Abortion Discussion

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

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 don't think they do, but presumably you agree that once religion is taken out of the equation (which of course was very much not the case at the time the amendment was first passed) there has to be some non religious justification behind removing the woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to become or remain pregnant?

recedite wrote: »

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...

Oh absolutely it was chosen for exactly that reason.

The question is how a ban on abortion based not on the creation of a new entity with a full complement of DNA but on the beginning of pregnancy has any basis in the protection of life? After all, if the embryo is in some way not alive (because not worthy of protection) of day 3 or 4, by what mechanism does it become alive (and deserving of protection) on day 7 or 8?

recedite wrote: »

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.

Are there really? Could you name some please?

recedite wrote: »

Before implantation the pregnancy is uncertain.

Well, no - before implantation, there is no pregnancy at all, but is that relevant, in the context of protecting the life of this new human being that we're led to believe is the only reason for removing rights from the woman?

inocybe

It was chosen because opposition to IVF doesn't go down well, especially in the US.

volchitsa

inocybe wrote: »

It was chosen because opposition to IVF doesn't go down well, especially in the US.

And I suspect that is due to the financial clout of the health industry there, not because of individual couples.

Just meant to add also that using implantation as a starting point doesn't necessarily help with the issue of terminating ectopic pregancies, since the problem there is that the embryos have indeed implanted exactly as normal, but unfortunately in the wrong place.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

contraceptives that actually work by preventing implantation

Which are? I'm not aware of any for which this is confirmed as the -- or even a -- mechanism of action.

Certainly lots of speculation and claims, mind you.

inocybe

alaimacerc wrote: »

Which are? I'm not aware of any for which this is confirmed as the -- or even a -- mechanism of action.

Certainly lots of speculation and claims, mind you.

Coils

volchitsa

inocybe wrote: »

Coils

Prevention of implantation of the fertilized egg/zygote seems to be one of the suggested mechanisms of action for the IUD (coil). I'm not sure that's actually been confirmed one way or the other though. But I was certainly told as a teenager that the IUD was considered by the Catholic Church to be an abortifacient, due to its supposed mechanism of action.

inocybe

volchitsa wrote: »

Prevention of implantation of the fertilized egg/zygote seems to be one of the suggested mechanisms of action for the IUD (coil). I'm not sure that's actually been confirmed one way or the other though. But I was certainly told as a teenager that the IUD was considered by the Catholic Church to be an abortifacient, due to its supposed mechanism of action.

Yes I was told the same as a teen, it was like a dirty word back then. The coil can be inserted for emergency contraception though, so it must prevent implantation.

volchitsa

inocybe wrote: »

Yes I was told the same as a teen, it was like a dirty word back then. The coil can be inserted for emergency contraception though, so it must prevent implantation.

I've come across that notion too, but never in practice : as emergency contraception, does it just prevent implantation or can it actually disrupt the pregnancy even after implantation has occurred?

I ask because I seem to remember that the IUD can be fitted several days after the MAP would no longer be considered a possibility, but I can't remember how many days. Maybe it still has to be before possible implantation, I don't remember.

alaimacerc

inocybe wrote: »

The coil can be inserted for emergency contraception though, so it must prevent implantation.

That doesn't actually follow. There's about 1-6 days (I think on average about 2) after intercourse before conception occurs, during which there's the opportunity for inhibition of ovulation (the (main) way hormonal emergency contraception works), or spermicide (the coil).

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Do you get what a "connotation" is? (Because "connotation" and "denotation" have different denotations.)

I do. Do you get that what you may feel is a strong connotation of what you describe as rhetorical exercises does not denote an actual usage nonetheless?

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.)

I can't say I've noticed a reticence on either side to choose semantics that suit their own agendas; 130Kphs overarching view would be a good example. And yet, I'm not noticing the pro choice posters who put forward 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; or even those who attempt such a connotation?

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

I think you've left out your detailed analyses of why these are each flawed. You seem to have only pointed out your objection to connotations being made?

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

It seems 130Kph is using it as the baseline for his argument, so he is probably the best person to ask about it to be honest. I do agree; it seems a pretty silly line of argument.

