Abortion Discussion

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

That sounds pretty subjective to me.
And that is also subjective; your opinion of of what it is possible for a modern open society to accept is worth no more (objectively speaking) than the opinion of someone who says it is impossible for a society to be considered modern and open unless it practices FGm and kills albino Africans for good luck.
And ethics too, are subjective. It's not a startling observation to say they have always changed as society has changed.

it depends what you mean by subjective , liking Coke over Pepsi is subjective and there would be no metric to say someone is wrong for liking one over the other. It is possible to discredit certain beliefs because they are based on bad science or a lack of understanding of science and of course ethics can change based on new science for instance or primitive societies advancing. In terms of societies it is possible to do better than the "Coke versus Pepsi" test

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

it depends what you mean by subjective , liking Coke over Pepsi is subjective and there would be no metric to say someone is wrong for liking one over the other. It is possible to discredit certain beliefs because they are based on bad science or a lack of understanding of science and of course ethics can change based on new science for instance or primitive societies advancing. In terms of societies it is possible to do better than the "Coke versus Pepsi" test

I mean existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought. The opposite of objective. By objective, I mean based in demonstrable fact, unbiased and uninfluenced by prejudice or personal opinion.
So the Coke vs Pepsi test is subjective, someones notion of a primitive society can be subjective, ethics are certainly subjective, and even the notion of 'discrediting' seems potentially subjective....
And without an objective basis, I can't see how one subjective opinion has any more value than any other.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I mean existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought. The opposite of objective. By objective, I mean based in demonstrable fact, unbiased and uninfluenced by prejudice or personal opinion.
So the Coke vs Pepsi test is subjective, someones notion of a primitive society can be subjective, ethics are certainly subjective, and even the notion of 'discrediting' seems potentially subjective....
And without an objective basis, I can't see how one subjective opinion has any more value than any other.

because otherwise you are left with absurd conclusions like not being able to say that taking cholera out of the water supply is the correct thing to do or banning something like FGM

Not a NSA agent

Cabaal wrote: »

Just something that bothers me about many "pro-life" people,

If you believe that a fetus is equal to that of an actual born baby and you believe that an abortion is murder, then why aren't you lobbying the goverment like crazy to make it a criminal offense for women to travel to the UK or other countrys for an abortion?

Surely women based on your own logic should be charged with murder, or at the very least I'm sure you could attach some sentence of say 10 years to the offense.

Just think, you could have 20k women in the last 5 years jailed, to hell with the circumstances of the abortion. To hell if it was a pregnancy out of rape, to hell if it was a fetal abnormality. These women did awful things in your eye's and they did something thats illegal in Ireland, you clearly need to ensure that these women are used as a warning to others when they do these things.

So, why aren't you pushing the goverment to charge these women on return or to physically stop and detain them from traveling?

If we prevented women from traveling for an abortion there would be a higher demand for it here. Currently if you want one you have to jump through some hoops but you can still get one so it helps keep up the idea that we have no abortions in Ireland as everyone who wants one can go on a weekend break (assuming they can get the money, time off work, someone to mind the children if needed etc etc)

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

because otherwise you are left with absurd conclusions like not being able to say that taking cholera out of the water supply is the correct thing to do or banning something like FGM

Well, absurd is definitely a subjective notion. What you conclude is up to you, so that seems fairly subjective too.
I'm sure someone might offer objective reasoning for opposing introducing cholera into a water supply, or preventing FGM.
Kiwi might oppose them because they interfere with human dignity.
I might oppose them because they add no value to society; both of these are subjective reasoning, but I think they at least rise marginally above the notion that we're just better so what we say is right, which appears to be the basis for your points at the moment?

Absolam

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

If we prevented women from traveling for an abortion there would be a higher demand for it here. Currently if you want one you have to jump through some hoops but you can still get one so it helps keep up the idea that we have no abortions in Ireland as everyone who wants one can go on a weekend break (assuming they can get the money, time off work, someone to mind the children if needed etc etc)

To be fair, it doesn't seem availability determines demand; there is demand, which is simply met elsewhere, but I'd be wary of suggesting more people would want abortions simply because they were easier to get, even if it's probably true that more people would have abortions if they were easier to get. Pro choice posters have noted on the thread that there are jurisdictions with liberal availability and low demand, so your idea doesn't really appear to hold water.
Anyway, I don't think anyone actually has the idea that we have no abortions in Ireland, do they? I'm sure anyone who posts on boards to say so would be set straight quickly enough anyway :-)

130Kph

I’m giving my overarching view of the abortion debate (but I’m probably preaching to the choir here ) – which I hope is useful (I think a summary-of-the-debate-so-far-sticky-post at the end of each thread would be a useful addition to boards but would probably require a human copy-writer….anyway);

I’ve followed three major threads on different fora (A&A, Christianity[locked tonight!], politics/referendums) here for a year or so and the debate has covered all the points from central to peripheral (and fair play to posters from both sides who have done all the fine-comb debating); I’ve come to the conclusion that the pro-life side (whether soft, medium or extreme) simply can’t defend their position.

