Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The All New Abortion Spin-Off Thread...
Comments
-
I have said nothing about the cut off point for stopping a human life's development. As I keep pointing out I am not having an abortion debate, just pointing out that a new life begins at conception and what connotations you want to add to that is your own business. Whether you want to believe that ending a human life is wrong or not is beyond the scope of my point, I am simply trying to establish that it is a human life
Although, since a human life's development does not begin until conception it's not really possible to stop the process before that point. You can, however, prevent it from starting
Yes but in a strictly biological(unique dna) sense, not in a "I'm self aware and aware I actually have a life" sense surely? Its nowhere being another an individual human. There is the potential alright. You make it sound like you believe that most important part in creating human in its entirety (deserving of human rights) happens at the very point of conception, dare I say neglecting all the years and effort it takes to become an individual. Would I be wrong?0 -
CerebralCortex wrote: »Yes but in a strictly biological(unique dna) sense, not in a "I'm self aware and aware I actually have a life" sense surely?CerebralCortex wrote: »Its nowhere being another an individual human. There is the potential alright. You make it sound like you believe that most important part in creating human in its entirety (deserving of human rights) happens at the very point of conception, dare I say neglecting all the years and effort it takes to become an individual. Would I be wrong?
I'm not neglecting anything and I'm not saying any part of a life is any more important than any other part. I am simply correcting people who say that either being a sperm is a part of that life or that conception is not the beginning of that life and it actually begins at some arbitrary point after conception that is chosen based on their own personal abortion stance.0 -
All I'm talking about is the biological sense. The "I'm self aware and aware I actually have a life" sense is only brought up in relation to abortion and in fact is not a requirement on being a life. There is a lot of life which is not self aware. What you're talking about there is whether or not the life is valuable which is beyond the scope of my point.
I'm not neglecting anything and I'm not saying any part of a life is any more important than any other part. I am simply correcting people who say that either being a sperm is a part of that life or that conception is not the beginning of that life and it actually begins at some arbitrary point after conception that is chosen based on their own personal abortion stance.
Again you'd only be correct in saying its new genetic material. Am I wrong? That is a continuation of life with fresh DNA.0 -
CerebralCortex wrote: »Again you'd only be correct in saying its new genetic material. Am I wrong? That is a continuation of life with fresh DNA.
It doesn't have to be fresh DNA. It could be a twin or a clone. It's a new life because it has begun the process of growth that begins at conception and ends at death0 -
-
Advertisement
-
CerebralCortex wrote: »And thats enough to make only pro-life because....?
Again, I'm not having an abortion debate. The above is the only thing I'm trying to establish because Wicknight denies it. Many people rely on the incorrect assertion that a foetus is not a human life to justify abortion to themselves and if someone is going to be pro-abortion they should at least be honest with themselves0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »... and I don't believe in God because I am scared of Hell :rolleyes:0
-
Again, I'm not having an abortion debate. The above is the only thing I'm trying to establish because Wicknight denies it. Many people rely on the incorrect assertion that a foetus is not a human life to justify abortion to themselves and if someone is going to be pro-abortion they should at least be honest with themselves
So I'd be wrong if I said a foetus is not human life only on its way to being a human i.e the potential for human life?0 -
CerebralCortex wrote: »So I'd be wrong if I said a foetus is not human life only on its way to being a human i.e the potential for human life?
If you add arbitrary connotations to "human life" that shouldn't be there such as "must have a brain", "must be able to feel pain" or "must have blue eyes" then you can decide whether you're right or wrong but if you take the medical definition of human life then you would be wrong0 -
If you add arbitrary connotations to "human life" that shouldn't be there such as "must have a brain", "must be able to feel pain" or "must have blue eyes" then you can decide whether you're right or wrong but if you take the medical definition of human life then you would be wrong
Okay cool. The scientific/medical consensus is that definition of a human life?
Honestly it helps your argument but I'm still not wholly convinced that it is an actual human life.0 -
Advertisement
-
CerebralCortex wrote: »Okay cool. The scientific/medical consensus is that definition of a human life?
Honestly it helps your argument but I'm still not wholly convinced that it is an actual human life.
