Abortion Discussion

volchitsa

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".

Why not?

Not many decades ago, a majority of people in this country thought the same thing about contraception : only women who had "good reasons" for wanting contraception should be allowed access. Now we've moved a step further on - but the question is still the same : what right does a third party have to judge someone's reasons for not wanting to be pregnant?

recedite wrote: »

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."

So the fetus' supposed "right to life" takes a clear second place to society's "right" to use it in order to teach the woman a lesson by making her a mother because she doesn't want to be one?

Far from being "pro-life", the idea of instrumentalising the fetus in that way seems to remove all humanity from it.

inocybe

Absolam wrote: »

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

Ok, but if it's going to happen, which you don't have the power to stop btw, wouldn't you prefer it to be as early as possible so that the foetus is as undeveloped as possible?

Vivisectus

Absolam wrote:

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.

Doesn't work - then some cell scrapings from the inside of my mouth are one or more human beings. If I freeze them they will stay that way for a long time too.

alaimacerc

Vivisectus wrote: »

Doesn't work - then some cell scrapings from the inside of my mouth are one or more human beings. If I freeze them they will stay that way for a long time too.

I've explained to Absolam several times in the past the flaws in his criteria for "human being" (he could at least have made the effort to include "totipotent" this time, after past corrections). Much the same as with "person", "individual", etc. The result is just a cloud of obfuscation, filibustering at arbitrary length, moving on to a different set of terminology for a while, and returning to the same ground after what's apparently deemed a sufficient fallow period.

There's none so hard to explain to as those that have a vested interest in not getting the explanation.

drkpower

Whatever pro or anti choice, pro life or whatever, everyone agrees that at some stage, the entity inside a pregnant woman acquires some form of rights. The debate centres on how those rights interact with the mothers and when. Whether it is a human being or not is really a waste of time.

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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...

Lets look a bit more closely at this statement before accepting it.
homeostasis? no, the zygote relies on the womb for that.
organisation? yes, the cells are highly organized.
metabolism? yes, very rapid metabolism.
growth? yes, very rapid growth.
adaptation? no, it grows according to its DNA.
response to stimuli? no, not yet.
reproduction? yes, cells are reproducing rapidly.

Now compare to a drunk man who has just consumed a bottle or two of whiskey.
The answers are almost the same, except slightly better homeostasis, much less metabolism and no growth.

lazygal

When was the last time a drunk person needed to reside in a woman's uterus to survive?

oldrnwisr

recedite wrote: »

Lets look a bit more closely at this statement before accepting it.
homeostasis? no, the zygote relies on the womb for that.
organisation? yes, the cells are highly organized.
metabolism? yes, very rapid metabolism.
growth? yes, very rapid growth.
adaptation? no, it grows according to its DNA.
response to stimuli? no, not yet.
reproduction? yes, cells are reproducing rapidly.

Now compare to a drunk man who has just consumed a bottle or two of whiskey.
The answers are almost the same, except slightly better homeostasis, much less metabolism and no growth.

OK, let's have a look at it then. I'll skip homeostasis, response to stimuli and adaptation since you aren't contesting those.

Organisation.
Like I said in my last post defining some of these terms such that a zygote would qualify would also require that the gametes which formed the zygote would also qualify. A zygote, as distinct from a proembryo or embryo is merely a diploid cell which undergoes mitotic division with no increase in size. You may categorise it as organised on the basis of the DNA it contains but this is not what the term organised means in context. An adult human or even a near term foetus has many different types of cells operating together, thrombocytes, leukocytes, osteoblasts and osteoclasts etc. To describe a zygote as being organised on this basis is incorrect.

Metabolism.
Again no. Metabolism in context refers to the intake and utilisation of chemical energy to drive a process (homeostasis). At the point at which a zygote is correctly called a zygote, we are talking about mitotic division so metabolism isn't yet in play.

Growth.
No. Growth will take place once the conceptus becomes a blastocyst but it will have to pass through the morula stage to get there. At the zygote stage there is a mitotic division process called cleavage but this is not accompanied by an increase in size. Like I said, these characteristics are ones that the zygote will eventually acquire as it transitions from zygote to morula to blastocyst to embryo to foetus but they are not characteristics that the zygote possesses.

