Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint

Dades

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Why?

You tell me - I was agreeing with you.

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you define as important. Considering 8 out of 10 embryos naturally abort before implantation, I would consider implantation to to be the most important stage.

Implantation happening or not is part of the follow on natural process. It would never reach that stage without the actions and 'input' of two people.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

You tell me - I was agreeing with you.

Implantation happening or not is part of the follow on natural process. It would never reach that stage without the actions and 'input' of two people.

Well yeah, but biologically speaking, sexual intercourse is the "follow on natural process" as well.

I think that is the point sometimes people forget, sex is simply a step in the process, and nature goes to a lot of trouble to make it happen.

I think because in humans we have evolved higher intelligence and we view it as a "choice" (in human context) we often forget that point. We view the steps we have direct conscious input into different to the ones we don't

But from the point of view of nature, of biological reproduction, the step of getting two life forms together to have sex is not really any different to any other step, such as getting the embryo to implant in the wall.

DenMan

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

you see murder and rape as similar?

oh, please do explain.. this should be fun.

Hi princess

It won't be fun but it will be at least argumentative and will provide a relevant discussion, and after reading through this entire thread it is something that hasn't happened yet.

DenMan

Mark Hamill wrote: »

An egg needs a sperm (and vice-versa) to become a human, a zygote needs a womb and nutrients to survive. Eggs or sperm are only information carriers for the making of humans (and they only carry half the info), they are not humans of themselves. A zygote is a human in everything but timeline.

That doesn't explain the initial intention I'm afraid. An act of love or rape. Both deserve to live as far as I am concerned.

Mark Hamill

JC 2K3 wrote: »

This is essentially the basis of my (and I presume Wicknight's) argument that killing a zygote is ok. If you don't believe a "soul" or something is formed when a sperm and egg meet, what difference does it make killing them after they've met as opposed to before they've potentially met?

I believe a human is formed when a sperm and egg meet. My point in my post was that a zygote is not the same as an egg or a sperm, preventing a sperm from meeting an egg is not the same as killing a zygote.
If you don't believe a soul is formed when a sperm and egg meets, and if you follow your reasoning in your quote below (the human rights one) then what difference does it make to kill anyone?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

hmm.. just wanna throw this thought out there. What would you think of the idea of human rights not being universal to every human lifeform, but rather, granted to a person by their parents through the act of allowing them to be born? If you disagree with this, then please offer an explanation why not.

I believe that human rights are universal for all human forms. All human forms are equal, if human rights don't apply to one, then they don't apply to any.

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the point. They aren't by themselves, they are one of the first two cells of a new human. If you split a zygote in half you get the same effect.

This is where the thought experiment of twins comes in.

If the zygote is a person, and then splits in half to form twins, what happened to that person that was alive and had rights a few minutes ago. Is he/she dead?

That person is still alive, its now two people. A person is made up of their experiences, and is shaped by their enviroment. When these things change, the person changes and they can change in such a way as to be unrecognisable to those who knew the old person. This does not mean the old person is dead, just that they have grown into someone new. This is how I see twins, one person has split and at the exact instance they split, you have two of that person, but after that instance, you two people, each in a ever so-slightly different enviroment, each with ever so-slightly different experiences. There is no death here in my opinion, merely change.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't true. In fact the very act of stopping a sperm from reaching an egg demonstrates that the sperm/egg pair does exist.

If it didn't exist in the first place you wouldn't need to stop it, would you?

If it does exist, then how does anything prevent it from existing.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yeah, that demonstrates the nonsense of the potential person idea.

Any time you take an action that would result in a potential person if you didn't take that action (not having sex, using a condom when having sex, using a morning after pill that stops conception), you are stopping potential children from existing.

But no one gives a hoot about that in most cases. So what logical reason is there to get worked up about a potential person you stop from happening after conception?

When it comes down to it a "potential person" really has little tangible value.

It depends on whether you see a foetus as only potentially being a person. I don't see a foetus as potentially a person, I see it as a person, because if a foetus is only potentially a person, the its potentially something else aswell, but I can't see a foetus as being anything else. What else could it be?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

nature goes to a lot of trouble to make it happen.

