Abortion - An Issue of Rights, Morals, and Sensibility

[no1tovote4]

Because as a religious belief it is not part of a scientific debate.


A

Believing that a zygote is a human being is not a religious belief. It is a scientific belief based on the complete set of DNA and the certainty that left alone and in the right conditions it will complete its growth, just as an infant would, to an adult. Attempting to objectify human life by only naming the stages of development doesn't change the fact that it is human life.

 

[dilloduck]

Because as a religious belief it is not part of a scientific debate.


A

So in your mind , abortion is strictly an issue that should be decided on by scientific method only and as you have framed it ? And you have contempt when people try to interject other aspects of abortion into you nice tight little rationalization? (like morality or human rights ?) Sorry, like I said in my first response----you can't fry this fish so easily. You need a much bigger pan.

As Zhuk pointed out, why do we need to be obsessed about a womans' rights exceeding those of a fetus. "What harm is done by allowing it to live ?" is the question I pose to you and EXACTLY what rights does a woman lose that she hasn't already ceded by having sex? Ultimately where in the constutution does it say that a woman has a right to become pregnant and then kill the results ?

 

[manu1959]

no1...you are good at this...u 2 ducky

 

[musicman]

Believing that a zygote is a human being is not a religious belief. It is a scientific belief based on the complete set of DNA and the certainty that left alone and in the right conditions it will complete its growth, just as an infant would, to an adult. Attempting to objectify human life by only naming the stages of development doesn't change the fact that it is human life.

Exactly. All that has to happen in order for the potential to be realized is for the mother to have the grace not to snuff out it's life.

 

[Gem]

Civil,

You state that its just a blob of tissue, or just a developing human not worthy of protection until it is developed enough.

Have you ever firmly established where that point is for you?

You did, at one point, state that it was when brain waves began...but it seems to many here that that opinion only lasted until you found out how early on developing fetuses begin to demonstrate brain functioning. Now, if I'm reading you correctly its when the brain is working at a level you approve of for "humanness."

What level is that exactly, considering that the brain keeps developing well into the teens and 20s...and a baby does not have many of the needed things, i.e. self-actualization, realization and differentiation of self and others, conscience, etc. that many define as what sets us apart from the animals...yet only the insane few are talking about people having the right to kill infants...

So where exactly, are you now? When, in your opinion, is the cut off? Please either state a specific time (month of pregnancy is fine) or, if you do not know...please state that as well.

 

[musicman]

This I gotta see....

 

[CivilLiberty]

Civil,

You state that its just a blob of tissue, or just a developing human not worthy of protection until it is developed enough.

Have you ever firmly established where that point is for you?

I think I was pretty clear in the first post of this thread.

You did, at one point, state that it was when brain waves began..

No I didn't. I may have stated that before brain waves begin, there's NO way you could consider it a human being, that does not mean I do consider it a human being after that point.

.but it seems to many here that that opinion only lasted until you found out how early on developing fetuses begin to demonstrate brain functioning. Now, if I'm reading you correctly its when the brain is working at a level you approve of for "humanness."

It has always been my contention, though I may have narrowed the argument occasionally for illustration, that the mass of cells is not a human being until it reaches a certain level of brain development.

What level is that exactly, considering that the brain keeps developing well into the teens and 20s...

The cerebellum "develops" for 2 years after birth. however, there is continued mental development into an individual's late 40s.

and a baby does not have many of the needed things, i.e. self-actualization, realization and differentiation of self and others, conscience, etc. that many define as what sets us apart from the animals...yet only the insane few are talking about people having the right to kill infants...

Yes, that's right. In fact, a baby does not get those things for some years after birth - actually, about the time of the "terrible twos".

However, I don't support infanticide (a practice that still exists in the third world) .

So where exactly, are you now? When, in your opinion, is the cut off? Please either state a specific time (month of pregnancy is fine) or, if you do not know...please state that as well.

Sorry Gem, I think I was quite clear in the post that launched this thread.

Cerebellum development begins in the sixth month. The cerebellum is "fully" developed by age two (though much nurturing must still take place).

The cerebellum houses that part of human consciousness that we associate with human existence. So then before its development there should be no moral qualms about the embryo. As it begins to develop however, we enter an area where the essential essence that defines humans over lower animals begins to emerge.

See also the links embedded in that first post.



Regards,

Andy

 

[Shattered]

CL - Are you pro-death penalty as well?

 

[musicman]

I think I was pretty clear in the first post of this thread.




Regards,

Andy

You were as clear as the word, "probably" ever gets.

 

[CivilLiberty]

CL - Are you pro-death penalty as well?

Yes, I support the death penalty.

I do have concerns, of course, due to faults in our legal system.

And in many cases it ends up costing taxpayers more to execute a person due to the many appeals and court costs, than it does to keep them locked up for life.

Also, I tend to think that solitary confinement is more of a punishment than death.

But I do support the death penalty for the appropriate crimes such as murder.


A

 

[Shattered]

Yes, I support the death penalty.

I do have concerns, of course, due to faults in our legal system.

And in many cases it ends up costing taxpayers more to execute a person due to the many appeals and court costs, than it does to keep them locked up for life.

Also, I tend to think that solitary confinement is more of a punishment than death.

But I do support the death penalty for the appropriate crimes such as murder.


A

So, you'd have no problem with a mother being executed for murdering her unborn child. Cool.

 

[CivilLiberty]

So, you'd have no problem with a mother being executed for murdering her unborn child. Cool.

It's not a child till it's born.