Reproduction.
Reproduction in context is defined as the ability to produce a new individual either sexually or asexually. None of the processes that we're speaking about here could even loosely be described as being reproduction in this sense.


Some people say that any attempt to draw a line in the reproductive process is an arbitrary one and that discussions about when life begins are just arguments between two arbitrary points. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this point but nonetheless the idea that life begins at conception is a really awful argument. It might have seemed valid a hundred years ago when we had no idea how embryos actually develop but it's not an idea that should have any traction now.

As drkpower points out above this is a complex debate and is centred on a balance of rights. There are a myriad of factors to consider and the kind of flawed black and white thinking of which the "life begins at conception" argument is a symptom is not going to help to advance this debate. We know from having studied the issue that blackmarket abortions are responsible for a significant number of maternal deaths and that safe, legal access to abortion is necessary to reduce this. We know that there are cases where abortion is medically necessary due to foetal abnormalities or other negative maternal health outcomes. We know that small as it maybe there are women who experience suicidal ideation due to pregnancy. All of these factors need to be considered and weighed in the overall debate. Introducing an absolutist position about the foetus' right to life based on that life beginning at conception is not helpful to the debate.

aloyisious

Here's an interesting tale related by a Spanish woman (Lupe) with a Spanish daily newspaper "El Mundo" of her treatment in Galway...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-says-ireland-s-abortion-laws-put-her-life-in-danger-1.2242979

obplayer

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's have a look at it then. I'll skip homeostasis, response to stimuli and adaptation since you aren't contesting those.

Organisation.
Like I said in my last post defining some of these terms such that a zygote would qualify would also require that the gametes which formed the zygote would also qualify. A zygote, as distinct from a proembryo or embryo is merely a diploid cell which undergoes mitotic division with no increase in size. You may categorise it as organised on the basis of the DNA it contains but this is not what the term organised means in context. An adult human or even a near term foetus has many different types of cells operating together, thrombocytes, leukocytes, osteoblasts and osteoclasts etc. To describe a zygote as being organised on this basis is incorrect.

Metabolism.
Again no. Metabolism in context refers to the intake and utilisation of chemical energy to drive a process (homeostasis). At the point at which a zygote is correctly called a zygote, we are talking about mitotic division so metabolism isn't yet in play.

Growth.
No. Growth will take place once the conceptus becomes a blastocyst but it will have to pass through the morula stage to get there. At the zygote stage there is a mitotic division process called cleavage but this is not accompanied by an increase in size. Like I said, these characteristics are ones that the zygote will eventually acquire as it transitions from zygote to morula to blastocyst to embryo to foetus but they are not characteristics that the zygote possesses.

Reproduction.
Reproduction in context is defined as the ability to produce a new individual either sexually or asexually. None of the processes that we're speaking about here could even loosely be described as being reproduction in this sense.


Some people say that any attempt to draw a line in the reproductive process is an arbitrary one and that discussions about when life begins are just arguments between two arbitrary points. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this point but nonetheless the idea that life begins at conception is a really awful argument. It might have seemed valid a hundred years ago when we had no idea how embryos actually develop but it's not an idea that should have any traction now.

As drkpower points out above this is a complex debate and is centred on a balance of rights. There are a myriad of factors to consider and the kind of flawed black and white thinking of which the "life begins at conception" argument is a symptom is not going to help to advance this debate. We know from having studied the issue that blackmarket abortions are responsible for a significant number of maternal deaths and that safe, legal access to abortion is necessary to reduce this. We know that there are cases where abortion is medically necessary due to foetal abnormalities or other negative maternal health outcomes. We know that small as it maybe there are women who experience suicidal ideation due to pregnancy. All of these factors need to be considered and weighed in the overall debate. Introducing an absolutist position about the foetus' right to life based on that life beginning at conception is not helpful to the debate.

A hundred thousand thanks to you!

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's have a look at it then. I'll skip homeostasis, response to stimuli and adaptation since you aren't contesting those.