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

Well, I can't think of anyone with more authority on Church teachings, so authoritive still seems the most significant aspect if we're to consider anything at all to do with what has souls and what doesn't...

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

I'm sure you'll quote it if you have. Whilst I can't recall ever saying "a authority I'm not able to cite assures me that's not true" (and the search function assures me I haven't), I'm just as sure you'd quote me if I had .

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I don't think the Church is actually looking for proof though; the existence of souls is a matter of faith so even if you could prove that it doesn't exist (and given the Catechismal definition I think you'd have a hard time), then a Christian who believes in the face of evidence is an even better Christian because of it (ok, I'm a bit hazy on that bit, but the point is saying there's no evidence for souls doesn't really make a difference to people who believe in souls).

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

That's quite true, I'm sure there's a plethora of notions for what a human being is, and I'm comfortable with that. It's 130Kph who seems to have a problem with it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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 can see why you would hold that one doesn't necessarily follow the other, but is there a reason for it, other than the obvious philosophical one? Because it seems fairly apparent that at some point that this particular thing which is composed of human material will leap from this to BEING Human, and a human person deserving of some level of human rights, including the right to life. Based on that, it seems your objection can't be based on the factuality of humanness (introducing another fuzzy concept there, sorry) since there can be no doubt that the leap you described does at some point occur, and more on when that leap occurs?
In which case, debating how interchangeably the terms human life, human, person, individual etc might be used seems rather irrelevant.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Well, I think that's because we generally acknowledge that humans, or people, are entitled to certain protections from society, so if something is human, or a person, then it should also be entitled to those protections. That's not a linguistic argument; I don't think anyone taking that position is trying to trick others into thinking a zygote is something it's not. Rather it's a philosophical argument, just as human being is a philosophical concept.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Whereas I have yet to hear a coherent argument for why we ought not to afford something which is certainly human, and certainly living, the most basic right we can afford to anything; the right to life.
Well... in fairness, there are plenty of coherent arguments for why in certain circumstances other living human lives ought to be prioritised over that one, just none so far for why it ought to be discounted entirely. And so I choose to remain pro life (in a fairly ecumenical sense) in the abortion debate.

Absolam

130Kph wrote: »

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.

Well, I'd add to that that I'm pretty sure because it conforms to the other definitions that I quoted from various sources, so I'm reasonably sure I'm not exactly going out on a limb with it

130Kph wrote: »

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?

I suppose they might. Do you reckon it would be relevant if they did?

130Kph wrote: »

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.

Hmm. Do you think you might consider it the zygote of a human being? How about a human zygote? After all, it's distinguishable from the zygote of any other species, so that at least would seem to be beyond dispute?

130Kph wrote: »

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

Well I'm not that big on botany, but can you clarify why I might consider an acorn in the ground to be an oak tree to some degree or other? Any more or less than I might consider, say, a seedling to be an oak tree, or a sapling to be an oak tree, or a twig to be an oak tree? Would it help resolve your dilemma if you considered the term oak 'tree' as the equivalent of human 'adult'? So for instance, we could agree that both oak trees and acorns are (in the case of an Irish Oak) Quercus petraea?

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

Ah now, I did give my own reasons for why I was pretty sure of it, and they had nothing at all to do with whether there was a legal, biological or philosophical argument for asserting personhood. Funny how your own can fancies can lead you astray, eh?
Since you bring it up though, an argument for why it's legally a person is fairly simple; Article 40 of the Constitution enumerates personal rights, and this includes the right to life of the unborn.
Whether it's biologically an individual is also a fairly simple argument; it is distinct from any other entity by virtue of it's particular dna, and may be distinguished from any individual sharing it's dna by it's location.
As to philosophical argument, I'll submit the entirety of this thread as evidence that there is no lack of such argument from either side.

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think the Church is actually looking for proof though

I do not care what the church seek or what they do in their free time, nor did I indicate I do. I am interested in the public discourse on abortion and the arguments brought to the table in that discourse. And if someone brings the argument to the table that eggs have souls, then I am perfectly willing and open to consider their substantiation of that claim. But none is forthcoming, so I can not do so. I do not have to prove that a soul does not exist. They have to prove it does.