 

[musicman]

It's not a child till it's born.

When, precisely - exactly - unerringly - is it a human?

We NEED to be precise, exact, and unerring when the stakes are innocent human life.

So - when?

 

[Shattered]

So...what would you think/do if you were going to be a father, and the 'mother' just took that right from you, and murdered the child you wanted?

 

[no1tovote4]

It's not a child till it's born.

But it is still offspring. In every definition the word offspring is apparent. When it is born if you want to be very specific as to its delineation it would be a Neonate, then an Infant, a Toddler, a Pre-Schooler, THEN a child, however a generic term for offspring is also child. Therefore it would be acceptible in generic terms to call the offspring a child at any stage of development up to Adult, then it would still be acceptible if you were the parent to call it your child.

Offspring n. pl. offspring

1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
2. A child of particular parentage.
3. A result; a product.


In every definition of the stages offspring is acceptible including ex utero as well as in utero.


The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary defines the Zygote as:

n : the cell resulting from the union of an ovum and a spermatozoon (including the organism that develops from that cell) [syn: fertilized ovum]

(The Zygote is the offspring of uniting humans sexually or the product of ex utero fertilization. This particular definition can be used at any stage of the development of a Human Being or any other life form for that matter.)

Since the word child could be considered an acceptible term for the offspring of humans it can be generically applied to all stages of human life.

 

[Gem]

Civil,

Thanks for re-clarifying. I am sure that you feel you have been perfectly clear this entire time, but judging by the number of people here who have asked for you to explain yourself a bit more...you obviously still have a bit of work to do in that area. I am thrilled that you are so willing to stick with it though, thanks.

You state that you have determined that:

Cerebellum development begins in the sixth month. The cerebellum is "fully" developed by age two (though much nurturing must still take place).

The cerebellum houses that part of human consciousness that we associate with human existence. So then before its development there should be no moral qualms about the embryo. As it begins to develop however, we enter an area where the essential essence that defines humans over lower animals begins to emerge.

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...

Perhaps you might try to look at why some people might disagree with you...


This is your "ass mole" at 7 weeks:

- at this stage its muscles and nerves are working together
- its skeletal system has developed and is hardening...a process which will continue well into childhood (if he makes it there)
- has all the internal organs of an adult

10 Weeks:
- tiny human feet are completely formed
- fingerprints and footprints present at 10 weeks and will never change (except inside) for the rest of their lives. (Just think, these are legal forms of identification for people)
- Highly responsive to stimuli (when eyelids or palms are touched, they close)
- Baby can squint, swallow, stick out his tongue
- Whole body except tongue is sensitive to touch
- Cartilage now calcifying to become bone
- Blood cells now being formed in the bone marrow rather than the yolk sac, which did this during early stages of pregnancy

3 Months:

At this stage the "ass mole"
- has fingernails
- visibly recoils from pain
- hiccups and urinates
- this is also the most common stage for abortion, by the way

14 weeks (3 1/2 months):

16th Week
- The "ass mole" has been shown to have REM sleep...which means it could be dreaming...
- It hears and responds to sounds and voices outside in the really, real world.

Week 21: (still well withing Civil Liberties abortable without qualms realm)

- "ass moles" have been delievered successfully

So Civil, if the "ass mole" is successfully delievered prior to your magic 6 month period...should we be able to kill it if it looks like it might be a "pain in the ass" to the parents?

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????



(Pictures and info: American Collegians for Life: http://www.aclife.org/education/development.html

 

[no1tovote4]

Civil,

Thanks for re-clarifying. I am sure that you feel you have been perfectly clear this entire time, but judging by the number of people here who have asked for you to explain yourself a bit more...you obviously still have a bit of work to do in that area. I am thrilled that you are so willing to stick with it though, thanks.

You state that you have determined that:


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...

Perhaps you might try to look at why some people might disagree with you...


This is your "ass mole" at 7 weeks:

- at this stage its muscles and nerves are working together
- its skeletal system has developed and is hardening...a process which will continue well into childhood (if he makes it there)
- has all the internal organs of an adult

10 Weeks:
- tiny human feet are completely formed
- fingerprints and footprints present at 10 weeks and will never change (except inside) for the rest of their lives. (Just think, these are legal forms of identification for people)
- Highly responsive to stimuli (when eyelids or palms are touched, they close)
- Baby can squint, swallow, stick out his tongue
- Whole body except tongue is sensitive to touch
- Cartilage now calcifying to become bone
- Blood cells now being formed in the bone marrow rather than the yolk sac, which did this during early stages of pregnancy



3 Months:

At this stage the "ass mole"
- has fingernails
- visibly recoils from pain
- hiccups and urinates
- this is also the most common stage for abortion, by the way

14 weeks (3 1/2 months):

16th Week
- The "ass mole" has been shown to have REM sleep...which means it could be dreaming...
- It hears and responds to sounds and voices outside in the really, real world.

Week 21: (still well withing Civil Liberties abortable without qualms realm)

- "ass moles" have been delievered successfully

So Civil, if the "ass mole" is successfully delievered prior to your magic 6 month period...should we be able to kill it if it looks like it might be a "pain in the ass" to the parents?

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????



(Pictures and info: American Collegians for Life: http://www.aclife.org/education/development.html

 

[Shattered]

Seems to me CL just got smoked.

 

[musicman]

Stay down, CL. This is getting embarrassing.

 

[CivilLiberty]

So...what would you think/do if you were going to be a father, and the 'mother' just took that right from you, and murdered the child you wanted?

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

Read my responses there.

A