Organisation.
An adult human or even a near term foetus has many different types of cells operating together, thrombocytes, leukocytes, osteoblasts and osteoclasts etc. To describe a zygote as being organised on this basis is incorrect.

In a matter of hours the zygote divides into a blastocyst and implants itself into the uterus, after which it continues to produce specialised cells, therefore it is organised.
Unlike say, a rock.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Metabolism.
Again no. Metabolism in context refers to the intake and utilisation of chemical energy to drive a process (homeostasis). At the point at which a zygote is correctly called a zygote, we are talking about mitotic division so metabolism isn't yet in play.

All cells burn energy to survive, otherwise they go into suspended animation or die. Hence metabolism is a defining part of life. The zygote needs to burn energy in order to move on to the next stage (blastocyst) and then implant in order to replenish its energy reserves.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Growth.
No. Growth will take place once the conceptus becomes a blastocyst but it will have to pass through the morula stage to get there. At the zygote stage there is a mitotic division process called cleavage but....

I think it is self evident that the developing zygote is growing. Your argument that it is not growing is based on your including such a narrow snapshot in time that no growth is evident in such a short timeframe. This I regard as being a somewhat disingenuous line of reasoning.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Reproduction.
Reproduction in context is defined as the ability to produce a new individual either sexually or asexually. None of the processes that we're speaking about here could even loosely be described as being reproduction in this sense.

Again, this is disengenous. At an individual level, the cell is dividing and multiplying into a multicellular form.
At a species level, the zygote is an inherent part of reproduction. That's the whole point of it.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Introducing an absolutist position about the foetus' right to life based on that life beginning at conception is not helpful to the debate.

I don't think anyone here is advocating that absolutist position.

Also, while I'm not contesting "adaptation" here, the field of epigenetics may throw up some abilities of the unborn to adapt to changing external environmental factors.

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

I'll go along with all of that; a 'being' is as nebulous a concept as a 'human being' and I'm not inclined to assert that either term has any basis in biological fact, but I did offer more than my own off the cuff definition for what a human being is so I'm more than happy to stick with dictionary.coms or the Encyclopedia Brittanicas version just as easily; neither require that a human being can only be a man, woman, or child.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

That's a somewhat different assertion from 130Kphs notion that if a zygote isn’t a man, woman, or child then by definition it is not a human being.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You see, for a long time, there has been a well-defined set of characteristics by which biologists classify life. <sic> [/I]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.

I can't help but notice that you present a remarkably excellent argument for why a zygote ought not to be biologically speaking considered a human life (or at least, something that is human and biologically alive which is a bit different again), but (and I imagine nozzferrahhtoo would seethe at a pro lifer doing it) then slip back to why that makes it not a human being. Whilst I'm dubious that all things that can be considered alive must exhibit all seven characteristics, it's a serviceable test for what is alive. I'm rather more dubious as to whether it's a serviceable test for what is a human being. As a philosophical concept, it seems to me it's essentially equivocal in any case.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Whilst I'm dubious that all things that can be considered alive must exhibit all seven characteristics, it's a serviceable test for what is alive.

Those would be biological indicators for what is "alive", so its a "one or more of these" kind of thing rather than "must have all of these".

oldrnwisr

recedite wrote: »

In a matter of hours the zygote divides into a blastocyst and implants itself into the uterus, after which it continues to produce specialised cells, therefore it is organised.
Unlike say, a rock.

Yes, the zygote does develop as you describe. However, the zygote itself is a single totipotent cell which cleaves into sixteen pieces (blastomeres) before becoming a morula. So at the point at which it is correct to call it a zygote, differentiation has not begun and so any talk of being organised is misplaced.

recedite wrote: »

All cells burn energy to survive, otherwise they go into suspended animation or die. Hence metabolism is a defining part of life. The zygote needs to burn energy in order to move on to the next stage (blastocyst) and then implant in order to replenish its energy reserves.