Forgetting about abortion for a minute and whether or not you consider it valuable, why is it not a life? The way I see it, it is a living being and the dna of that being is human, therefore it is a human life. So why is it not a human life?0 -
A rolleyes. Bravo!
Rebutted with sarcasm, and an exclamation mark, well played. Really though, I had written more to reply with, but chose a smiley instead for succinctness.
The whole claim that my "refusal" to accept some "obvious" conclusion for fear of some "repercussions" wreaks of discussions I've had with Christians as to why they believed I would not accept that their opinion was the truth.
It's a false argument that tries to appeal to the subjective morality the individual holds, rather than the objective reality of the topic being discussed.
I was hoping to clarify the terms to try and alleviate the semantic mess that surrounds discussions on abortion. I've already said, I don't agree with abortion myself, so there are no repercussions that I am trying to avoid, but I am arguing that there is no universal reason for the freedom to be removed from the individual. I also find the terminology used by pro-lifers extremely biased. I find the same of PETA releases, words like "culled" get replaced by "murdered". Same meaning, but it evokes a different emotional response.
If I was to say to you "I took a life today"... you would first think of humans, then every other eukaryote in order of reducing complexity. Would you find it normal for someone to say that sentence if they had picked a flower?0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »I was hoping to clarify the terms to try and alleviate the semantic mess that surrounds discussions on abortion
From my perspective the only reason there's a semantic mess is that people don't like the fact that it's actually very simple so they keep redefining and redefining and redefining until it's finally ok to kill another human being. Really it's as simple as: It's a human life, therefore it's not ok to kill it, whether it has a brain or not, whether it has a nervous system or not, whether it's reached the 24th week or not, whether it can feel pain or not, whether it's in the mother's body or not, whether it can survive on it's own or not, etc etc etc. I think you get the idea0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »So you accept then that choosing the point of conception as the cut off point for stopping the biological process of a human life's development is arbitrary. Or do you still think that universally this should always be the cut off point?
In so much as the opposition to murdering the born is universal in human societies, there is no reason not to oppose killing the unborn, universally.0 -
As an interesting collinearly to this discussion has anyone followed the story of the US woman who murdered her pregnant friend to steal her baby.
Depending of if the baby drew a breath or not she'll also be charged with its murder also according to the article.0 -
From my perspective the only reason there's a semantic mess is that people don't like the fact that it's actually very simple so they keep redefining and redefining and redefining until it's finally ok to kill another human being.
It's not as simple as that though, and I think you know that. When it comes to morality it never is. Animal rights activists would tell you "it's simple, we do not kill any other earthlings, our higher brain functions do not make us distinguishably more important so as to give us the right to choose which other earthlings should live or die"... is it that simple though? You eat the dead flesh of your fellow earthlings don't you, as do I?
Humans define when it is and is not okay to kill other living organisms. If society says a human only attains rights when a nervous system or a brain forms then that is their definition. Humans may also define the sperm and the egg as human and the prevention of the natural process that "begins life" is as bad as murder.In so much as the opposition to murdering the born is universal in human societies, there is no reason not to oppose killing the unborn, universally.
I think you'll find you are wrong Húrin. Murdering the born is not universally wrong in human societies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st48Tdd9Sz40 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Humans may also define the sperm and the egg as human and the prevention of the natural process that "begins life" is as bad as murder.Goduznt Xzst wrote: »It's not as simple as that though, and I think you know that. When it comes to morality it never is. Animal rights activists would tell you "it's simple, we do not kill any other earthlings, our higher brain functions do not make us distinguishably more important so as to give us the right to choose which other earthlings should live or die"... is it that simple though? You eat the dead flesh of your fellow earthlings don't you, as do I?
Humans define when it is and is not okay to kill other living organisms. If society says a human only attains rights when a nervous system or a brain forms then that is their definition.
There are of course times when it is acceptable to kill another being. We eat animals but people who eat meat will still be against hunting and fur because there is no good reason to kill them in those cases. Murder in self defence is not even considered murder. It can be seen as acceptable to kill one to save many. But you will never see society applaud a person who killed someone because their life was an inconvenience.........except with abortion. And in most cases it's justified through pseudo science and linguistic somersaults to convince themselves there is no moral issue, just like how people used to convince themselves black people were inferior to whites so it was ok to enslave them. Look at this quote from Abraham Lincoln. Even the man who freed the slaves didn't see them as equal because "that was society's definition":"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
I'm for stem cell research because the benefits far outweigh the cost but I cannot accept that it's ok to kill a human being so the neighbours don't think you're a slut or because you're too busy to be pregnant or worse, because you trick yourself into thinking that you're not really killing a human being at all0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »I was hoping to clarify the terms to try and alleviate the semantic mess that surrounds discussions on abortion...
