Abortion - An Issue of Rights, Morals, and Sensibility

[Shattered]

Dilloduck made this argument in the "Jane Roe" thread.

Read my responses there.

A

If I were interested in reading the Jane Roe thread, I would have. However, I asked in this (the abortion) thread.

BUT.. since you just got knocked on your ass, response not necessary.

 

[musicman]

If I were interested in reading the Jane Roe thread, I would have. However, I asked in this (the abortion) thread.

BUT.. since you just got knocked on your ass, response not necessary.

CL - the Duane Bobick of discourse.

 

[CivilLiberty]

So before the sixth month we should, as a society have NO QUALMS about aborting the "thing" because at 5 months it is simply a blob of tissue, an "ass mole" as you so aptly described it...

The "ass mole" joke referred ONLY to the zygote of less than 2-3 weeks gestation (actually a blastocyst by then).


The cerebellum argument applies to the latter weeks.

Perhaps you might try to look at why some people might disagree with you...
This is your "ass mole" at 7 weeks:

No, at 7 weeks it's an Embryo. And I've seen it. IN PERSON.
I don't need to see microscopic photos, enlarged to make it somehow seem more like a human being.

That thing is smaller than the size of my thumbnail.

3 Months:

- this is also the most common stage for abortion, by the way

1) 80% to 90% (depending on year) are performed BEFORE this point.

2) Despite the cutsy pics, that thing is about the size of a house mouse, and the primitive "brain" is the size of a hazelnut.

If a thing has the capacity to react to pain, light, the sound of its mothers voice, and other stimuli, can dream and has the possibility of being born healthy prior to your period...don't you think that many people might disagree with your cut off point????

A house mouse reacts to stimuli too. A frog has brain waves and a nervous system. A cat certainly reacts to pain. A cockroach reacts to light.

None of these attributes make these things human beings. At all.


Regards,


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Seems to me CL just got smoked.

Hardly. If you read my original post, you'll see that I clearly indicate that I've examined embryos and fetuses at various stages of development up close. In fact, it was my experience at the Body Worlds exhibit that inspired me to research and write that article in the first place.

You'll never EVER convince me that that little lump of cells at 4 weeks is a human being.


Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

The "ass mole" joke referred ONLY to the zygote of less than 2-3 weeks gestation (actually a blastocyst by then).


The cerebellum argument applies to the latter weeks.




No, at 7 weeks it's an Embryo. And I've seen it. IN PERSON.
I don't need to see microscopic photos, enlarged to make it somehow seem more like a human being.

That thing is smaller than the size of my thumbnail.




1) 80% to 90% (depending on year) are performed BEFORE this point.

2) Despite the cutsy pics, that thing is about the size of a house mouse, and the primitive "brain" is the size of a hazelnut.




A house mouse reacts to stimuli too. A frog has brain waves and a nervous system. A cat certainly reacts to pain. A cockroach reacts to light.

None of these attributes make these things human beings. At all.


Regards,


Andy

No. What makes it a human being is its DNA. In my previous example of the sster I never met born with the microcephalus defect (she died long before I was born), she was certainly human regardless of brain development. This argument is simply wrong and can be effetively shown to be wrong by this example. To define a human as only somebody with the correct amount of brain development is denying basic knowledge otherwise.

All of those things make it alive and reasonably responsive to outside stimulus, it can feel pain and react to it, it can even dream in one instance. Since brain development can obviously not be used to define a human being, unless you would wish to redifine my sister as something other than human, it would be wise to enter into a different defining moment of humanity.

In fact to define it as human life we need not even go into brain development at all or even reactive to stimuli, but can effectively determine if it is a human life at the Zygote level by showing it is alive and human by DNA. There is nothing else it will ever be but human, it is alive, therefore it is effectively human.

 

[Annie]

No. What makes it a human being is its DNA. In my previous example of the sster I never met born with the microcephalus defect (she died long before I was born), she was certainly human regardless of brain development. This argument is simply wrong and can be effetively shown to be wrong by this example. To define a human as only somebody with the correct amount of brain development is denying basic knowledge otherwise.

All of those things make it alive and reasonably responsive to outside stimulus, it can feel pain and react to it, it can even dream in one instance. Since brain development can obviously not be used to define a human being, unless you would wish to redifine my sister as something other than human, it would be wise to enter into a different defining moment of humanity.

In fact to define it as human life we need not even go into brain development at all or even reactive to stimuli, but can effectively determine if it is a human life at the Zygote level by showing it is alive and human by DNA. There is nothing else it will ever be but human, it is alive, therefore it is effectively human.

Just my take, what you say has no more validity than what the others are saying, perhaps less considering what science has been proving with each passing day.

Just because they are not quite as condescending, in no way makes your take correct. No matter how emphatic you are.

 

[CivilLiberty]

No. What makes it a human being is its DNA.

The aforementioned ass mole has human dna - that makes it human "life" but that does not make it a "human being".

A

 

[no1tovote4]

Just my take, what you say has no more validity than what the others are saying, perhaps less considering what science has been proving with each passing day.

Just because they are not quite as condescending, in no way makes your take correct. No matter how emphatic you are.

What do you mean? I understand that I am expressing an opinion and not fact, but I clearly define where my demarcation is without regard to the stage of development. I don't believe that science has shown that any of my points have less validy than any other points that have been posted in this thread.