Really?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Really?

really.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That person is still alive, its now two people.

That doesn't make much sense. How can one person be two people. Which of the two new people was the person that was the one person when it was just a single zygote? And where was the second person at this point? Did they exist?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If it does exist, then how does anything prevent it from existing.

That is exactly the point.

If you view the fetus as an actual person, then that person already existed at the sperm/egg stage, because the sperm/egg pair are basically a zygote before the joining. Destroying the sperm isn't simply preventing that person, it is destroying that person.

on the other hand if you view the fetus as a potential person that has potential to come into being later, then the potential for that person already exists at the sperm/egg pair stage also. You are preventing that person from existing by using a condom, just as you are preventing that person from existing by having an abortion.

Either way there seems little reason to say that the sperm/egg pair are some how of much less value than the zygote they form.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It depends on whether you see a foetus as only potentially being a person. I don't see a foetus as potentially a person, I see it as a person, because if a foetus is only potentially a person, the its potentially something else aswell, but I can't see a foetus as being anything else. What else could it be?

Well, not a person.

It depends on how you classify a person, what properties do you consider important. Is the fetus simply a bunch of multiplying cells, or it is a person with rights. Are the sperm/egg pair simply two multiplying cells, or are they a person with rights.

Ultimately it depends on what characteristics a complicated chemical reaction (which is basically all life is) must have to be consider a person with rights.

The problem I have with all this is that if you see the fetus as a person in of itself, then on what grounds do you decide that the sperm/egg pairing (the first two cells of a new life form with all the potential to grow into an adult human as the fetus) are not a person also?

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

But from the point of view of nature, of biological reproduction, the step of getting two life forms together to have sex is not really any different to any other step, such as getting the embryo to implant in the wall.

I knew this was an obvious counter to my post, but it was so tenuous I really didn't expect you to use it! Yes, in the grand overall scheme of things sex is a natural process, but it is one over which we have ultimate control. We all have urges to reproduce, but we also have the choice to not act on them.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I knew this was an obvious counter to my post, but it was so tenuous I really didn't expect you to use it! Yes, in the grand overall scheme of things sex is a natural process, but it is one over which we have ultimate control. We all have urges to reproduce, but we also have the choice to not act on them.

Only because we have evolved higher brain functions.

And thanks to our big brains we now have "ultimate control" over a lot more stages in the cycle of reproduction, including abortion of already conceived fetuses.

Its just that we gained control over sexual reproduction a good few thousand years ago as our brains developed, so we take that advancement for granted.

Myksyk

I am against abortion entirely

I'm interested in the discussion but feel I have an incomplete position on the issue. Thoughts that come to mind ... A zygote is a biologically complete coding for a 'particular' person. A sperm is not, nor is an egg. Their ultimate identity is still in the ether and random biological happenings will dictate whether they become potentially human. The zygote is a done deal; it is now the code for a 'specific' human being. The sperm is half the code (on it's own this means very little . . . what specific human can you build from this?) of a 'yet-to-be-determined' person. I submit that the moment the genetic code for Wicknight was formed, that biological reality differed in qualitative ways from the tens of thousands of possible sperm/egg pairs which existed (only in a statistically probable way) moments beforehand.

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote: »

I submit that the moment the genetic code for Wicknight was formed, that biological reality differed in qualitative ways from the tens of thousands of possible sperm/egg pairs which existed (only in a statistically probable way) moments beforehand.

True, but then the question is why is that important.

Imagine if my DNA altered some how. Would I be a new person? Or would I still be me, just with altered DNA.

Myksyk

I am against abortion entirely

If your DNA changed then the coding is still for a specific person - A certain once off biological identity or 'personhood' is intrinsic to the genetic coding of the combined package. This is not the case with the individual packages of coding in eggs and sperm ... there is no 'done deal' in relation to encoding for a particular human being. My feeling is that this biological event (the actual rather than probable combining of genes) is probably a crucial rubicon-type line in terms of deeming something human or potentially human in a meaningful way.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Imagine if my DNA altered some how. Would I be a new person? Or would I still be me, just with altered DNA.

Since nicotine is a mutagenetic agent, smokers should really be asking themselves that question! Don't recall it coming up though.