I also find the terminology used by pro-lifers extremely biased. I find the same of PETA releases, words like "culled" get replaced by "murdered". Same meaning, but it evokes a different emotional response...
If I was to say to you "I took a life today"... you would first think of humans, then every other eukaryote in order of reducing complexity. Would you find it normal for someone to say that sentence if they had picked a flower?
My point was that you seem more concerned about what the conception idea means in terms of abortion, from both sides of the coin, as well as how the terminology can be misconstrued, when the original discussion was trying to keep the effects of such a concept out of it.0 -
It's the consensus in everything except abortion where people don't want it to be the consensus
Forgetting about abortion for a minute and whether or not you consider it valuable, why is it not a life? The way I see it, it is a living being and the dna of that being is human, therefore it is a human life. So why is it not a human life?
I'd have to agree with you to an extent. It is living though not independently of its mother and is not self aware which throws a shadow over whether I would call it absolutely a being or individual. I mean if its not raised to full consciousness and self awareness has it actually "been" in order to be considered a being individual? I think maybe what I value most about being human and what you value about being human start at different points. Trouble with me is I'm certain where that start point is and I guess I'm just exercising that with you.0 -
It's the consensus in everything except abortion where people don't want it to be the consensus
It's not the "consensus", not theologically, not ideologically, not philosphically, not societally and not even medically (the first and most important phase is arguably when the unique DNA coalesces during gamete formation, is a hydatidiform mole a new life?, etc).
I think there is also a definitional difference between when a "new life" starts to grow and when it becomes a living human being. For example, you could certainly argue that for every individual currently alive, their growth started at conception. But that is not the same as every uni-cellular zygote being a living human as it may never become one. A new car on an assembly line might start with an engine block, but an engine block is not a car. The pips in your apple are not the exact same thing as a whole apple tree!
Finally, the Roe vs Wade U.S. supreme court case is the case that resulted in the landmark decision regarding abortion in the U.S. in the seventies (and is still in effect today). Here is an excerpt of what the judges had to say on this exact issue:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."0 -
Advertisement
-
CerebralCortex wrote: »I'd have to agree with you to an extent. It is living though not independently of its mother and is not self aware which throws a shadow over whether I would call it absolutely a being or individual. I mean if its not raised to full consciousness and self awareness has it actually "been" in order to be considered a being individual? I think maybe what I value most about being human and what you value about being human start at different points. Trouble with me is I'm certain where that start point is and I guess I'm just exercising that with you.
I would agree with you that it's not an individual with all the connotations that go along with that word until it develops the necessary hardware to become conscious but it is a 'being' because consciousness or individuality are not requirements that are placed on a 'being'.
I wouldn't use the words "what I value most", I value all stages and forms of human equally and so do most other people except in the case of abortion where doing so can be very inconvenient. The way I see it, justifying abortion is a chicken and egg situation. Is abortion ok because the foetus doesn't have rights, or have we decided that the foetus doesn't have rights because we want abortion to be ok?0 -
That would be medically inaccurate and they would be wrong to do so
Yes and you are morally inaccurate to say that removing a zygote from a womb is de facto murder. You are "medically" defining a zygote as living, but you are also saying it can be "murdered" as a human. A society can define when and what defines "murder", punishable by law, of a human being.
i.e. many would not think a woman should be charged with murder in the first degree if she took mifepristone the day of conception.
A society could also rule that a man who purposefully made a race of humans sterile was a mass murderer. Killing their race and the possibility of their next generation, even though he actually didn't kill any living humans.Humans used to define that black people, women, gay people etc didn't have rights but then we became a bit more enlightened.
Yes and it is a very trite pro-life argument. Used also by animal rights activists who feel we will eventually be "enlightened" to never kill another animal for food or clothes.