Well, no. As I explained previously, a zygote begins when the gametes fuse to form a diploid cell. It then begins a process of mitotic division which results in 16 blastomeres being formed. At this stage the zygote moves to the morula stage. The process which takes place while it is a zygote is a simple biochemical reaction and the zygote at this point doesn't intake or utilise energy from its external surroundings.

recedite wrote: »

I think it is self evident that the developing zygote is growing. Your argument that it is not growing is based on your including such a narrow snapshot in time that no growth is evident in such a short timeframe. This I regard as being a somewhat disingenuous line of reasoning.

Again, like I said above, the developing conceptus is only a zygote for a very short period of time. So the narrow snapshot is not disingenuous because for now we are only focused on the characteristics of the zygote stage which is what 130kph mentioned in his post and Absolam responded to.

recedite wrote: »

Again, this is disengenous. At an individual level, the cell is dividing and multiplying into a multicellular form.
At a species level, the zygote is an inherent part of reproduction. That's the whole point of it.

It's not disingenuous. Even by the time the zygote passes into the morula stage, describing it as multicellular is a bit of a stretch. The zygote is part of another organism's reproductive process but in and of itself it is not capable of reproduction. That's the point.

recedite wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is advocating that absolutist position.

I wasn't trying to suggest that they were. I was speaking in general terms but this is one of a number of abortion threads that I have read/commented on over the years and I have seen this position advanced (mostly by those of a religious viewpoint it has to be said).

Absolam wrote: »

I can't help but notice that you present a remarkably excellent argument for why a zygote ought not to be biologically speaking considered a human life (or at least, something that is human and biologically alive which is a bit different again), but (and I imagine nozzferrahhtoo would seethe at a pro lifer doing it) then slip back to why that makes it not a human being. Whilst I'm dubious that all things that can be considered alive must exhibit all seven characteristics, it's a serviceable test for what is alive. I'm rather more dubious as to whether it's a serviceable test for what is a human being. As a philosophical concept, it seems to me it's essentially equivocal in any case.

OK, let's get one thing out of the way first. While it's not necessary for things to possess all seven characteristics to be alive, neither does something qualify on the basis of one of the characteristics alone. The characteristics aren't a checklist but a guide to making a determination of whether something is alive or not.

Now, as for the philosophical argument about a human being. The problem I was trying to address is this argument over life beginning at conception. Here is an example of the kind of argument I am talking about:

"Well every single human people came from a womb. Didn't we have the right to life? Why should anyone have a right to kill another person no matter who they are, disabled, ables, male, female.. What if there was a test tomorrow to find the sexuality if a child and the mother decided to have an abortion because she didn't want a gay child? or a Daughter?

We all started life at conception. its a medical fact. "

This is taken from the abortion thread that was recently closed in the Christianity forum. There are some posters who try to deliberately conflate an actual child with a zygote/embryo/foetus. The "life begins at conception" idea is symptomatic of this type of argument. It is doubly flawed since a) it ignores other factors which merit consideration and b) ignores what we actually know about embryology and development.

As I said in a recent post, drawing a line anywhere in a continuous process may not be a good idea. For example, I don't think that someone who is 18 years and 0 days old is any more responsible with respect to alcohol than the same person at 17 years and 364 days old. However, we need to establish some kind of point where we recognise that a step change in the characteristics of the developing conceptus has occurred or is occurring. Drawing this line at conception is a weak argument for reasons I have already outlined.
Now, IMHO, the first point that should give us pause in this debate is at about 12 weeks when brainwave patterns become detectable. Firstly, there is a synchronicity between this point and how we determine legal death by the cessation of brainwave activity. Secondly, we have seen from the statistics that the overwhelming majority (~90%) of abortions occur before this time. After this point has passed I think it then becomes necessary to consider in more detail the various factors involved. In fact, the most careful period to consider is the period between 13 weeks and 20 weeks because we have seen from the statistics that abortions performed after 20 weeks are more likely to be performed for serious non-trivial medical reasons.

Shrap

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now, IMHO, the first point that should give us pause in this debate is at about 12 weeks when brainwave patterns become detectable. Firstly, there is a synchronicity between this point and how we determine legal death by the cessation of brainwave activity. Secondly, we have seen from the statistics that the overwhelming majority (~90%) of abortions occur before this time. After this point has passed I think it then becomes necessary to consider in more detail the various factors involved. In fact, the most careful period to consider is the period between 13 weeks and 20 weeks because we have seen from the statistics that abortions performed after 20 weeks are more likely to be performed for serious non-trivial medical reasons.