Absolam wrote: »

Because it seems fairly apparent that at some point that this particular thing which is composed of human material will leap from this to BEING Human

My point exactly. And the moment the Anti Choice campaigner concedes that this thing WILL become Human.... they have conceded it is not one now. Last time I checked you can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. You are either X or you are not. So the moment one concedes it is a Potential Human Being.... one has conceded it is not a Human Being now. And pointing out that people leap between different meanings of "Human" willfully therefore become not irrelevant, but key.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I think that's because we generally acknowledge that humans, or people, are entitled to certain protections from society, so if something is human, or a person, then it should also be entitled to those protections. That's not a linguistic argument; I don't think anyone taking that position is trying to trick others into thinking a zygote is something it's not. Rather it's a philosophical argument, just as human being is a philosophical concept.

Again making my point for me, thanks for that. Yet I too agree that rights are a philosophical concept and argument, as is what constitutes a "Human Being". And my position is that Human Beings deserve Human Rights, including the one relevant to this discussion: The right to life.

The question then becomes simple, how do you define what is a Human Being and how can you defend or argue for that stance. And there are many ways to do this, with varying degrees of coherence and relevance. My position is just that the LEAST coherent or relevant method to do so is to play linguistic gymnastics by STEP 1: Finding SOME way to insert the word "Human" into the conversation (by pointing out that the DNA is human for example) and then using this as a launching board to switch at will to any other use of the word "Human" that the speaker feels supports the Anti Abortion position.

Absolam wrote: »

Whereas I have yet to hear a coherent argument for why we ought not to afford something which is certainly human, and certainly living, the most basic right we can afford to anything; the right to life.

Because as I just said, and the only reason you can not have heard it is by willfully not having listened, simply pointing out it is Human DNA and is alive is neither convincing or Sufficient. A Human Cancer cell is, after all Human DNA and alive. You have a lot more work to do than that to come up with a philosophically convincing argument to afford a mere Zygote Human Rights. Let alone, as you pointed out yourself at the end of your post, relative human rights.

Quite literally all you have offered as an argument is the very thing I have been talking about in my post..... The use of the word "Human" related to the DNA.... and then the non-sequitur leap to affording it all the varieties of that word you can leap to from there.

130Kph

@Absolum: I’m not able to post any further today.

I’ll just say briefly that you corrected some clumsy mistakes in my first contribution (eg where I suggested/implied the state giving full human rights to a zygote) - you clarified that you and most pro-lifers don’t believe this but do believe in the right to life from conception - so I moved on in the discussion. It wasn’t my baseline position.

Yes its a human zygote. Yes it's human material (as I said many times). No, not a human being.

I may answer on Wednesday in more detail but most of the points you replied to (me) have already been bettered answered by others.

inocybe

volchitsa wrote: »

I've come across that notion too, but never in practice : as emergency contraception, does it just prevent implantation or can it actually disrupt the pregnancy even after implantation has occurred?

I ask because I seem to remember that the IUD can be fitted several days after the MAP would no longer be considered a possibility, but I can't remember how many days. Maybe it still has to be before possible implantation, I don't remember.

It's up to 5 days after unprotected sex. Since fertilization would already have occurred by then in some cases it would indicate some effectiveness on preventing implantation. It's supposed to be 99% effective, much better than the MAP which relies mainly on delaying ovulation.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

The question is how a ban on abortion based not on the creation of a new entity with a full complement of DNA but on the beginning of pregnancy has any basis in the protection of life? After all, if the embryo is in some way not alive (because not worthy of protection) of day 3 or 4, by what mechanism does it become alive (and deserving of protection) on day 7 or 8?

... before implantation, there is no pregnancy at all, but is that relevant, in the context of protecting the life of this new human being that we're led to believe is the only reason for removing rights from the woman?

The embryo is of course "alive" in some way at fertilisation, and even before that the egg and the sperm are also alive.

Do you really think it strange or "irrelevant" to link the start of pregnancy to the start of protection for the unborn?
It seems natural enough to me, considering that historically people have always seen something different about a woman "with child" and treated them as if there might be two individuals involved.

