the first instance she has left herself at risk for the purpose of extra pleasure.

We often put ourselves at risk for the purpose of extra pleasure.... What is so amazing about that?

In the second she is at risk out of neccesity to pro-create. Like I was saying in earlier posts, the counter for this seed is not to destroy the seed, but rather deal appropriately with the one that smashed the windows down and came and planted it on the carpet (rapist).

Ok.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Forgive me for my lack of knowledge in this area but I may need some things explained to me.

1) If a foetus from the moment of conception does not have the ability to metabolise, where does it gather energy from to reproduce?
2) I would have assumed that there was growth even from the point of conception. How do we know there is not? Is there a way to look at the individual cells to see if they are increasing in size? Also I thought that the egg was fertilized whilst on the wall of the uterus.
3) Also how do we know that it does not respond to stimuli? Are you saying that if we somehow managed to poke it there would be no reaction whatsoever?

Again forgive me for my ignorance, but I don't do biology and as such am not informed in the area.

1) To my knowledge a foetus gathers energy from the mother via the umbilical cord. Im not quite sure when this becomes attach but i assume it occurs shortly after the foetus enters the uterus. Thus there is a period of time when the foetus is incapable of metabolism.

2) This is a bit of a grey area but to my knowledge growth only begins once the fertilised egg enters the uterus.

3) Yes, considering the fact that at the moment of conception it is simply a sperm inside an egg there would be no reaction except of course for it moving as a result of us poking it but this occurs to anything alive or otherwise.

 

[kami]

So in other words while I believe that I cannot logically prove that human is any more then biological matter, the opposite also rings true in that I cannot prove that it isn't anything more then biological matter.

It is for this reason that I don't think the vegetarian comment sits so well, since we must first have proof that we are nothing more then matter or that other living organisms have the same level of right to existance.

Why give the foetus the benefit of the doubt in this situation then? If we must prove that other living things have the same rights as us before we cease terminating them why is the foetus any different?

But until this happens we do not have the potential for human life. As a single entity a sperm or egg is no more human then an acorn is a tree (which is another flawed analogy in the essay). It is only once both the egg and sperm are brought together that we have the potential for human life.

And an early foetus does not have the potential for life on its own either - it needs the mother's body and nutrients. It needs to be conjoined with the mother in order to grow and gain that awareness, as does a sperm to ovum.

Also I thought kami said that he was pro-choice and not neccesarily pro-abortion?

Yes.

 

[BradCube]

Just to clear it up, where are the eggs fertilized then?

 

[The Brucemaster]

Just to clear it up, where are the eggs fertilized then?

In the fallopian tube. Once fertilised the fertilised egg travels down the fallopian tube for (insert number) of days until it becomes implanted in the uterus.

 

[BradCube]

Why give the foetus the benefit of the doubt in this situation then? If we must prove that other living things have the same rights as us before we cease terminating them why is the foetus any different?

Because most believe that humans are of a higher existance then other organisms. I certainaly believe this, even though I cannot prove it logically. Does this make me wrong? I don't think so. But neither can I prove that I am right using only the environment around us.

And an early foetus does not have the potential for life on its own either - it needs the mother's body and nutrients. It needs to be conjoined with the mother in order to grow and gain that awareness, as does a sperm to ovum.

I'm not discussing whether it can sustain life on its own, but whether there is life to begin with. Even once born, a child cannot sustain life on their own, and, even we now are left at the mercies of our environment just as a foetus is to its mother.

 

[BradCube]

In the fallopian tube. Once fertilised the fertilised egg travels down the fallopian tube for (insert number) of days until it becomes implanted in the uterus.

So what you are saying then is that there are no signs of life (eg reproduction of cells) until the egg is implanted on the wall of the uterus?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Also, someone in a house has a reasonable expectation that their territory should not be justly invaded, a couple who have sex do not have a just expectation that no pregnancy should occur as no contraceptive is 100%

Besides the above,

I'm not super strong on what I'm about to say but I feel getting your tubes tied (which some current-mothers do to still have sex but want no more children) is a just expectation - although i understand you in theory, I'm commenting that it would be so unfortunate to still get pregnant (regardless of whether you are pro-abortion or not) after going through what seems to be possibly the most responsible thing to do - an operation to prevent it from happening.

The main thing: you just say it in so much confidence.

I'd hesitate with such a thing.

Meh.

 

[The Brucemaster]

So what you are saying then is that there are no signs of life (eg reproduction of cells) until the egg is implanted on the wall of the uterus?

Not necassrarily NO signs of life but it lacks SOME meaning that it cant be said, with certainty, to be alive.

 

[BradCube]

I just did some research on conception on Wikipedia, here is a quote:

"[Again,] one must be careful of the terminology. Many now speak of "conception" as that moment when the human blastocyst, the early ball of approximately 100 cells, implants in the mother’s uterus (womb). The time from actual fertilisation (sperm and egg unite in the Fallopian Tube) until implantation, a period of about 7-10 days, is ignored, even though no genetic change occurs in the cells during this time period. Many family planning specialists who have supported the terminology change can thus rationalise that the destruction of the human embryo between fertilisation and implantation should be labeled "contraception", rather than "early abortion".

I need some help though. The quote mentions that the blastocyst is an early ball of 100 cells and is then implanted on the wall of the uterus. It then says that there is no genetic change in this period before implantation. Surley this 100 cells is different from the sperm and egg that started.

If there is in fact absolutely no change until it is implanted on the wall, then I think I would change my view to that of the family planning specialist whereby it is contraception since nothing has actually been conceived yet. But again, I need some evidence on this. If anyone could give my any links to relevant information that would be great.

On a different sidenote, why stef, does your light to say your online never come on? lol.

 

[BradCube]

Not necassrarily NO signs of life but it lacks SOME meaning that it cant be said, with certainty, to be alive.

Well I guess one question would be how it can have any signs of life if it is not able to use energy through metabolism

 

[kami]

Why give the foetus the benefit of the doubt in this situation then? If we must prove that other living things have the same rights as us before we cease terminating them why is the foetus any different?

Because most believe that humans are of a higher existance then other organisms. I certainaly believe this, even though I cannot prove it logically. Does this make me wrong? I don't think so. But neither can I prove that I am right using only the environment around us.

You are willing to endorse termination until it is proven to be murder of a higher being in one case you cannot prove but you oppose termination of another group unless it is proven not to be murder. Yet concede that these cases can not be proven logically using the world around us. Is that essentially the stance you are proposing?

If it is (and I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted it), would it not be a more consistent and logical application of your beliefs (to not kill) to refrain from killing either group, as opposed to being selective?

Besides the above,

I'm not super strong on what I'm about to say but I feel getting your tubes tied (which some current-mothers do to still have sex but want no more children) is a just expectation - although i understand you in theory, I'm commenting that it would be so unfortunate to still get pregnant (regardless of whether you are pro-abortion or not) after going through what seems to be possibly the most responsible thing to do - an operation to prevent it from happening.

The main thing: you just say it in so much confidence.

I'd hesitate with such a thing.

Meh.

I agree - it would be unfortunate but I just feel that if you've been told 'this will reduce the risk, but it can still happen' then you don't really have the right to expect that it won't happen. And it's not something I'm supremely confident in - its simply whats making sense to me now in a set of issues that I'm really struggling to find my way through. Saying what I think is part of what helps me find my way.

 

[bshoc]

Is murder really that much of a mental challenge for some people?

edit: Brucemaster its nice to know I have a fan, but if you're gonna use my peragon-like statements as a sig, be sure to quote the whole thing, rathen than misquote me.