Abortion Discussion

Two Sheds

Deleted User wrote: »

What is the smallest and most vulnerable stage of human life that you value equally to yourself?

Easy to answer - it's human life, at all stages. If we value human life according to its stage of development then who knows - I may be more valuable than you

The essence of abortion is the strong dominating the weak for personal gain, whether it's a mother disposing of her unwanted child, a boyfriend wanting his freedom or a doctor wanting a Lamborghini.

Loafing Oaf

Two Sheds wrote: »

That's why a human life at its smallest and most vulnerable stage is no less valuable than at any other.

So you would regard the disposal of 'surplus' embryos created through IVF as mass murder? And the clinic employee who poured a few hundred of these down the sink (or whatever they do) as worse than Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer etc.?

Two Sheds

Two Sheds wrote: »

Easy to answer - it's human life, at all stages. If we value human life according to its stage of development then who knows - I may be more valuable than you

The essence of abortion is the strong dominating the weak for personal gain, whether it's a mother disposing of her unwanted child, a boyfriend wanting his freedom or a doctor wanting a Lamborghini.

Cancer cells?

Sperm?

Ova?

Two Sheds

Deleted User wrote: »

Cancer cells?

Sperm?

Ova?

Biology?

None of the above constitute human life, human beings, human entities or humanity.

This shouldn't have to be spelt out to anybody over 12, so stop the nonsense.

Two Sheds

Two Sheds wrote: »

Biology?

None of the above constitute human life, human beings, human entities or humanity.

This shouldn't have to be spelt out to anybody over 12, so stop the nonsense.

Can you tell me what the smallest / earliest entity that constitutes human life, human beings or humanity is please?

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

Biology?

None of the above constitute human life, human beings, human entities or humanity.

This shouldn't have to be spelt out to anybody over 12, so stop the nonsense.

That's another meaningless sentence right there. Human life is not the same as a human being, which is different from humanity. Are you saying that an embryo created through IVF is one of all of those, and if so, is the employee who regularly disposes of multiple unwanted IVF embryos a mass murderer or not?

If it's acceptable to destroy an IVF embryo, then why does a woman have to keep one inside her just because it's inside her and not inside a test tube? Does she have fewer rights than a test tube?

obplayer

Two Sheds wrote: »

Biology?

None of the above constitute human life, human beings, human entities or humanity.

This shouldn't have to be spelt out to anybody over 12, so stop the nonsense.

Neither does a miniscule globe of 150 cells with no nervous system or brain. The arrogance of your replies is doing you no favours.

Not a NSA agent

volchitsa wrote: »

That's another meaningless sentence right there. Human life is not the same as a human being, which is different from humanity. Are you saying that an embryo created through IVF is one of all of those, and if so, is the employee who regularly disposes of multiple unwanted IVF embryos a mass murderer or not?

If it's acceptable to destroy an IVF embryo, then why does a woman have to keep one inside her just because it's inside her and not inside a test tube? Does she have fewer rights than a test tube?

Usually their way of avoiding that is claiming it only becomes a human once it's implanted.

recedite

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Usually their way of avoiding that is claiming it only becomes a human once it's implanted.

It is only protected by the law once its implanted. So I suppose that is the law's (ie society's) way of saying that it should be considered an early stage unborn human from that point. As opposed to a clump of cells with the potential to become one.

Every stage of human development has its milestones. At implantation the blastocyst begins a communication with the mother via hormonal messages. Her body has accepted the new individual and agreed to host it, even if her mind has not yet become aware of it. I'm not drawing any particular hard and fast conclusions from that re the ethics of abortion, I'm just making the observation.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

It is only protected by the law once its implanted. So I suppose that is the law's (ie society's) way of saying that it should be considered an early stage unborn human from that point. As opposed to a clump of cells with the potential to become one.

Every stage of human development has its milestones. At implantation the blastocyst begins a communication with the mother via hormonal messages. Her body has accepted the new individual and agreed to host it, even if her mind has not yet become aware of it. I'm not drawing any particular hard and fast conclusions from that re the ethics of abortion, I'm just making the observation.

Careful... Is this a fair statement?

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

It is only protected by the law once its implanted. So I suppose that is the law's (ie society's) way of saying that it should be considered an early stage unborn human from that point. As opposed to a clump of cells with the potential to become one.

Our friend seems to be more consistent than this in regarding the embryo as a full-fledged human being from when it comes into existence. And the inescapable corollary of this is that for him/her a petri dish containing 50 invisible-to-the-naked eye embryos is of equal status ethically to a bus full of schoolchildren...

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Careful... Is this a fair statement?

I think yes, because having a distinct genetic blueprint from the mother, it is a separate individual. For example it may even be attacked by the mothers immune system if it's Rhesus positive, and she is not.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

I think yes, because having a distinct genetic blueprint from the mother, it is a separate individual. For example it may even be attacked by the mothers immune system if it's Rhesus positive, and she is not.

Can it be an individual if it has no ability to survive on it's own, no nervous system, no brain?

Dan_Solo

Any chance that anybody demanding "is X equivalent to a school kid" could specify at what stage of developemt they think this happens themselves?

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

Can it be an individual if it has no ability to survive on it's own, no nervous system, no brain?

It isn't an individual human at that stage no, but inability to support yourself isn't much of a way to decide what's a human being is it?

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Any chance that anybody demanding "is X equivalent to a school kid" could specify at what stage of developemt they think this happens themselves?