IMO there should be less rights attached to a less developed foetus. But the start of pregnancy seems as good a point as any to start allocating those rights, not least for the practical reasons already mentioned.

Shrap

recedite wrote: »

The embryo is of course "alive" in some way at fertilisation, and even before that the egg and the sperm are also alive.

Do you really think it strange or "irrelevant" to link the start of pregnancy to the start of protection for the unborn?
It seems natural enough to me, considering that historically people have always seen something different about a woman "with child" and treated them as if there might be two individuals involved.

IMO there should be less rights attached to a less developed foetus. But the start of pregnancy seems as good a point as any to start allocating those rights, not least for the practical reasons already mentioned.

Historically, it's considered somewhat bad form to tell everyone you're pregnant before 3 months, or to start buying stuff for the birth, as there is always a far greater chance of miscarriage before that point.

What sort of rights would you afford to a less developed foetus (say before 12 weeks)? Since any rights for that foetus would result in a woman not being allowed to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or not? Why would you afford rights to a foetus up to 12 weeks, if that would be the result? Just as a matter of interest....

recedite

The rights that are afforded to "the unborn" are basically the right to continue to exist, or the right to bodily integrity.

But where this conflicts with the woman's equivalent right to her bodily integrity, the woman always gets priority.
The rights of the foetus should come to the fore when a conflict arises between the very existence of the foetus, versus a minor right of the mother.

So this translates as increased restrictions on abortion, as the pregnancy progresses.
Most countries have some sort of de facto policies along these lines. Even if not written into law, they will be present in medical guidelines. The specifics are best left to medico-legal specialists to work out.

Shrap

recedite wrote: »

The rights that are afforded to "the unborn" are basically the right to continue to exist, or the right to bodily integrity.

But where this conflicts with the woman's equivalent right to her bodily integrity, the woman always gets priority.
The rights of the foetus should come to the fore when a conflict arises between the very existence of the foetus, versus a minor right of the mother.

So this translates as increased restrictions on abortion, as the pregnancy progresses.
Most countries have some sort of de facto policies along these lines. Even if not written into law, they will be present in medical guidelines. The specifics are best left to medico-legal specialists to work out.

Agreed, for the most part, particularly with the increase in restrictions as pregnancy progresses.

I suppose, where the conflict arises between the existence of the very early foetus and the right of the pregnant woman (she is not a mother by any stretch of the imagination at that stage) to not remain pregnant, many people would consider themselves in a position to judge that the wish/want to not be pregnant is a minor right by comparison. As someone who has chosen to remain pregnant twice, I personally could never consider it minor in the slightest, to gestate and give birth to a baby. I think the word minor in this case is a gross understatement in fact.

I'm thinking that this is where people should NOT be in a position to judge whether or not a woman is "worthy" of an abortion by dint of her circumstances and I think anything less than the Canadian "no blame" system would be entirely unworkable and hypocritical.

Delirium

Amnesty says Irish abortion laws put women and girls at risk (Full Article)

Amnesty International has said that Ireland's abortion laws are putting the lives of women and girls at risk every day and has called for the legislation to be changed.

The international human rights organisation said those in need of abortions in Ireland are treated like criminals and stigmatised.

It described the Ireland’s abortion laws as among of the most restrictive in the world.

Amnesty says the human rights of women and girls are violated on a daily basis because of a constitution that treats them like child-bearing vessels.

It says 4,000 women a year are forced to travel outside Ireland to terminate their pregnancy and that this has a considerable mental, financial and physical cost.

In a 112-page report called "She's not a criminal: The impact of Ireland’s abortion law", Amnesty documents dozens of what it describes as "shocking" accounts of Irish women and girls who were denied abortions by Irish authorities.

The report also details the cases of a number of women who claim they were denied access to healthcare because of concerns for the well being of their foetus.

Amnesty says that under international human rights law women have the right to an abortion in cases of rape, severe or fatal foetal impairment or a risk to their health.

It says Ireland, Andorra, San Marino and Malta are the only European countries not to allow this.