They rely on lies about biology and lies about science and deliberate misrepresentation of reality and cruelly ignoring human frailty (over and above the legitimitate representation of the pro-life viewpoint) - but at the same time they have this super high horse, black and white, perfectionist stance- as they’re well entitled to have; ……but…. why is that!!

In my opinion, it is indefensible for one section of society to impose their delusion or lies-based morality on another section to prevent that other section from accessing a medical practice which is fully in harmony with that second sections morals & ethics. This is Kafkaesque madness (and it always has been thus in Ireland in relation to abortion). It’s not just Ireland that does this but all restrictive abortion jurisdictions.

Anyone who seeks to prevent abortion on demand (below 24 weeks) for their fellow country-women (who may have a polar opposite ethical view on the issue) is, in my opinion, an extremist, similar to the obnoxious, high-horse, prudes who enforced prohibition on the US in the 1920’s.

To put it simply, If someone recoils against the idea of abortion – good for them.

However it is indefensible (with this issue) for people with one set of contentious morals to impose on those with the exact opposite morals.

How does the the pro-life position fit in with a civilised, pluralist, democracy where the rights of the individual are respected? In my opinion…it doesn’t fit in at all.

I would put the contemporary pro-life position as equivalent to that of those vile cretins :mad: who believed that drowning witches would uncover if they were guilty - less than 400 years ago. An absolute disgrace in the annals of history – even allowing for judging history in the context of the way life was lived then. That is the position pro-lifers who have brought us to with the madness of the 8th amendment.

Future Irish generations will look back on these abortion debates the way we look back on the debates in the US South in the 1850’s about enforcing slavery on those that may not want to be enslaved
(i.e. enforcing women to remain pregnant against their will)? (Apologies for two USA analogies in a row, but the US does have a wide & varied history).

Question 1: Is a pro-life position valid? my answer is yes (you’re entitled to think a fertilised human egg is anything you want – there is absolutely no limitations on where your impressive imagination brings you on this question – a zygote (yes, yes, yes!!!!!), a human being with full human rights (lol), a banana, an oak tree, a Martian, a Xylophone, a matrix anomaly or any lie that you feel represents your particular lie-based view of reality.

Question 2: Can pro-lifers enforce their indefensible, puritanical morals on those that fundamentally disagree with them – no, they can’t……… not indefinitely. Time will resolve this immoral, obnoxious, medieval injustice for pro-choice, Irish women (and family members) with crisis-pregnancies.

That is my overarching comment on the main abortion debate and I hope I will not derail the current fine comb strand of discussion of this issue.

recedite

130Kph wrote: »

...a human being with full human rights (lol), a banana, an oak tree, a Martian, a Xylophone, a matrix anomaly or any lie that you feel represents your particular lie-based view of reality.

The problem with this view is that it allows you to pick and choose what rights others have.

Lets say the pro-life crank in your example believes that a banana should have full human rights. The crank is entitled to believe that, but is not entitled to enforce that view on the rest of society. This you agree with. So far so good.

But now lets say a pro-choice crank believes that a black person should not have full human rights.This other crank is entitled to believe that, but is not entitled to behave according to their own personal morality. This I assume you also agree with.
So now you see that society must somehow decide what the correct position is, and then everyone must respect that position. Human rights is not an area in which we can allow individual choices or different opinions to be acted on.

According to the last available referendum result, the majority in this society favour granting a right to life for the unborn. So everybody has to accept that position. If that situation ever reverses, the pro-life crowd will have to accept that the unborn can have no legal protection.

130Kph

recedite wrote: »

The problem with this view is that it allows you to pick and choose what rights others have.
........
According to the last available referendum result, the majority in this society favour granting a right to life for the unborn. So everybody has to accept that position. If that situation ever reverses, the pro-life crowd will have to accept that the unborn can have no legal protection.

No it doesn’t. Zygotes aren’t ‘others’. They’re zygotes and this is not about me.

This is the precise Kafkaesque madness I alluded to above. It’s only when you stand well back from it (about 50,000km) that you can see it for the reality-inverting, madhouse thinking that it is.