This enlightenment however is because we have come to a consensus for the majority on a matter of subjectivitiy. Now all born humans have rights to life, but privilege during it and it's quality is defined by your geography, education and happenstance.
I'm sure in your day to day life you support with your feet and your wallet the reduction of rights of countless millions of humans alive now, yet here you are arguing the rights of a zygote that may never even think it's first thought.My point was that you seem more concerned about what the conception idea means in terms of abortion, from both sides of the coin, as well as how the terminology can be misconstrued, when the original discussion was trying to keep the effects of such a concept out of it.
I think you'll find the original discussion is in the title, it has progressed in a different direction, and is continuing to do so, since then. Yes, I am dealing with what the idea means in terms of abortion because for Vimes it is intrinsically connected. His discussion with Wicknight is not the same as the one I am discussing with him. His argument regarding conception, regardless of how he tries to say it is not his motive, is the basis for his pro-life stance.0 -
It's not the "consensus", not theologically, not ideologically, not philosphically, not societally and not even medically (the first and most important phase is arguably when the unique DNA coalesces during gamete formation, is a hydatidiform mole a new life?, etc).
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people instinctively know it's wrong to end a life but they want abortion to be ok so try to come up with a definition of life that excludes foetuses and we end up with what Goduznt Xzst calls the "semantic mess". Really they're just adding connotations to life that shouldn't be there and if they want abortion to be ok they need to drop this preconceived idea that ending a life is always wrong. As I said much earlier in the thread, pro-choice people would be much better off with a mantra like "it doesn't matter that life begins at conception, rights begin with the development of the brain" rather than trying to argue that life doesn't begin at conception because it quite clearly does.
And again, being "the most important phase" does not mean it's the beginning of life. Arguably, the most important phase is the birth of your mother without whom you could not exist but your life doesn't begin on the same day as your mother's or her mother's or her mother's, it begins when your cells undergo their first mitosis.I think there is also a definitional difference between when a "new life" starts to grow and when it becomes a living human being. For example, you could certainly argue that for every individual currently alive, their growth started at conception. But that is not the same as every uni-cellular zygote being a living human as it may never become one. A new car on an assembly line might start with an engine block, but an engine block is not a car. The pips in your apple are not the exact same thing as a whole apple tree!0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Yes and you are morally inaccurate to say that removing a zygote from a womb is de facto murder. You are "medically" defining a zygote as living, but you are also saying it can be "murdered" as a human. A society can define when and what defines "murder", punishable by law, of a human being.
i.e. many would not think a woman should be charged with murder in the first degree if she took mifepristone the day of conception.
A society could also rule that a man who purposefully made a race of humans sterile was a mass murderer. Killing their race and the possibility of their next generation, even though he actually didn't kill any living humans.Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Yes and it is a very trite pro-life argument. Used also by animal rights activists who feel we will eventually be "enlightened" to never kill another animal for food or clothes.Goduznt Xzst wrote: »This enlightenment however is because we have come to a consensus for the majority on a matter of subjectivitiy. Now all born humans have rights to life, but privilege during it and it's quality is defined by your geography, education and happenstance.
I'm sure in your day to day life you support with your feet and your wallet the reduction of rights of countless millions of humans alive now, yet here you are arguing the rights of a zygote that may never even think it's first thought.
I think it's unfortunate that people are denied their rights in the world but there's not a whole lot I can do about it. Also, denying someone their rights is not the same as ruling that they don't have them. I don't have to argue with anyone that a kid in africa has a right to life that is being denied because everyone already accepts that. I do, however, have to argue with people who have decided arbitrarily that a foetus doesn't have a right to life. If someone told me that there was nothing wrong with killing kids in africa I'd argue with them too0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
I think you'll find you are wrong Húrin. Murdering the born is not universally wrong in human societies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st48Tdd9Sz4
There's always one! It appears that the reason that the film was made was to solicit sympathy from the majority of humanity which does prohibit murdering people after they're born.
My point is that it is inconsistent for a society to prohibit murder on the grounds that human life should be preserved, but not to prohibit abortion. In terms of western culture in general, that's the society that we ostensibly live in.0 -
You're right of course but that does not stop them being wrong to define it that way.
Wrong to whom? You? Yes! But then your opinions of right and wrong are subjective, as are mine.