It says Irish law should be changed to allow abortion in those cases at the very least.

Amnesty also called for the law which makes it a crime for doctors and counsellors to give women information about how to get a safe abortion to be repealed.

recedite

Shrap wrote: »

I'm thinking that this is where people should NOT be in a position to judge whether or not a woman is "worthy" of an abortion....

It is possible though that the reasons for not wanting to remain pregnant could be "minor" or "unworthy".
The very first restriction, applicable from the start of any viable pregnancy (say from the time of implantation) should be that abortion is not available "over the counter".

Suppose a pregnancy is discovered in the first few weeks, and the woman then has to go to a doctor to abort. At least there is a second opinion involved then.

Suppose she says "we want a baby, but this one would be a Libra and we really wanted a Leo birth".
Doc might say "That's not really a valid reason for an abortion".

Suppose she says "I'm an 18 year old student in my first year of college and I really want to continue my course and have a career; this would ruin my life."
Doc might say "OK, here's a prescription."

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

It is possible though that the reasons for not wanting to remain pregnant could be "minor" or "unworthy".[/I]"

Is that relevant? If a woman no longer wants to be pregant-and it is quite insulting to throw in a starsign as one such reason-why is the reason she no longer want to be pregnant anyone's concern but hers? If a woman wants to abort for a 'minor' reason, why is there a reason to insist she remain pregnant?

Shrap

recedite wrote: »

It is possible though that the reasons for not wanting to remain pregnant could be "minor" or "unworthy".
The very first restriction, applicable from the start of any viable pregnancy (say from the time of implantation) should be that abortion is not available "over the counter".

Suppose a pregnancy is discovered in the first few weeks, and the woman then has to go to a doctor to abort. At least there is a second opinion involved then.

Suppose she says "we want a baby, but this one would be a Libra and we really wanted a Leo birth".
Doc might say "That's not really a valid reason for an abortion".

Suppose she says "I'm an 18 year old student in my first year of college and I really want to continue my course and have a career; this would ruin my life."
Doc might say "OK, here's a prescription."

How easy it is to write those words. Although you have measured your response very carefully, the word "unworthy" has no place in this discussion. Who would you, the hypothetical doctor, or me be to judge that? The alternative to providing early abortion services for a person who wants to not be pregnant, is requiring her to stay pregnant. This much is clear.

It is rather facetious to suggest that a doctor (or anyone) should be in a position to judge that the woman who wants a Leo baby should continue to be pregnant and go on to be such a superficial, shallow and unbelievably stupid parent, but the student's "valid" reason is more "worthy" of abortion services.

In fact, this is why I disagree with every word you are saying here: "The very first restriction, applicable from the start of any viable pregnancy (say from the time of implantation) should be that abortion is not available "over the counter"." Why should it? Women who don't want to be pregnant and/or have a baby should be punished for not having a valid reason for an abortion (in your judgement, or a doctor's) by making her stay pregnant? Outrageous, tbh.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not care what the church seek or what they do in their free time, nor did I indicate I do.

In fairness, the discussion of souls is probably not a free time exercise for the church; to the best of my knowledge saving souls is pretty much their full time concern, so if you want to discuss souls you're kind of playing in their ballpark/

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am interested in the public discourse on abortion and the arguments brought to the table in that discourse. And if someone brings the argument to the table that eggs have souls, then I am perfectly willing and open to consider their substantiation of that claim. But none is forthcoming, so I can not do so. I do not have to prove that a soul does not exist. They have to prove it does.

I suppose that rather depends on whether they want to prove to you that eggs have souls. If they don't then they really only have to satisfy themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My point exactly. And the moment the Anti Choice campaigner concedes that this thing WILL become Human.... they have conceded it is not one now.

I'm not sure pro life posters would necessarily concede any such thing; have any said so? For myself I'm happy to say it's a human being from the moment the cells start dividing until someone can present a compelling argument otherwise.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Last time I checked you can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. You are either X or you are not. So the moment one concedes it is a Potential Human Being.... one has conceded it is not a Human Being now. And pointing out that people leap between different meanings of "Human" willfully therefore become not irrelevant, but key.