Perfection, again. I have yet to see a more rational synopsis of this issue, so many thanks.

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The process which takes place while it is a zygote is a simple biochemical reaction and the zygote at this point doesn't intake or utilise energy from its external surroundings..

I don't "intake or use energy from my external surroundings" between meals, but that does not mean I am not metabolising, or that I am only alive at mealtimes. Granted, I may be more alive than usual at such times, but.. :pac:
Mealtime for the zygote is when it forms a blastocyst and implants, but you are conveniently "not counting that".

Detectable brainwave activity is an interesting one, but it has to be said that the beginnings of life is a bit different to the end of life in this respect. At the end, all brainwave activity ceases fairly rapidly. At the beginning, as brainwave activity develops slowly, it may not be detectable by us until it has reached a level that our instruments are tuned to.

In any case, the question of whether a zygote, embryo, or foetus is a human being is a philosophical question more than a biological one. All of human evolution is represented there in the development. All animal embryos are very similar, having a head, a tail and gill slits.
Whether you want to call it a fish with 100% human DNA, or a human in the early developmental stage, it is most certainly alive.

A tadpole is just a frog foetus that lives independently of its parent. Is a tadpole a frog? Yes and no.

oldrnwisr

recedite wrote: »

Mealtime for the zygote is when it forms a blastocyst and implants, but you are conveniently "not counting that".

I'm not counting that because, by the time the blastocyst forms the conceptus has already stopped being a zygote. To reiterate, once the sperm and egg fuse, a totipotent diploid cell forms which we call a zygote. A simple chemical process of mitotic division or cleavage occurs, whereby the genetic material divides into sixteen different sections called blastomeres. Once this has happened the conceptus stops being a zygote and becomes a morula. So while it is a zygote it doesn't metabolise energy.

recedite wrote: »

Detectable brainwave activity is an interesting one, but it has to be said that the beginnings of life is a bit different to the end of life in this respect. At the end, all brainwave activity ceases fairly rapidly. At the beginning, as brainwave activity develops slowly, it may not be detectable by us until it has reached a level that our instruments are tuned to.

Ok, maybe detectable is slightly misleading in this context. Like I said previously with regard to nociception, the concept isn't solely dependent on our ability to measure a given quantity. We know, for example, that the brain structures which regulate thought, consciousness etc. won't develop until much later (~24 weeks). However, the brain begins to emit simple electrical signals which we can detect about 12 weeks. We maybe able to improve our technology to push this limit back very slightly but our knowledge of embryology tells us that it won't be pushed back very far.

recedite wrote: »

In any case, the question of whether a zygote, embryo, or foetus is a human being is a philosophical question more than a biological one. All of human evolution is represented there in the development. All animal embryos are very similar, having a head, a tail and gill slits.
Whether you want to call it a fish with 100% human DNA, or a human in the early developmental stage, it is most certainly alive.

A tadpole is just a frog foetus that lives independently of its parent. Is a tadpole a frog? Yes and no.

I'm not sure that I would describe the above the way you do but I take see your point. In particular I would avoid using sentences like the one above as it could be misconstrued as recapitulation theory.

The important point here though is that we are trying to establish a legal definition about when the foetus "becomes" alive for the purposes of establishing its rights and the circumstances under which women may freely access abortion services.
You see, during the marriage equality referendum there were quite a few people who argued that gay people were already treated equally, they were free to marry a person of the opposite sex. However, as several legal analysts including the Law Society pointed out, for a right to exist it has to be meaningful. A right which cannot be exercised cannot meaningfully exist.
So it is with this debate. If we are going to talk about the foetus becoming alive we have to do this in a meaningful way. Arguing that the conceptus is alive from conception is not a meaningful argument because the conceptus at that point doesn't possess any of the characteristics that we attribute to an individual.