No, I’m not going to entertain your black analogy.

What I’m saying is that if the US voted in say, a federal referendum next year to re-instate slavery that would be very, very wrong, immoral & retrograde. The same way our current obnoxious abortion laws, amendments and restrictions are very, very wrong.

This issue is too important to be left to the varying tides of voter opinion or the vagaries of an under pressure government. Abortion rights go deeper than that.

Absolam

130Kph wrote: »

I’ve followed three major threads on different fora (A&A, Christianity[locked tonight!], politics/referendums) here for a year or so and the debate has covered all the points from central to peripheral (and fair play to posters from both sides who have done all the fine-comb debating); I’ve come to the conclusion that the pro-life side (whether soft, medium or extreme) simply can’t defend their position.

That seems an odd conclusion to arrive at when it seems fairly obvious from the threads that many pro-life do quite a good job of not only defending but promoting their positions; there are plenty who don't but then there are plenty of pro-choice posters who are equally as bad at defending/promoting their positions. I think we've seen admirably put (and thought out) arguments from both sides, we're just more inclined to think the ones that align more closely with our own views are 'better', whereas in fact they're probably just more palatable.

130Kph wrote: »

They rely on lies about biology and lies about science and deliberate misrepresentation of reality and cruelly ignoring human frailty (over and above the legitimitate representation of the pro-life viewpoint) - but at the same time they have this super high horse, black and white, perfectionist stance- as they’re well entitled to have; ……but…. why is that!!

Well, some probably do. But a quick glance at this thread alone shows that pro choice posters are just as willing to be elastic with the truth if it suits their agenda; the extreme posters from both sides might well drive the debate but realistically I don't think either one is addressing the real issues.

130Kph wrote: »

In my opinion, it is indefensible for one section of society to impose their delusion or lies-based morality on another section to prevent that other section from accessing a medical practice which is fully in harmony with that second sections morals & ethics. This is Kafkaesque madness (and it always has been thus in Ireland in relation to abortion). It’s not just Ireland that does this but all restrictive abortion jurisdictions.

In my opinion, it is indefensible for one section of society to kill another in the course of imposing their delusion or lies based morality on society by accessing a medical practice that is abhorrent to the majority of society. The fact that both opinions can be equally true is really Kafkaesque :-)

130Kph wrote: »

Anyone who seeks to prevent abortion on demand (below 24 weeks) for their fellow country-women (who may have a polar opposite ethical view on the issue) is, in my opinion, an extremist, similar to the obnoxious, high-horse, prudes who enforced prohibition on the US in the 1920’s.

Anyone who seeks to terminate anothers life for no better reason than they desire to is, in my opinion, also an extremist, as similar to any obnoxious, high-horse, prude as you care to mention.

130Kph wrote: »

To put it simply, If someone recoils against the idea of abortion – good for them. However it is indefensible (with this issue) for people with one set of contentious morals to impose on those with the exact opposite morals.

Well no; we live in a democracy, which determines what ethical structure it will impose on society. It would be indefensible to abandon our duty to steer our own society in a manner that is ethically acceptable, in favour of a laissex faire attitude to the killing of others.

130Kph wrote: »

How does the the pro-life position fit in with a civilised, pluralist, democracy where the rights of the individual are respected? In my opinion…it doesn’t fit in at all.

It does if you consider that the primary right of an individual is the right to life, in fact in that light, how can a society be a civilised, pluralist, democracy when it ignores that most basic right of an individual?

130Kph wrote: »

I would put the contemporary pro-life position as equivalent to that of those vile cretins :mad: who believed that drowning witches would uncover if they were guilty - less than 400 years ago. An absolute disgrace in the annals of history – even allowing for judging history in the context of the way life was lived then. That is the position pro-lifers who have brought us to with the madness of the 8th amendment.

Aw now, no one has drowned any witches (or expectant mothers, or even babies or foetuses) so I think your overarching may be overreaching there! You never know... in 400 years technology will be so advanced that the notion of killing a foetus rather than removing it and placing it in a safe environment to mature may well seem like a sad barbaric footnote in the annals of medical history.

130Kph wrote: »

Future Irish generations will look back on these abortion debates the way we look back on the debates in the US South in the 1850’s about enforcing slavery on those that may not want to be enslaved (i.e. enforcing women to remain pregnant against their will)? (Apologies for two USA analogies in a row, but the US does have a wide & varied history).

Maybe. Maybe not; predicting the future is pretty tricky I reckon.