Well.. I'm happy. But I'm becoming happier. I'm old, and becoming older. I may be what I am, and yet be becoming more, or less, what I am. I'm not convinced everything is or is not, especially philosophically speaking.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again making my point for me, thanks for that. Yet I too agree that rights are a philosophical concept and argument, as is what constitutes a "Human Being". And my position is that Human Beings deserve Human Rights, including the one relevant to this discussion: The right to life.

You're quite welcome; it just goes to show your position isn't as far from a pro life one as you might think.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The question then becomes simple, how do you define what is a Human Being and how can you defend or argue for that stance. And there are many ways to do this, with varying degrees of coherence and relevance. My position is just that the LEAST coherent or relevant method to do so is to play linguistic gymnastics by STEP 1: Finding SOME way to insert the word "Human" into the conversation (by pointing out that the DNA is human for example) and then using this as a launching board to switch at will to any other use of the word "Human" that the speaker feels supports the Anti Abortion position.

You see... I think that has always been the question. Whether it's because something is a human being, or just human, or a person, or a soul makes no difference, either to a pro life position or to a pro choice one, the question is always when is it one of us to be protected, or something else which need not be.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Because as I just said, and the only reason you can not have heard it is by willfully not having listened, simply pointing out it is Human DNA and is alive is neither convincing or Sufficient. A Human Cancer cell is, after all Human DNA and alive. You have a lot more work to do than that to come up with a philosophically convincing argument to afford a mere Zygote Human Rights. Let alone, as you pointed out yourself at the end of your post, relative human rights.

Well, the thing is it is sufficient for some. And whilst you might not see a distinction between a zygote and a clump of cancerous cells, I think acknowledging that one is a zygote and the other is a clump of cancerous cells is sufficient distinction for me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Quite literally all you have offered as an argument is the very thing I have been talking about in my post..... The use of the word "Human" related to the DNA.... and then the non-sequitur leap to affording it all the varieties of that word you can leap to from there.

I think you missed the point then; the word, or the variations thereof are not the crux of the matter, it's what we take them to represent which remains the same whichever words you use to describe it.

Absolam

130Kph wrote: »

I’ll just say briefly that you corrected some clumsy mistakes in my first contribution (eg where I suggested/implied the state giving full human rights to a zygote) - you clarified that you and most pro-lifers don’t believe this but do believe in the right to life from conception - so I moved on in the discussion. It wasn’t my baseline position.

Actually I didn't clarify what most pro-lifers believe; I don't pretend to know.
Nor did I say I believe in the right to life from conception.

130Kph wrote: »

Yes its a human zygote. Yes it's human material (as I said many times). No, not a human being.

And I appreciate that's the philosophical position you take; I would simply point out it's a position founded on philosophy, not fact.

inocybe

recedite wrote: »

It is possible though that the reasons for not wanting to remain pregnant could be "minor" or "unworthy".
The very first restriction, applicable from the start of any viable pregnancy (say from the time of implantation) should be that abortion is not available "over the counter".

Suppose a pregnancy is discovered in the first few weeks, and the woman then has to go to a doctor to abort. At least there is a second opinion involved then.

Suppose she says "we want a baby, but this one would be a Libra and we really wanted a Leo birth".
Doc might say "That's not really a valid reason for an abortion".

Suppose she says "I'm an 18 year old student in my first year of college and I really want to continue my course and have a career; this would ruin my life."
Doc might say "OK, here's a prescription."

Reasons are irrelevant, and who has the right to judge anyway?
It's also in everyone's best interests for the abortion to happen as early as possible, an argument for the availability of the abortion pill.

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

Reasons are irrelevant, and who has the right to judge anyway?
It's also in everyone's best interests for the abortion to happen as early as possible, an argument for the availability of the abortion pill.

Arguably not likely to be in the foetus's best interests for the abortion to happen at all?

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

so if you want to discuss souls you're kind of playing in their ballpark. I suppose that rather depends on whether they want to prove to you that eggs have souls. If they don't then they really only have to satisfy themselves.