Just one last question to finish. Like I said, the point raised by 130kph that brought me into this debate was this argument put forward by certain people that life begins at conception, ergo abortion kills a human life, ergo it is wrong/immoral/murder/unacceptable. Do you agree with this specific argument as I have phrased it and if so why? Even if we park the question of whether a zygote could be considered to be biologically alive, do you think that the idea of the zygote being alive should dominate all other considerations?

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Which is grand, but I don't think the Church is bringing an argument to the table in THAT context.[/QUOTE]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Which is very admirable.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

In fairness, it was 130Kph who brought souls to the table. If someone wants to believe that an egg having a soul is a good reason for them to oppose abortion, I don't think they're obliged to satisfy anyone else unless they want to proselytise the opinion, and I suspect this is not a forum anyone is likely to try that. For long anyways.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Well it is if you want to persuade someone that there is no such thing as souls. If you don't then that's fine; as I said it was 130Kph who decided to add that particular red herring, not me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Well, as I said, only if they want to persuade you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

So.... they haven't said so? You're extrapolating an implication instead?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Which onus of evidence now? I'm sure you just said that If THEY want to go "satisfy themselves" as you put it then they are welcome to do so with no fight from me; but when it satisfies me there's suddenly an onus of evidence?
I'm not looking to persuade you to my point of view on this, so I can't quite tell why you've suddenly changed your mind and think I need to provide you with evidence of it?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

No, if I want to persuade you of that definition, then the onus is on me to substantiate it. If you want to persuade me to the contrary, then that's entirely up to you

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Pretty sure I never claimed there was a coherent definition of "Human Being" either, so I think we are closer than you thought Human Rights on the other hand, I'd be inclined to say the legalistic forms are sufficiently coherent, so maybe not so close on that score.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Well, I don't think I've ever seen anyone change their position either way on the thread either, so I reckon you're probably maintaining par for the course there!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Honestly, I suspect you can see more of a connection between a human zygote and a human adult than you see between a blueprint for a chair and a chair. If you choose to accord no value to that connection it is at least an honest choice, but if you're pretending that you can't see any more substantial connection than there is between a blueprint and a chair, don't you think it suggests a lack of confidence in the choice?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Luckily, I reckon there were very few who were worried you would attempt to make them have abortions

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Because they have as much right to an opinion on how society treats people as those who disagree with them, I should think. And whilst your opinion says a blueprint should obviously have no rights, their opinion is a person should have a right to life. You may denigrate their reasoning in calling a blueprint a person (if they even have any), but they still have an opinion. And a vote of course!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Ah well.. the thing is my life choices include choosing how I vote, which does mean I get a say in 'banning those decisions in law'. Which amounts to a little more than irrelevant white noise brought as space filler and little else.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Well done, you got the point!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

And I suspect that generally it is not intended to be the point of the argument; just as Oldrnwisr did leap from "Human Life" to "Human Being", but it wasn't the point of his argument. If it is not intended to change the concept in play (and you've agreed that it doesn't) then it's not being used as an argument.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Oh, I'm sure we can finesse "DNA is human" to something much more palatable but if Humanity is not a prerequisite for having Human rights, I can't imagine what is? I'm pretty sure there's nothing that isn't human that has human rights.
Oldrnwisr has excellently described how we might determine if something that is human is biologically alive, and I'd concede there is not much point in conferring rights on something that is not alive (or, for the purpose of avoiding pointless debate, in some regards something that was alive).
However, I wouldn't draw an immediate hard and fast line without acknowledging that we are capable of understanding that what is human, and is not alive according to the biological criteria we set, will be alive according to those same criteria if normal events run their course, and I see no reason not to factor that understanding into our choices.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Is it possible you're just playing on the word "interests" to score a point? Whilst a foetus (or zygote) might not be demonstrably interested in what happens, what is in it's best interests (or what is to its benefit or advantage) could at the most minimal level be considered to be not ceasing to exist, since once it doesn't exit neither benefit nor advantage can accrue to it, regardless of how interested it may have been in them prior to its demise.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

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

I think it's probably a moot point for many of those who support abortion to varying degrees, and the protection of those interests is the primary point of (at least some) of those who oppose abortion. I thought that was reasonably evident, but maybe not.