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you don't believe a soul is formed when a sperm and egg meets, and if you follow your reasoning in your quote below (the human rights one) then what difference does it make to kill anyone?

It doesn't really make a difference to you if someone you have no connection with dies, yet we universally abhor and criminalise the act of murder, in my view, because it creates a more secure, safer society for everyone involved, rather than each human possessing some innate sacredness. Abortion does not threaten the security of anyone ex utero, and birth is a valid cut off point for many practical reasons.

nij

I am against abortion entirely

6 Billion of us here so far... how much are we going to overpopulate the earth before we realise that we can't sustain ourselves? Life ain't THAT precious or sacred, especially not life that can not think, feel or have any concept of life or death. Destroying an embryo will only send it back to the state it was in a few weeks ago, i.e. not existing. Killing a person with a life behind them is different. I've seen others say "What about killing it an hour before birth?", well, yeah, sure... it's not nice, it's not something someone should ever have to do, but morally, it's the same thing. I've been reading back over, and some of the things people said were interesting--- sure, lets have parents take some test to make sure they are fit to have kids, and then guess what? We won't need so many abortions!

Zillah

I am against abortion entirely

nij wrote: »

Life ain't THAT precious or sacred

But it has a soul. Magic is the answer. Magic is always the answer.

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote: »

If your DNA changed then the coding is still for a specific person

But the question is does DNA define a person. Does having unique DNA define a person? Is a person not a person until they hae unique DNA?

Would you consider two clones to be the same person?

Personally I think DNA has nothing to do with defining personhood. I think if we all had exactly the same DNA we would all be individual persons.

Dades

nij wrote: »

6 Billion of us here so far... how much are we going to overpopulate the earth before we realise that we can't sustain ourselves?... sure, lets have parents take some test to make sure they are fit to have kids, and then guess what? We won't need so many abortions!

I think you should organise some pamphlets to hand out around the Third World with your views. Let them know the cost of long-haul flights keeps going up because their huge families keep sucking up the world's resources.

nij

I am against abortion entirely

Fuel prices are only up because the west can't stop meddling with the middle east. As for the population of the world--I'm not talking about the 3rd world, I'm talking about the WHOLE world. The population is steadily rising. What are we going to do when it gets to 7 billion? How about 10 billion? 20 billion?

WE humans (all of us) are basically maggots. We are consumers. If we don't control the human population somehow, we will just consume the earth away. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday. If we consider ourselves special and magic, we have no long term hope.

MrPudding

I am against abortion entirely

nij wrote: »

Fuel prices are only up because the west can't stop meddling with the middle east.

No. The West’s meddling is a contributing factor in the rise of oil, but not the cause. Increased demand, particularly from China, is the main cause. No new oil fields of any great size and the knowledge that it will run out a some point plus speculation on the commodity markets is quite sufficient to make the price rise.

MrP

Dades

nij wrote: »

As for the population of the world--I'm not talking about the 3rd world, I'm talking about the WHOLE world. The population is steadily rising.

Yes, the population of the WHOLE world is rising, due to the rising population of the THIRD world. Population growth in the first world is nothing compared to it.

Don't get me wrong, the planet doesn't need more starving mouths but we also don't need another 'final solution'.

nij

I am against abortion entirely

Dades wrote: »

Yes, the population of the WHOLE world is rising, due to the rising population of the THIRD world. Population growth in the first world is nothing compared to it.

Don't get me wrong, the planet doesn't need more starving mouths but we also don't need another 'final solution'.

Final Solution? Are you serious? Straw man at best, but more like bullying. I'm entitled to voice an opinion without being accused of advocating NAZI policies.

All I'm suggesting is that we humans come to terms with the fact that we're not magic or special, and take it from there. Population control measures don't equate to MURDER. I've a feeling you already know this though.

We seem to have checks against the uncontrolled spread of certain animals, but when it comes to ourselves, we think it's ok to spread and spread and spread and consume the earth as much as we like, because we 'own' it.

Dades

nij wrote: »

Final Solution? Are you serious? Straw man at best, but more like bullying.

Bullying?! Oh c'mon, are you new to the internet or something?!

nij wrote: »

I'm entitled to voice an opinion without being accused of advocating NAZI policies.