No. I am not. I am playing in the ball park of public and political discussion of the issue of abortion. The topic of this thread you might recall. I will willingly and openly consider ALL arguments brought to the table in THAT context.

Therefore if someone brings me a page full of statistics related to abortion, I will consider the statistics, what they say, how they were compiled, the methodology used, and much much more. I will not just accept the page of statistics unquestioned.

Similarly if someone brings "souls" to the discussion about abortion then they are in OUR ball park, not us in theirs. And if they want to use "souls" as applicable evidence or argument in the discussion about abortion then it is on them, them and them ALONE to evidence the existence of them and their relevance to the discussion.

It is NOT in any way incumbent upon me to prove there is no such thing as souls, nor to take it on faith there are souls merely because selling that idea happens to be their business model. So how you think I am in their ball park at all in this context, is seriously opaque to me aside from the flinging of red herrings into the conversation.

If THEY want to go "satisfy themselves" as you put it then they are welcome to do so with no fight from me. If they want to enter into a public discourse on the subject of abortion and want to bring "souls" into it however, they put the onus on themselves to prove such a thing exists and is relevant, in the same way as if I were to wave around a page full of statistics I would have to be able to substantiate the source of my numbers and their meaning and relevance to the discourse.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure pro life posters would necessarily concede any such thing; have any said so?

They do so the moment they use the words I just discussed. The moment someone says "This zygote will become a human being" they have instantly, implicitly, by default, conceded it is not human now. If say "X will become Y" then you have instantly implied that X is not Y at this time.

Absolam wrote: »

For myself I'm happy to say it's a human being from the moment the cells start dividing until someone can present a compelling argument otherwise.

Again with the shirking of the onus of evidence and proof I see. It risks becoming something of an MO for you. You seem to think anyone can simply assert the existence of souls, or assert an arbitrary definition pulled out of a read orifice, and simply have it stand until someone can prove the opposite or argue the opposite.

No, if YOU want to throw out that definition then the onus is on you to substantiate it. Merely being "Happy to call it" what you want means you are not discussing the topic at all. You are talking at me and past me, not with me. You being happy to call it whatever you want tells me nothing except you are happy to pluck definitions out of the air and cling to them without reason. If that is what you want to do, go for it, I am not here to stop you. But let us not engage in it while also pretending you are here engaged in discussion or debate, so much as simply soap boxing.

Absolam wrote: »

it just goes to show your position isn't as far from a pro life one as you might think.

Except it shows no such thing at all, quite the opposite in fact. It shows I am not aware of a single coherent definition of "Human Being" and "Human Rights".... except for simply plucking definitions out of the air and declaring yourself to be "happy" with them.... which leads to a coherent assignment of the "Right to Life" to a zygote. I see no reason at all, least of all from you, to make such assignments and the idea that a Zygote is an individual worthy of rights is thus far no more coherent to me than calling a blue print for a table an actual table.

Absolam wrote: »

a soul makes no difference, either to a pro life position or to a pro choice one, the question is always when is it one of us to be protected, or something else which need not be.

And I have seen not a single argument, least of all from this thread, to think it should be. If there were souls then it would not "make no difference" either. I would think it would make a massive difference. If the existence of a soul could be evidenced and its presence in a zygote be demonstrated, I would instantly and entirely change my position to the Anti-Choice side without question.

But no such thing has been demonstrated. All that has been demonstrated is that we have a minuscule piece of bio-mass which contains the blue print for building a human being. And I see no reason to think that blue print IS a human being any more than, as I said, I see a sheet of instructions for building a chair as BEING itself a chair.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, the thing is it is sufficient for some.

I am sure it is. And such people should clearly not have abortions. And they will get no argument from me attempting to make them have one.

But when such people step into the public sphere and use it as arguments why OTHER people should not have abortions either then the rest of us have every right to point out their position is baseless, incoherent and irrelevant. No matter how "sufficient for them" it might be.

So by all means take "what is sufficient for you" and mediate your own life choices based on that. No one I am aware of, least of all me, has any interest in affecting those decisions. But when someone wants to admonish the decisions of others, or even ban those decisions in law, then they should at the very least be expected to be called on it, and realize the rhetoric of "Well its enough for me" is just irrelevant white noise brought as space filler and little else.