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

Ok, but if it's going to happen, which you don't have the power to stop btw, wouldn't you prefer it to be as early as possible so that the foetus is as undeveloped as possible?

I think maybe the point is that we do have the power to stop it, at least to some degree, so it's not really a btw kind of thing.

Absolam

Vivisectus wrote: »

Doesn't work - then some cell scrapings from the inside of my mouth are one or more human beings. If I freeze them they will stay that way for a long time too.

I like Oldrnwisrs argument better. I just can't see a cell as a creature. Of course, we have bacteria and protozoa and such, but I thing the cells from your mouth are more a part of a whole, don't you think?

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Arguing that the conceptus is alive from conception is not a meaningful argument because the conceptus at that point doesn't possess any of the characteristics that we attribute to an individual.

You have been skipping seamlessly between various criteria used to justify why the early stage human should have no rights; it is not "alive" "an individual" "conscious".
A tree is alive. The leaves turn towards the light; they exhibit some of your 7 characteristics of life that the zygote does not. They are adaptive, they respond to stimuli. Should a tree be afforded more human rights then?
A tree will never show brain activity or consciousness.

There is no point trying to prove that a zygote is lifeless in the context of abortion rights. Conversely, there is no point somebody else trying to prove it is a fully functioning human being. Both arguments are futile.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Just one last question to finish. Like I said, the point raised by 130kph that brought me into this debate was this argument put forward by certain people that life begins at conception, ergo abortion kills a human life, ergo it is wrong/immoral/murder/unacceptable. Do you agree with this specific argument as I have phrased it and if so why?

No.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Even if we park the question of whether a zygote could be considered to be biologically alive, do you think that the idea of the zygote being alive should dominate all other considerations?

No.
But in the context of the various criteria which you have raised so far;
It is alive.
It is an individual. It is different to either of its parents. As a blastocyst it will use the placenta as an indirect means to gain nutrients and release waste products, but it remains a separate individual.
It is not conscious, but it will become conscious at some point.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I like Oldrnwisrs argument better. I just can't see a cell as a creature. Of course, we have bacteria and protozoa and such, but I thing the cells from your mouth are more a part of a whole, don't you think?

As I said earlier, what you're grasping towards here is the totipotence thing. A zygote is a single cell, but has (given the right developmental environment) the cytobiology to become a complete multicellular organism (of whatever type). The run of the mill somatic cell, while genetically having all the same information, does not. One can make the same observation about intermediate forms of embryonic development. (I think it'd be an abuse of notation to say a blastocyte is 'totipotent', as strictly that's a property of individual cells, but until someone tells me the better-dressed way to say 'collectively setwise totipotent', I'll go with that.)

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I like Oldrnwisrs argument better. I just can't see a cell as a creature. Of course, we have bacteria and protozoa and such, but I thing the cells from your mouth are more a part of a whole, don't you think?

In other words, they are not "an individual".

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I've explained to Absolam several times in the past the flaws in his criteria for "human being" (he could at least have made the effort to include "totipotent" this time, after past corrections).

Which is a fairly imaginative characterisation given you can't quote me ever setting out criteria for a human being before this particular exchange, never mind you pointing out any flaws in it?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Much the same as with "person", "individual", etc. The result is just a cloud of obfuscation, filibustering at arbitrary length, moving on to a different set of terminology for a while, and returning to the same ground after what's apparently deemed a sufficient fallow period.There's none so hard to explain to as those that have a vested interest in not getting the explanation.

In fairness, throwing "person", "individual" etc in with "human being" may have nozzferrahhtoo in fits, but I'd suggest your throwing them in is probably your own attempt at obfuscating the fact that you never did explain to Absolam several times in the past the flaws in his criteria for "human being"

oldrnwisr

recedite wrote: »

You have been skipping seamlessly between various criteria used to justify why the early stage human should have no rights; it is not "alive" "an individual" "conscious".
A tree is alive. The leaves turn towards the light; they exhibit some of your 7 characteristics of life that the zygote does not. They are adaptive, they respond to stimuli. Should a tree be afforded more human rights then?
A tree will never show brain activity or consciousness.