130Kph wrote: »

Question 1: Is a pro-life position valid? my answer is yes (you’re entitled to think a fertilised human egg is anything you want – there is absolutely no limitations on where your impressive imagination brings you on this question – a zygote (yes, yes, yes!!!!!), a human being with full human rights (lol), a banana, an oak tree, a Martian, a Xylophone, a matrix anomaly or any lie that you feel represents your particular lie-based view of reality.

I get the feeling that any view of reality not in accordance with yours is included in the 'lie-based' view? I doubt many people who feel a foetus has a right to life are lying about it; they believe it to be true. If we're entitled to think a a fertilised human egg is anything you want (and you're right, we all are), we are also entitled to ask our society to respect and enforce that view. And if enough other people agree with that view then society will respect and enforce it.

130Kph wrote: »

Question 2: Can pro-lifers enforce their indefensible, puritanical morals on those that fundamentally disagree with them – no, they can’t……… not indefinitely. Time will resolve this immoral, obnoxious, medieval injustice for pro-choice, Irish women (and family members) with crisis-pregnancies.

Well , yes. As long as the majority of people in a society agree with a particular point of view they will be in a position to enforce it on the minority. Vitriolic attribution aside ( indefensible, immoral, obnoxious, medieval, barbarous pro-choice attitudes?) democracy tends, as other posters have put it, to be a tyranny of the majority.

130Kph wrote: »

That is my overarching comment on the main abortion debate and I hope I will not derail the current fine comb strand of discussion of this issue.

To be fair, it does seem less an overarching comment and more a restatement of pro-choice positions?

recedite

130Kph wrote: »

This issue is too important to be left to the varying tides of voter opinion....

We still live in a democracy, but if you ever get to be the Great Dictator, you'll be able to impose your own view on everybody else.

130Kph

Absolam wrote: »

Anyone who seeks to terminate anothers life for no better reason than they desire to is, in my opinion, also an extremist, as similar to any obnoxious, high-horse, prude as you care to mention.

At the core of the pro-life position is the big lie (I’m not calling pro-lifers liars {they’re not}, I’m saying the position is a delusion to its core). If this delusion affected nobody else, then everything would be fine but alas, currently other women have to pay the price of this folly.

If pregnancies had no gradual development and instead humans appeared as, say a fully grown 5’11” man a split second after the egg was fertilised then the pro-life stance would make sense. They could then use all their favourite emotive vocabulary and phrases (such as killing someone, etc). At least then it would be rational and make sense.

But by using this description & language for a fertilized egg and zygotes it is simply at best a delusion and at worst a lie. It’s a delusion because it ignores that a zygote develops gradually from the cell stage to later stages of pregnancy. That’s why I say pro-lifers can’t defend their position.

If most people (wrongly) believed that a fertilised egg was a Matrix anomaly and voted en masse to have laws in place to control pregnant women to fit around that arbitrary belief, there would be the same push back by those in society opposed to such a harmful delusion.

Absolam

130Kph wrote: »

At the core of the pro-life position is the big lie (I’m not calling pro-lifers liars {they’re not}, I’m saying the position is a delusion to its core). If this delusion affected nobody else, then everything would be fine but alas, currently other women have to pay the price of this folly.

So, do you imagine all those who are pro life suffer from the same delusion, or different delusions depending on their reasoning? Or are they simply deluded because you disagree with them?

130Kph wrote: »

If pregnancies had no gradual development and instead humans appeared as, say a fully grown 5’11” man a split second after the egg was fertilised then the pro-life stance would make sense. They could then use all their favourite emotive vocabulary and phrases (such as killing someone, etc). At least then it would be rational and make sense.

Emotive vocabulary and phrases like.... deliberate misrepresentation of reality, cruelly ignoring human frailty, delusion, lies-based morality, Kafkaesque madness, vile cretins, lie-based view of reality, indefensible, puritanical, immoral, obnoxious, medieval injustice? That sort of thing? Hmm. Anyway, why does a human have to spring into adult existence for a pro life stance to make sense? Or is it just for it to make sense to you?

130Kph wrote: »

But by using this description & language for a fertilized egg and zygotes it is simply at best a delusion and at worst a lie. It’s a delusion because it ignores that a zygote develops gradually from the cell stage to later stages of pregnancy. That’s why I say pro-lifers can’t defend their position.

So... the fact that a zygote develops into a foetus, which develops into a child which develops into an adult makes what a lie exactly? Most of us are reasonably aware of the process, but the conclusion you draw from it seems rather elusive. We can avoid all the descriptive language you've show you're fond of if you like, I don't think it will make either position more or less delusional.

130Kph wrote: »

If most people (wrongly) believed that a fertilised egg was a Matrix anomaly and voted en masse to have laws in place to control pregnant women to fit around that arbitrary belief, there would be the same push back by those in society opposed to such a harmful delusion.