When X is a school kid I guess.

Dan_Solo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When X is a school kid I guess.

Hilarious.
You know what the question was. Not interested?

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hilarious.
You know what the question was. Not interested?

I'm not sure what exactly is funny about not having a dogmatic absolutist view about the value of things?

I take exception at people telling me that a potential human has the same worth as me. Given that I have family and friends and shared experiences that are (imo) valuable, I believe that pretending that these are irrelevant when making any value judgement is not just a little bit odd.

In a situation where one could only retrieve me or a tray of embryos from a burning building, I feel it would be spectacularly inhumane of anyone to choose the tray.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It isn't an individual human at that stage no, but inability to support yourself isn't much of a way to decide what's a human being is it?

Supporting yourself is a very different question from merely surviving though, isn't it? Or at least it is when by "survival" one means such basic functions as capacity for intake of oxygen, metabolic function etc.

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It isn't an individual human at that stage no, but inability to support yourself isn't much of a way to decide what's a human being is it?

How about a nervous system and brain?

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Any chance that anybody demanding "is X equivalent to a school kid" could specify at what stage of developemt they think this happens themselves?

Well we could definitely start with a functioning nervous system and brain and take the debate from there. Even they may not be sufficient to allow the entity to be classed as a human being but they are clearly necessary.

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure what exactly is funny about not having a dogmatic absolutist view about the value of things?

Ah yes, if you can't answer anything then the questioner must be seeking something "dogmatic". But of course this only works when you only want to compare fertilized eggs and adult humans. Unfortunately I don't think fertilized eggs are humans either, but you don't seem to have any position whatsoever on what is a human.

Deleted User wrote: »

I take exception at people telling me that a potential human has the same worth as me. Given that I have family and friends and shared experiences that are (imo) valuable, I believe that pretending that these are irrelevant when making any value judgement is not just a little bit odd.

It's almost as odd as insisting the only possible comparison to be made in this debate is between a just fertilized egg and an adult human being.

Deleted User wrote: »

In a situation where one could only retrieve me or a tray of embryos from a burning building, I feel it would be spectacularly inhumane of anyone to choose the tray.

Is that the only comparison you have any interest in exploring? Are you even willing to admit there are other stages of development between that and adulthood?
As an interesting aside, most people would save a child before they would save us adults. That doesn't make much sense then if the sum of our human experiences makes us of more value, does it?

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

How about a nervous system and brain?

How about it? Yes, I would say they are requirements to be considered human. I thought it was pretty obvious I was only disagreeing with one of the three criteria raised.

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

Well we could definitely start with a functioning nervous system and brain and take the debate from there. Even they may not be sufficient to allow the entity to be classed as a human being but they are clearly necessary.

Aaaand there it is again. You haven't actually stated a position here at all with regards to what you consider to be a human being. You've listed two thinks that "may" be sufficient and might be able to "take the debate from there."

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah yes, if you can't answer anything then the questioner must be seeking something "dogmatic". But of course this only works when you only want to compare fertilized eggs and adult humans. Unfortunately I don't think fertilized eggs are humans either, but you don't seem to have any position whatsoever on what is a human.
It's almost as odd as insisting the only possible comparison to be made in this debate is between a just fertilized egg and an adult human being.
Is that the only comparison you have any interest in exploring? Are you even willing to admit there are other stages of development between that and adulthood?
As an interesting aside, most people would save a child before they would save us adults. That doesn't make much sense then if the sum of our human experiences makes us of more value, does it?

In order of the questions

No

Of course

Exactly my point. Please see the post I questioned. The one that asserted absolutely unequivocally that there was equivalence. I'm of the opinion that the nuance involved means that there is no absolute answer and so I find it bizarre that people can dogmatically insist one way or the other. In effect the answer is 'it depends'. Meaning the idea of codifying it in a constitution is insane!

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

In order of the questions

No

Of course

Exactly my point. Please see the post I questioned. The one that asserted absolutely unequivocally that there was equivalence. I'm of the opinion that the nuance involved means that there is no absolute answer and so I find it bizarre that people can dogmatically insist one way or the other. In effect the answer is 'it depends'. Meaning the idea of codifying it in a constitution is insane!

Sorry, I just don't see how you think this is really a useful position to have on, well, anything at all really. How can we put "it depends" or "it's nuanced" into a constitution? Is there no way to express in words what we should consider to be a human being in receipt of full human rights and protection by society (in whatever form that may be)?

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sorry, I just don't see how you think this is really a useful position to have on, well, anything at all really. How can we put "it depends" or "it's nuanced" into a constitution? Is there no way to express in words what we should consider to be a human being in receipt of full human rights and protection by society (in whatever form that may be)?

We don't! That's exactly the point!

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

We don't! That's exactly the point!

So it is impossible to compose any possible combination of Irish or English words to adequately (or even acceptably) define what our state should consider to be a human being?

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Aaaand there it is again. You haven't actually stated a position here at all with regards to what you consider to be a human being. You've listed two thinks that "may" be sufficient and might be able to "take the debate from there."

I have stated that they are necessary conditions, if they are not met then you definitely do not have a human being. That is a stated position, stated very clearly in fact.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So it is impossible to compose any possible combination of Irish or English words to adequately (or even acceptably) define what our state should consider to be a human being?

Do you mean a being that we automatically infer all human rights upon?