There is no point trying to prove that a zygote is lifeless in the context of abortion rights. Conversely, there is no point somebody else trying to prove it is a fully functioning human being. Both arguments are futile.

No.
No.
But in the context of the various criteria which you have raised so far;
It is alive.
It is an individual. It is different to either of its parents. As a blastocyst it will use the placenta as an indirect means to gain nutrients and release waste products, but it remains a separate individual.
It is not conscious, but it will become conscious at some point.

Thank you for your answers to my questions. I take your points and I think that any further arguments would be pointless arguments about tiny details. I think that we may disagree on the miniscule details (it comes with me being a pedantic bastard) but I think in the bigger picture there's not much here to keep arguing about.

Vivisectus

Absolam wrote: »

I like Oldrnwisrs argument better. I just can't see a cell as a creature. Of course, we have bacteria and protozoa and such, but I thing the cells from your mouth are more a part of a whole, don't you think?

I agree with you completely. And yet it is amazingly similar to very early human development: it has human DNA, it has the potential to grow into a human person, to do so it requires an incubator and special circumstances...

Imagine the stages of cloning: you harvest the cells, you store them, you insert them in an egg, you then implant that egg in the mother, it develops through the normal stages of development, and it is born.

When did it become alive? Did these cells stop being me when they were harvested? Did they go through an intermediary stage of being dead? What is the difference between the DNA outside of an egg and inside it? What is the difference between the implanted egg and the non-implanted egg charged with my DNA? And the differences afterwards?

I have difficulty pinpointing a specific point where life can be said to have begun in this scenario. Human life according to your definition can be said to be present at all stages, in fact. And yet there is a huge difference between the cell that is still part of me, and the born clone.

I think it is perhaps not a very helpful concept in an abortion discussion, strangely enough.

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Thank you for your answers to my questions. I take your points and I think that any further arguments would be pointless arguments about tiny details.

Agreed, and thank you for your interesting posts.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

[A zygote] is an individual.

But that's not the case at all. Or at the very best, is a "provisional ball" on the individuation course. We've been over monozygotic twins and chimeric mosaics many times -- or at least, I have, the 'other side' of the debate seems to get oddly quiet when those are raised. The zygote could very easily end up as multiple individuals. Or as part of an individual.

Unlike oldr, I'm happy to consider a zygote to be alive in the biological sense. But equally, gametes are alive on the same basis. Of course, context is key as to what "alive" actually means: if I fall off a 100m cliff, most of my cells will still be "biologically alive" when I hit the bottom. "I", however, will not be.

Which brings us back to "human being". Is a human being simply a topologically compact and locally closed collection of one or more live genetically identical(ish) cells? I don't think that's the usual sense of the term at all. At a very bare minimum, it at least implies individuation. Philosophically, it often implies subjectivity: there's a reason we speak of people as "human beings", but not rabbits as "lapine beings", and so on.

Of course, people are under no obligation to use terms in their generally understood sense. Language being a virus from outer space, and so on. In fact, it may be strategic not to do so: dog whistles and mating calls, and so on. But if one is seeking to publicly argue a position in a way that's even in theory appealing for general acceptance, it seems prudent to do so.

alaimacerc

Vivisectus wrote: »

Imagine the stages of cloning: you harvest the cells, you store them, you insert them in an egg, you then implant that egg in the mother, it develops through the normal stages of development, and it is born.

When did it become alive? Did these cells stop being me when they were harvested? Did they go through an intermediary stage of being dead? What is the difference between the DNA outside of an egg and inside it? What is the difference between the implanted egg and the non-implanted egg charged with my DNA? And the differences afterwards?

While writing my previous post about zygotes and individuation, I toyed with mentioning a certain "leading UK Christian bioethicist", whose approach on "ensoulment" (individuation with religious knobs on) is very much the "provisional ball" one. Stuff the souls in there as soon as possible. Add more as required later, if necessary!

In the same spirit... I think, to quote Orwell: "The nearest one could come to doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the single word crimethink."