Maybe, it's a fairly odd notion so I suppose we should take your word for it. But regardless, the push back from those opposed to the 'harmful delusion' (and in fariness, being a minority might very well be themselves the ones suffering from harmful delusions) wouldn't really matter if the majority of people are resolved in their belief.

130Kph

Absolam wrote: »

So, do you imagine all those who are pro life suffer from the same delusion, or different delusions depending on their reasoning? Or are they simply deluded because you disagree with them?
..........
So... the fact that a zygote develops into a foetus, which develops into a child which develops into an adult makes what a lie exactly? Most of us are reasonably aware of the process, but the conclusion you draw from it seems rather elusive.

I’m saying nearly all on the pro-life side have at least one core delusion from which all their other principles on this issue follow.

To clarify: - the delusion I’m talking about is the belief that at the nanosecond an egg is fertilised that it becomes equivalent to a human being with the full human rights of an adult (that’s the big lie I refer to).

A not dis-similar religious delusion is:- at this point the egg attains a soul :rolleyes:

The biological reality is :- a fertilized egg is a human zygote

But…

It ISN’T a human being, it isn’t a child, it isn’t a baby, it isn’t something to play semantics with, one can’t just define it to be something that it’s not, it isn’t a Martian, it isn’t a Xylophone etc. etc. etc.

Defining a zygote as having the full human rights of grown adult is an arbitrary, surreal delusion. It is as surreal as defining an acorn in the ground to be an oak tree.

And again, it’s because of this strange premise - I say pro-lifers can’t defend their position.

volchitsa

130Kph wrote: »

I’m saying nearly all on the pro-life side have at least one core delusion from which all their other principles on this issue follow.

To clarify: - the delusion I’m talking about is the belief that at the nanosecond an egg is fertilised that it becomes equivalent to a human being with the full human rights of an adult (that’s the big lie I refer to).

A not dis-similar religious delusion is:- at this point the egg attains a soul :rolleyes:

The biological reality is :- a fertilized egg is a human zygote

But…

It ISN’T a human being, it isn’t a child, it isn’t a baby, it isn’t something to play semantics with, one can’t just define it to be something that it’s not, it isn’t a Martian, it isn’t a Xylophone etc. etc. etc.

Defining a zygote as having the full human rights of grown adult is an arbitrary, surreal delusion. It is as surreal as defining an acorn in the ground to be an oak tree.

And again, it’s because of this strange premise - I say pro-lifers can’t defend their position.

The "acorn = tree" fallacy is even odder when applied to the legal situation of the zygote in Ireland, where embryos of the same age have different moral standings : those created via IVF have few or no rights, and belong entirely to their "creators" to do with pretty much as they wish, whereas embryos of the same age but created inside a woman are "unborn life".

The other problem is that trying to get around that anomaly by just not taking into account the first week of existence as a zygote, as a poster here explained in some detail, moves the anti-abortion stance sharply away from right to life of the newly-created human entity, and onto the more traditional grounds of men controlling women's pregnancies.

Absolam

130Kph wrote: »

I’m saying nearly all on the pro-life side have at least one core delusion from which all their other principles on this issue follow. To clarify: - the delusion I’m talking about is the belief that at the nanosecond an egg is fertilised that it becomes equivalent to a human being with the full human rights of an adult (that’s the big lie I refer to).

Is there a basis for assuming that 'delusion' pertains though? For instance, if you were to review the pro life posters on this thread what proportion have stated they agree with that premise? As to whether or not it's delusional; it's plainly not a factual point of view since the State doesn't confer the full human rights of an adult on a child, never mind a foetus or a zygote. To be fair though, I've never come across anyone who believed it does, though those who might desire the State to do so are arguably no more delusional than those who aspire to the State removing all rights from the unborn.

130Kph wrote: »

A not dis-similar religious delusion is:- at this point the egg attains a soul :rolleyes:

I rather doubt you can demonstrate that's a delusion; if the Church says the egg has a soul how will you prove otherwise?
I imagine they're pretty much the definitive authority on what has souls and what doesn't... So it's not dissimilar, your entire argument is on a hiding to nowhere (though, in fairness, it is already).

130Kph wrote: »

The biological reality is :- a fertilized egg is a human zygote But…It ISN’T a human being, it isn’t a child, it isn’t a baby, it isn’t something to play semantics with, one can’t just define it to be something that it’s not, it isn’t a Martian, it isn’t a Xylophone etc. etc. etc.