The moment you attempt to confer rights onto any living matter you are being arbitrary. There really is nothing further to say to be honest, because you have in your mind this idea that you are objectively correct.
Any placement of human constructs on natural processes will always be purely subjective and arbitrary. There is no arguing it, it is matter of fact.0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Wrong to whom? You? Yes! But then your opinions of right and wrong are subjective, as are mine.
The moment you attempt to confer rights onto any living matter you are being arbitrary. There really is nothing further to say to be honest, because you have in your mind this idea that you are objectively correct.
Any placement of human constructs on natural processes will always be purely subjective and arbitrary. There is no arguing it, it is matter of fact.
When I said they would be wrong to do so I was talking about things such as calling someone who sterlised a race a murderer. That would be misunderstanding the word murder no matter how many people thought otherwise. I know that it's arbitrary to assign rights to any living being and as I keep saying I'm not trying to do that. The vast majority of people already confer such rights but trick themselves into thinking that a foetus is not a living being. I'm just going to copy and paste my response from earlier:
I'm not trying to change people's opinions on whether or not a life should have rights, whether it be a foetus or a 25 year old, black or white, male or female. That would be an almost impossible task because it is subjective
But a large number of people who are for abortion do consider ending a life to be morally wrong but use linguistic somersaults to fool themselves into thinking that a foetus isn't really a life. They think abortion is ok not because they see the foetus's life as no different to a plant's life but because they consider a foetus to be no different to a toe nail or an egg and that is provably wrong. That is not subjective so it is possible to change those people's minds
If you are not one of those people, if you see the foetus as a human life but still think it's ok to abort it then you are not my target audience0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Yes, I am dealing with what the idea means in terms of abortion because for Vimes it is intrinsically connected. His discussion with Wicknight is not the same as the one I am discussing with him. His argument regarding conception, regardless of how he tries to say it is not his motive, is the basis for his pro-life stance.0
-
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people instinctively know it's wrong to end a life but they want abortion to be ok so try to come up with a definition of life that excludes foetuses
But there is a semantic difference between when a "new life begins" and an actual human being. In fact, you could say that the first is only true if the latter occurs. I.e. for any living human being, their life began at conception. But every conception doesn't produce a living human. Only after a certain point has it succeeded in doing that, and at that point all the rights conferred on a human is conferred on the unborn human.
In exactly the same way that an Apple tree begins with the pips inside an apple, but we don't consider throwing an apple core in the bin as being the same as chopping down multiple apple trees. It seems like a reasonably objective semantic difference to me, unless you have ideological reasons for believing that after conception the zygote is immediately a fully living human being, and not the single cell it is in reality.A lot of people pick the development of the brain as the beginning of life but how can something grow a brain if it's not a living being
Again, there is a difference between "living tissue" and a "living being". E.g. cysts can grow on a kidney, but a kidney is not a "living being".0 -
Advertisement
-
But there is a semantic difference between when a "new life begins" and an actual human being. In fact, you could say that the first is only true if the latter occurs. I.e. for any living human being, their life began at conception. But every conception doesn't produce a living human. Only after a certain point has it succeeded in doing that, and at that point all the rights conferred on a human is conferred on the unborn human.
In exactly the same way that an Apple tree begins with the pips inside an apple, but we don't consider throwing an apple core in the bin as being the same as chopping down multiple apple trees. It seems like a reasonably objective semantic difference to me, unless you have ideological reasons for believing that after conception the zygote is immediately a fully living human being, and not the single cell it is in reality.
The fact that not all conceptions go on to grow into a baby does not change the validity of my statement in any way. The fact that they did not all progress does not change the fact that they all began there. To refute the statement "life begins at conception" you'd have to show that it actually began somewhere else. Showing that it does not always progress proves nothing. If I said "the race began at the starting line", that statement would not be less valid by you pointing out that some people went to the starting line and then chose not to run. It still began there.Again, there is a difference between "living tissue" and a "living being". E.g. cysts can grow on a kidney, but a kidney is not a "living being".
There is indeed a difference between being living tissue and a "living being". A kidney is living tissue, it is a part of a living being. A foetus is a living being. It is not a part of the mother's body, it is feeding off the mother's body in a similar manner to a tape worm0
Advertisement