Absolam wrote: »

I think you missed the point then; the word, or the variations thereof are not the crux of the matter

You missing the point is not equivalent to me having missed the point. I agree it is not, nor should be, the crux of the matter. I never once argued it is or should be the crux of the matter. So your idea I have missed the point is not just wrong but _exactly_ wrong.

What the point I am making, and you are actually missing, is that while it is not and should not be the crux of the matter..... for many people it actually constitutes their ENTIRE argument on the matter. My experience in debate after debate I have partaken in on the subject of abortion is that the sole argument MO people against abortion have is simply to STEP 1: Find some way to introduce the word "Human" into the conversation, usually quite validly and then STEP 2: Leap from this use of the word Human to any other one at all that suits their agenda.

Essentially their whole argument, and pretty much yours too when you strip away the Red Herrings, is simply "The DNA is human, therefore Human Rights" and that "therefore" is simply a massive non-sequitur leap at best, and a total canard at worst.

Absolam wrote: »

Arguably not likely to be in the foetus's best interests for the abortion to happen at all?

Irrelevant given the entity in question has not been demonstrated to have "interests" in the first place. The Red Herrings around here would make the Nazarenes Loaves and Fishes episode appear a mere parlor trick.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Arguably not likely to be in the foetus's best interests for the abortion to happen at all?

Can a fetus have interests? I think that's a moot point.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

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.
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.

Well, here's the thing about your argument.

You've split it into two parts: being and human.

Firstly, no-one is contesting that a zygote is human. Like you said it contains human DNA. But then so does a baby tooth of mine in a jar on a shelf. Doesn't mean it's alive.

Secondly, the other half of your argument is offered as an assertion rather than being demonstrated to be true. You simply say:

"It is a creature that exists, therefore it is a being."

Creature is a rather vague term and you haven't defined what you mean by it in context so your assertion that a zygote is a being on this basis is just that, an assertion.

The real question is whether a zygote is a living human, an organism with human DNA that could be construed as alive. The answer, is, NO.

You see, for a long time, there has been a well-defined set of characteristics by which biologists classify life. Most biology textbooks list seven key indicators of life: homeostasis, organisation, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction. The zygote at the point of conception possesses none of these characteristics. In fact, the zygote/embryo/foetus will only acquire some of these characteristics at various stages of gestation.
Take homeostasis, for example. Homeostasis is the "regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature." Now the zygote certainly cannot be said to be homeostatic. In fact, it is debatable whether homeostasis is a characteristic at any stage of pregancy since homeostasis is maintained by the mother's body through the amniotic sac.
Or how about response to stimuli. A zygote cannot respond to stimuli. Take pain, for example. We know from embryology that a foetus cannot feel pain until at least week 16 or after. It's not because we've prodded the foetus with sharp objects and not seen a response but rather because we understand the parts of the brain which are responsible for nociception and we know that these won't have developed before this time.

Now, you could categorise the zygote using an alternate definition of life. However, it isn't possible to formulate a definition of life which would simultaneously include the zygote and exclude the sperm and egg which went before.

A zygote is the building blocks of a human being. But just like in construction, a pile of sand and bricks is just a pile of sand and bricks. It's not a house until it's built. This is made clear by developmental embryologists. For example in Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, Moore and Persaud write:

"Human development begins at conception or fertilization when a male gamete or sperm fuses with a female gamete or ovum to form a zygote (Br. zygotos, yoked together). This highly specialized, totipotent cell is the primordium of a new human being. By birth the zygote has given rise to millions of cells . Although large, the zygote is just visible to the unaided eye. It contains chromosomes and genes (units of genetic information) derived from the mother and father."

or as Lewis Wolpert, author of Principles of Development puts it:

"What I’m concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don’t want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I’ve spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being."

A zygote is just as Moore and Persaud describe it, a highly specialised totipotent cell. It has no heartbeat, no brainwave pattern, nothing that we would recognise as a unique individual. It is not meaningfully a human being in any sense of the word and describing it as such is arguing from a fallacy of equivocation.