Pretty sure it is a human being, at least to some degree or other.
It exists, which means it is a being, and it has human dna which is distinguishable from every other species on the planet, so it's human. You may play semantics; it is demonstrably not Martian or a xylophone, but it is inarguably human.

130Kph wrote: »

Defining a zygote as having the full human rights of grown adult is an arbitrary, surreal delusion. It is as surreal as defining an acorn in the ground to be an oak tree.And again, it’s because of this strange premise - I say pro-lifers can’t defend their position.

It's about as arbitrary and surreal as defining anything as having any rights. A plebiscite tomorrow could confer all the full human rights of an adult on a zygote, if everyone wanted to. Whether that is arbitrary or surreal isn't really relevant, only what we choose to confer.
But it doesn't seem anyone is arguing for that, so really what you're saying is that pro-lifers don't appear to want to defend the strange premise that you've attributed to them; it's not their position, it's yours. Why would they want to defend it?

130Kph

Absolam wrote: »

Pretty sure it is a human being, at least to some degree or other.
It exists, which means it is a being, and it has human dna which is distinguishable from every other species on the planet, so it's human. You may play semantics; it is demonstrably not Martian or a xylophone, but it is inarguably human.

You’re pretty sure are you?

It (the zygote) isn’t a man, it isn’t a woman and it isn’t a child so by definition it is not a human being.

I agree its human material but since it’s a 2 cell organism, it isn’t a human being in any sense; unless you want to redefine words & phrases to suit your viewpoint (and which are then only accepted in pro-life circles).

So, what reason(s) makes you pretty sure a zygote is a human being?

Absolam

130Kph wrote: »

You’re pretty sure are you? It (the zygote) isn’t a man, it isn’t a woman and it isn’t a child so by definition it is not a human being.

I am. Certainly by a definition that requires a human being to be a man, woman or child it is not a human being. But then, neither is a person who doesn't identify as a man woman or child, and I suspect they would consider themselves to be human beings nonetheless.

130Kph wrote: »

I agree its human material but since it’s a 2 cell organism, it isn’t a human being in any sense; unless you want to redefine words & phrases to suit your viewpoint (and which are then only accepted in pro-life circles). So, what reason(s) makes you pretty sure a zygote is a human being?

Well, I have to say I wouldn't be convinced my viewpoint would necessarily be accepted in pro life circles, but I'm going with a nicely loose definition:
It is a creature that exists, therefore it is a being.
It has solely human dna, therefore it is human.
So it's a human being.
Dictionary.com says it's:
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species
That seems to fit well enough too.
Encyclopedia Brittanica says
human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning.
which works for me too, but to be fair to you human being is really a philosophical concept, and I can see why it might not suit you philosophically speaking to consider a zygote as a human being.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

[...] it's plainly not a factual point of view since the State doesn't confer the full human rights of an adult on a child, never mind a foetus or a zygote. To be fair though, I've never come across anyone who believed it does [...]

Ever come across anyone referring to them all interchangeably and without distinction as "persons", "individuals", "humans", etc? (Or a downward-closed subset, all the way back to zygote, as "babies", "children"?) Because that certainly seems to be the strong connotation of such exercises in rhetoric. For all that we get waving of arms in the cause of deniability about it afterwards.

I imagine they're pretty much the definitive authority on what has souls and what doesn't...

"Imagination" really is the operative word there, isn't it? Definitive authority for the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, on exactly the same basis. Unless of course one's subjective unverifiable metaphysical tastes run to an entirely different such "definitive authority".

Pretty sure it is a human being, at least to some degree or other.
It exists, which means it is a being, and it has human dna which is distinguishable from every other species on the planet, so it's human. You may play semantics; it is demonstrably not Martian or a xylophone, but it is inarguably human.

Consider the number of other entities that are "a human being, at least to some degree or another" on precisely this set of criteria.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ever come across anyone referring to them all interchangeably and without distinction as "persons", "individuals", "humans", etc? (Or a downward-closed subset, all the way back to zygote, as "babies", "children"?) Because that certainly seems to be the strong connotation of such exercises in rhetoric. For all that we get waving of arms in the cause of deniability about it afterwards.

I don't think I've come across anyone claiming that persons, individuals, and humans, which terms include children, babies, foetuses and zygotes, all have the full human rights of an adult, have you?
The rhetoric seems rather more to extend in the direction of "If you think they're people/humans/individuals, then you must think they should have the full rights of adults, so you're silly" from what I can see....

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Imagination" really is the operative word there, isn't it? Definitive authority for the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, on exactly the same basis. Unless of course one's subjective unverifiable metaphysical tastes run to an entirely different such "definitive authority".