Jasus, I didn't call you a Nazi but your notion of "testing" people for parental suitability is pretty far out. Population control would be useful, to be sure, but it would inevitably involve stamping the bejesus out of people's human rights.

robindch

nij wrote: »

The population is steadily rising.

In almost all the countries of Western Europe, and since around 2001, the native population's birth rate is below replacement levels, sometimes spectacularly so: Greece's mums and dads are procreating at the hopelessly low rate of 1.3 kids per couple.

Ireland tops the list -- well done everybody!! -- with a rate of 1.99, but that's still below the 2.1 level required for sustainability.

More here.

Mark Hamill

JC 2K3 wrote:

It doesn't really make a difference to you if someone you have no connection with dies, yet we universally abhor and criminalise the act of murder, in my view, because it creates a more secure, safer society for everyone involved, rather than each human possessing some innate sacredness. Abortion does not threaten the security of anyone ex utero, and birth is a valid cut off point for many practical reasons.

Why would something have to threathen me, for me not to want it to happen to someone else. Abortion threatens the security of those in utero, and while I or no-one I'll ever have a conversation with will ever be in utero again, I still do not like the idea of anyone in utero being threatened. My empathy goes beyond those I can see, I don't need a connection to abhor killing.

Wicknight wrote: »

But the question is does DNA define a person. Does having unique DNA define a person? Is a person not a person until they hae unique DNA?

Would you consider two clones to be the same person?

Personally I think DNA has nothing to do with defining personhood. I think if we all had exactly the same DNA we would all be individual persons.

I agree. IMO, DNA just determines physical attributes while upbringing, experiences and enviroment determine personhood. Monozygotic twins have the same DNA, but not the same thoughts.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I agree. IMO, DNA just determines physical attributes while upbringing, experiences and enviroment determine personhood. Monozygotic twins have the same DNA, but not the same thoughts.

that is the line of thinking that got me to my position that a person is defined by their consciousness, their thoughts for want of a better concept.

I extend that (and some people don't, and disagree with me doing so) to say that a until the human is capable of forming these thoughts, a process of higher human brain function, the person does not yet exist. Terminating an embryo or fetus before this has taken place is not destroying a person, it is simply stopping a future person from existing, an action that is not immoral as theoretical people have no value or rights

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why would something have to threathen me, for me not to want it to happen to someone else. Abortion threatens the security of those in utero, and while I or no-one I'll ever have a conversation with will ever be in utero again, I still do not like the idea of anyone in utero being threatened. My empathy goes beyond those I can see, I don't need a connection to abhor killing.

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that the possibilty that I might have been aborted doesn't bother me - if that had happened then I accept that I just wasn't meant to exist, whereas you would presumably be disturbed by the notion that once you were conceived, you could have been killed.

Empathy differs from person to person. I have huge empathy for those starving in Africa, and have more desire to give charitably than many people

Vegetarians feel empathy for animals, whereas many others don't. Some are not opposed to eating animals but are against animal suffering. Vegans are against any kind of exploitation of animals for human benefit. It's an area, like abortion, where people's opinions and empathies are extremely varied. In any situation like this, where there are no massive reprecussions for human society depending on which side is embraced, there should be no legal restrictions, it's only logical.

Myksyk

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I agree. IMO, DNA just determines physical attributes while upbringing, experiences and enviroment determine personhood. Monozygotic twins have the same DNA, but not the same thoughts.

DNA does far more than determine physical attributes. It has direct connection to mental, emotional and behavioural attributes, a fact i thought most people here would be up on. There is, for example, a whole field of knowledge out there on behavioural genetics which demonstrates how genetics can impact on very specific or very general behaviours, emotions and cognitive activity. Monozygotic twins for example, while unarguably individual people, typically share key psychological characteristics including temperament, personality type as well as behavioural and emotional dispositions. The particular manifestation of these attributes will of course depend on the individual 'second by second' experiences of both, which will sculpt neural pathways in a particularly individual way for both twins and which can never be entirely the same for the two individuals.

None of this takes from the fact that a zygote constitutes a specific person rather than the statistically probable person referred to when speaking of sperm/egg pairings.