 

[Annie]

What do you mean? I understand that I am expressing an opinion and not fact, but I clearly define where my demarcation is without regard to the stage of development. I don't believe that science has shown that any of my points have less validy than any other points that have been posted in this thread.

Was not directed at you, rather at CL.

 

[no1tovote4]

The aforementioned ass mole has human dna - that makes it human "life" but that does not make it a "human being".

A

We will have to agree to disagree on this particular point. However you can now understand our positions better. My position is neither based in faith nor is it without the backing of science. To simply attempt to describe my position as ludicrous becuase you wish it to be so still does not make it so. There is reason to work toward a solution that can work for both sides without regard to the definition of when human begins. One that will allow the adult woman reproductive choice without working for the direct intended death of human offspring.

 

[no1tovote4]

Was not directed at you, rather at CL.

Ah thanks for clarifying! I was a bit confused. LOL.

 

[Annie]

Ah thanks for clarifying! I was a bit confused. LOL.

No problem, ~tip o' the cap~

 

[CivilLiberty]

We will have to agree to disagree on this particular point. However you can now understand our positions better. My position is neither based in faith nor is it without the backing of science. To simply attempt to describe my position as ludicrous becuase you wish it to be so still does not make it so. There is reason to work toward a solution that can work for both sides without regard to the definition of when human begins. One that will allow the adult woman reproductive choice without working for the direct intended death of human offspring.

No, I've understood your position from near the beginning.

As far as the ramifications of replacing termination with "Brave New World" style fetus incubation, that's another issue, and one that I'll consider for future debate.

But at the moment, I need to get back to work...


Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

No, I've understood your position from near the beginning.

As far as the ramifications of replacing termination with "Brave New World" style fetus incubation, that's another issue, and one that I'll consider for future debate.

But at the moment, I need to get back to work...


Andy

As I have yours, but we will clearly be unable to change each other's minds. Therefore reasonable people would agree to disagree and work toward another solution rather than an agreement on this issue.

Have a good one.

 

[CivilLiberty]

As I have yours, but we will clearly be unable to change each other's minds. Therefore reasonable people would agree to disagree and work toward another solution rather than an agreement on this issue.

Have a good one.

You too, and thank you and everyone else here for challenging me on the issue - it's been helpful


Regards,


Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

The aforementioned ass mole has human dna - that makes it human "life" but that does not make it a "human being".

A

An "ass mole" does not have separate DNA for an entirely different living being as the zygote does.

This comparison is simply ridiculous and meant to provoke a "typical" violent and not well thought out response making it easier for you to define all people that think differently as over-emotional and steeped in anger. It is a good thing nobody has fallen for it yet.

 

[musicman]

The "ass mole" joke referred ONLY to the zygote of less than 2-3 weeks gestation (actually a blastocyst by then).


The cerebellum argument applies to the latter weeks.




No, at 7 weeks it's an Embryo. And I've seen it. IN PERSON.
I don't need to see microscopic photos, enlarged to make it somehow seem more like a human being.

That thing is smaller than the size of my thumbnail.




1) 80% to 90% (depending on year) are performed BEFORE this point.

2) Despite the cutsy pics, that thing is about the size of a house mouse, and the primitive "brain" is the size of a hazelnut.




A house mouse reacts to stimuli too. A frog has brain waves and a nervous system. A cat certainly reacts to pain. A cockroach reacts to light.

None of these attributes make these things human beings. At all.


Regards,


Andy

Andy, I have marvelled at your determined callousness and unreasoning persistence in asserting that a fetus can't be human until you say so. Then, it hit me. This is how man has always justified his inhumanity to man - by dehumanizing his victim.

"Jews are subhuman, and the cause of all our misery."

"The wealthy only have things because I don't."

"Political unorthodoxy is a danger to our glorious revolution."

"All the cutesy little photos in the world aren't going to convince me that a blob of undifferentiated tissues is human."

The next thing you know, human beings are dying by the millions. It's actually pretty easy for us - just a matter of a slight adjustment in attitude.

 

[dilloduck]

In my younger days I wrote advertising - print, TV, but mostly radio. I'm sure that has influenced my style to this day.


A

Your days in advertising have obiously influenced your style. You promote YOUR views as the best thing since sliced bread and attempt to portray other arguments (products) as stupid, unnecessary, inferior and not even worth mentioning. You are speaking to a group that is light years more sophisticated than the average couch potato as you have found out.

Smoke and mirrors won't do it here, Andy. Your going to have to address the ENTIRE spectrum of abortion, not just the scientific one. (which you still are failing miserably at).

Why is it that you can wish to have a soul but at the same time so adamant that a child at conception doesn't have one? This strikes me as strange UNLESS you are playing devils advocate here in hopes that someone can save you from your depressing belief that "science" is all there is and spiritualty is merely a figment of mans' imagination.

 

[CivilLiberty]

...belief that "science" is all there is and spiritualty is merely a figment of mans' imagination.

Prove to me otherwise.


A

 

[dilloduck]

Prove to me otherwise.


A

How long did people believe the scientific thought that the world was flat until proven wrong? Come on Andy--we haven't reached the end of science by a long shot yet you feel contempt for those of us that don't believe everything they spout out ? And why do you refuse to answer so many challenges to your original post ?