From one point of view, certainly. From another, of course, the operative word would be authority.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Consider the number of other entities that are "a human being, at least to some degree or another" on precisely this set of criteria.

Work away; if you come up with any that I feel I need to exclude from my own philosophical position I'll figure it out when we get there. I may just go with 'not sufficiently to some degree or another, in my opinion'; that may well do for most of them.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think I've come across anyone claiming that persons, individuals, and humans, which terms include children, babies, foetuses and zygotes, all have the full human rights of an adult, have you?

Do you get what a "connotation" is? (Because "connotation" and "denotation" have different denotations.) As I said, it's a commonplace on this thread (in the reproductive rights debate generally) to go a very, very, very long way out of their way to refer to different states of being as if they weren't actually different at all. Either people like unnecessarily difficult semantic exercises, or they have some political purpose in doing so. (Or in some cases, both, I suspect.)

The rhetoric seems rather more to extend in the direction of "If you think they're people/humans/individuals, then you must think they should have the full rights of adults, so you're silly" from what I can see....

Firstly, if you think they're people/humans/individuals, see my previous detailed analyses of why these are each flawed. Which generally seem to result in a slow retreat from one set of terminology, through another, only for the cycle to repeat somewhat later.

Secondly, who precisely has ever used "the full rights of adults" as a baseline for anything? Is there a United Nations Full Adult Rights Convention? Did we recently have a Referendum on Giving Children Full Adult Rights. This is indeed a silly use of a "this is silly" argument.

From one point of view, certainly. From another, of course, the operative word would be authority.

Strictly in the sense of authoritarian rather than authoritative. And even that on a track that's pretty clearly strictly downwards since the Middle Ages. So I stand by the claim that the "imaginary" part is what essentially distinguishes this.

Work away; if you come up with any that I feel I need to exclude from my own philosophical position I'll figure it out when we get there. I may just go with 'not sufficiently to some degree or another, in my opinion'; that may well do for most of them.

I already have, some considerable time ago, and you already did the handwaving under various covers. "Different degrees", "a authority I'm not able to cite assures me that's not true", etc, etc. I take your protestations about zygotes about as seriously.

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

I rather doubt you can demonstrate that's a delusion; if the Church says the egg has a soul how will you prove otherwise?

A nice reversal of the onus of evidence there. The onus of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the mark. If they want to claim a soul exists and specifically exists in eggs, then the onus of substantiating that claim lies solely and squarely at their feet.

As for demonstrating it to be a delusion..... belief in a claim for which there is no substantiation is "delusion" to me.

Absolam wrote: »

it is inarguably human.

Which just shows nothing more than the vagaries of human language and how we, all too often, have one word that means different things. We have the single word "sport" for example which can apply to bowls or MMA, which have little in common except for use of lungs.

Similarly we have this word "Human" which has different meanings in different contexts, and the Anti Choice canard I personally experience most is a willingness to hop seamlessly between uses of this word in order to manufacture an argument that is not actually there.

The MO of this canard is simple. Establish, genuinely and accurately, a use of the word "Human" in the discourse.... but then simply leap from this use of "Human" to any other use you wish to use. So yes.... the DNA in a zygote is clearly human DNA.... so the use of "Human" is established in the discourse. But then the Anti Choice campaigner will leap from this to Ascribing the zygote to BE Human. As in a human person deserving of some level of human rights, specifically in this context the right to life.

I prefer not to indulge this game of linguistics but instead simply ask the Anti Choice campaigner if they have any actual arguments, not couched in definition hopping, which establishes a coherent reasoning for affording rights to a zygote. Currently, to date, I have not heard one, except a desperate return to the "Human" linguistic gymnastics I mentioned above. They genuinely seem to believe that once the word "Human" is used in the conversation at all, then the conversation and debate is already over.

And until such time as I do hear a coherent argument for doing it, I am forced to remain entirely Pro-Choice in the abortion debate myself.

130Kph

So you’re pretty sure that a zygote is a human being because it’s an individual, a person and a creature. Again, you’re free to have this strange definition if you wish.

Someone else down at the pub might assert that at the moment of conception in every case worldwide that each zygote is briefly a Keanu Reeves clone for a few seconds which then morphs back into a normal combination of its parents DNA.

Aren’t definitions great all the same?

Absolam wrote: »

but to be fair to you human being is really a philosophical concept, and I can see why it might not suit you philosophically speaking to consider a zygote as a human being.

If that’s the way you believe I think, I’d like to disabuse you of that notion. My starting point on this issue is the biology of the issue, not with the end result I’d like to have. I don’t describe a zygote as a human being because the objective reality is that IT IS a zygote –not because it may be philosophically inconvenient to define it as a human being.

So to clarify, do you therefore consider an acorn in the ground to be an oak tree to some degree or other?

alaimacerc

130Kph wrote: »

So you’re pretty sure that a zygote is a human being because it’s an individual, a person and a creature.

I think it would be more accurate to say that A. is pretty sure of this despite having no argument that it's legally a person, or biologically or philosophically an individual. So much be using each of those pieces of terminology on some... different basis. And a carefully unspecified one, at that.

130Kph

volchitsa wrote: »

The other problem is that trying to get around that anomaly by just not taking into account the first week of existence as a zygote, as a poster here explained in some detail, moves the anti-abortion stance sharply away from right to life of the newly-created human entity, and onto the more traditional grounds of men controlling women's pregnancies.

That is crazy, crazy stuff. I can’t believe that individuals put forward such arguments with a straight face and somehow keep that tied in with their overall stance.

Btw, we keep hearing that the Irish public (even 18-35’s) are still very against abortion on demand. Do you think that is accurate?

I’d like to see a much, much tougher method to assess the public’s view on this question. I have in mind to get volunteers to do a poll + explanation format.

The question asked could be: - Do you think you (i.e. not the state) have the right to force a woman to continue with a (sub 24 week) pregnancy against her will?

If the answer is no, fine – box ticked. But if they said yes, he/she would have to go in front of an audience of 2,000 pro-choicers and explain their reasons with a question and answer format for as long as it takes to give a coherent explanation!

I’d say the poll result would be quite different then!! Probably 90% supporting abortion on demand!!!

Brian Shanahan

130Kph wrote: »

At the core of the pro-life position is the big lie (I’m not calling pro-lifers liars {they’re not}, I’m saying the position is a delusion to its core).

The thing is though, they are. Their very name is a lie, and an obvious one at that. Their position is not pro-life at all, because their position massively endangers pregnant women, whether they need an abortion due to medical complications and can't get one (e.g. Savita Halapanavar) or (as in the case of the US before Roe vs. Wade) they need one because they can't afford a child, their father would beat them up for having a pregnancy out of marriage, they were raped or any one of the other myriad of reasons there is for abortion and they have to go to a back street abortionist, who pretty much just sticks a dirty coat hanger up their uterus in order to try and puncture the foetal membrane and induce abortion that way.

The anti-abortion crowd by their very insistence on forcing others to follow their twisted morality are endangering the lives of millions on an annual basis.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

The "acorn = tree" fallacy is even odder when applied to the legal situation of the zygote in Ireland, where embryos of the same age have different moral standings : those created via IVF have few or no rights, and belong entirely to their "creators" to do with pretty much as they wish, whereas embryos of the same age but created inside a woman are "unborn life"....

It is incorrect to say IVF embryos have a different legal standing; all embryos gain a legal recognition and protection at some level from the time of implantation, whether IVF or not. The "age" of a frozen embryo is irrelevant. It could be 20 years old, and still be an embryo.

130Kph wrote: »

It (the zygote) isn’t a man, it isn’t a woman and it isn’t a child so by definition it is not a human being.

That's a rubbish definition of a human being. Ever heard of "third gender" people?
There is a whole lot of range between embryo/child/young adult/geriatric and there is also a whole lot of range between "man" and "woman".

You mentioned 24 weeks earlier, is that the arbitrary point at which you think humanity magically begins in a foetus?

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

You mentioned 24 weeks earlier, is that the arbitrary point at which you think humanity magically begins in a foetus?

If you want a high marginal propensity for believing in an "arbitrary point at which humanity magically begins", you may be looking in the wrong "side" of the debate, I'm afraid.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

It is incorrect to say IVF embryos have a different legal standing; all embryos gain a legal recognition and protection at some level from the time of implantation, whether IVF or not. The "age" of a frozen embryo is irrelevant. It could be 20 years old, and still be an embryo.

It's the bit in bold that's problematic though. It can at least be argued that life begins at fertilisation. It can't really be argued, not using science anyway, that life begins at implantation.

recedite

Protection of the unborn in the eyes of the law begins at implantation. I'm not sure if anyone thinks that "life starts" then.
I think that particular point was chosen more for pragmatic reasons, ie doomed ectopic pregnancies, contraceptives that actually work by preventing implantation, multiple zygotes from fertility treatments, etc..
If you are going to draw one single line in the sand (which I don't necessarily agree with anyway)there are lots of reasons to say implantation would be it.
Before implantation the pregnancy is uncertain.