Another discussion about abortion

[Zincwarrior]

If any person thinks murder should be criminal, don’t commit murder.

Your proposition is trite and meaningless.

Its chattel slavery.

Silly. If someone wants to kidnap another person, just because it she may not be my own daughter doesn’t mean that I (and numerous others in our society) can’t proscribe such behavior.

Can't get pregnant if men keep it zipped up.

 

[Eman623]

You made the attempt at diversion, even after I put the word "incorrect" into parentheses to clarify what I meant by the word "wrong."

That's not making it about you.

Only pointing out what YOU did.

Whatever. Bored now.

Thanks for your time. Let me know if you want to move back to the actual topic.

 

[Chuz Life]

Not sure what you mean by "answer truthfully". I have no reason to lie to you and I am puzzled by the insinuation otherwise.

But yes, I was conceived, gestated, born, raised and lived long enough to repeat the process again with my wife. The whole package.

So, great.

This is not the typical answer.

So, if I may follow up, "In what sense were you - YOU, when YOU were conceived?

(Hint: There is a biologically solid answer for that question)

 

[Chuz Life]

It's been said that Americans will eventually do the right thing, but only after all other possible alternatives have been exhausted.

Looking back at American History, I can't disagree with that observation at all.

 

[Eman623]

So, great.

This is not the typical answer.

So, if I may follow up, "In what sense were you - YOU, when YOU were conceived?

(Hint: There is a biologically solid answer for that question)

Ah I see. You are asking when I became an "I". As I noted before, that is as much a question for philosophers and ethicists as the biologists.

The best I can say is "At some point."

 

[BackAgain]

Its chattel slavery.

No. It isn’t. Words have meaning.

Can't get pregnant if men keep it zipped up.

So what? Yours ain’t the only penis in the world. And the question isn’t who did the impregnating. The question is whether the ensuing life can be snuffed out by the unilateral choice of the pregnant woman for any reason or for no reason at all.

Again, that meme response you offer is old, stale, trite and utterly beside the point.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No. It isn’t. Words have meaning.

So what? Yours ain’t the only penis in the world. And the question isn’t who did the impregnating. The question is whether the ensuing life can be snuffed out by the unilateral choice of the pregnant woman for any reason or for no reason at all.

Again, that meme response you offer is old, stale, trite and utterly beside the point.

If she can't have abortion, he gets his balls cut off. Deal?

 

[Chuz Life]

Ah I see. You are asking when I became an "I". As I noted before, that is as much a question for philosophers and ethicists as the biologists.

The best I can say is "At some point."

No, I'm seeking consistency.

You acknowledged the fact that YOU were conceived.

I agree.

I was also conceived.

I know the answer to my question; "in what aspect was I myself, "I," when I was conceived?"

You somehow know that YOU were conceived, but you don't seem to know in what sense or meaning of that fact you were YOU, even at the moment of YOUR conception.

It's not a very difficult question for those who know and appreciate the biological facts.

 

[BackAgain]

If she can't have abortion, he gets his balls cut off. Deal?

On what basis?

Try not to be so ridiculous.

 

[Chuz Life]

No. It isn’t. Words have meaning.

So what? Yours ain’t the only penis in the world. And the question isn’t who did the impregnating. The question is whether the ensuing life can be snuffed out by the unilateral choice of the pregnant woman for any reason or for no reason at all.

Again, that meme response you offer is old, stale, trite and utterly beside the point.

That's why I put it on ignore. Same spammed memes over and over.

 

[Eman623]

No, I'm seeking consistency.

You acknowledged the fact that YOU were conceived.

I agree.

I was also conceived.

I know the answer to my question; "in what aspect was I myself, "I," when I was conceived?"

You somehow know that YOU were conceived, but you don't seem to know in what sense or meaning of that fact you were YOU, even at the moment of YOUR conception.

It's not a very difficult question for those who know and appreciate the biological facts.

You constant attempts to personalize this discussion are annoying. I will answer in the abstract and if you persist in making this about me again, then "I" will be done with "you".

A newly conceived egg+sperm is an organism. In that sense it is a "he" or "she". But it's not a person, IMO. Personhood comes later. I could put that picture of the blastula back up, but I made that point already. A blob of cells is not a person, any more than a person is just a big blob of cells.

 

[Chuz Life]

You constant attempts to personalize this discussion are annoying. I will answer in the abstract and if you persist in making this about me again, then "I" will be done with "you".

A newly conceived egg+sperm is an organism. In that sense it is a "he" or "she". But it's not a person, IMO. Personhood comes later. I could put that picture of the blastula back up, but I made that point already. A blob of cells is not a person, any more than a person is just a big blob of cells.

If only you would explain in depth how a "person" can be conceived but is not a "person" in any way, shape, or form, "when their "conception" took place.

Be pissed if you want to.

Like I said, I already know the answer to the question.

Edit to add, "if the answer to the above question does not also answer the question of what it is that makes one's biological father (and mother for that matter) their biological parents from the moment of their (the young's) conception, then please go on to answer that one too.

 

[toobfreak]

If we look up the definition of “person” we see things like “a human being regarded as being an individual.” And since we aren’t talking about corpses, I say we must add “living” to “human being.”

I'm fairly versed at word meanings, word origins, etc., and while I can say the fetus is alive and human, I'm not sure it meets the definition of being a person yet. A person implies autonomy, and a fetus is not autonomous.

It is accepted by a large percentage of doctors that “life” begins at the moment of conception.

No one can argue that life does NOT begin at conception. I would win 10 out of 10 times in court arguing that the zygote is alive.

the taking of a human life is a homicide.

Certainly, the intentional act of depriving a living human of life should be considered a homicide, and in fact, the law routinely declares the murder of any pregnant woman as a "double homicide."

I regularly see “liberals” argue for abortion “rights” by arguing that the blastula or zygote is merely a “cluster of cells” but not “life” yet because — stage of development.

I wonder where this right is written down and who accorded it? Actually, to be fair, for a long time, a /very/ long time, it HAS been considered a woman's prerogative to abort her baby if she didn't want it. But that argument fails in the modern idiom because history is replete with actions done for centuries that in the modern context, is now deemed inappropriate. Slavery is a good example.

Arguing that you have a "right" to own slaves because our forefathers did it for centuries will get you laughed out of court. People also used to get their hands cut off for stealing a loaf of bread to feed themselves--- that doesn't make it right in the modern era.

I would argue that:

1. A woman has no inalienable right to abort her child because the baby inside her is not her body but another life living coaxially inside her.
2. A human is not property, therefore, no woman "owns" her child that she can just autocratically make life and death decisions for it, save for those of medical necessity. A woman has parenthood responsibilities to care for the welfare of the child.
3. Since the child is really the result of the actions of TWO people, it really confers some rights upon the father if it comes down to aborting a baby.

I note that how the Left treats and regards fetuses, you could not get away with treating a dog like that. All that leaves is the whole basis for the Left's obstinance on abortion really comes down to a group of people who really just want the freedom to sleep around, shack up, and have no worries about dumping the child, better still, not even having to pay for the abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm fairly versed at word meanings, word origins, etc., and while I can say the fetus is alive and human, I'm not sure it meets the definition of being a person yet. A person implies autonomy, and a fetus is not autonomous.

We are so close on this.

Do you agree that any legal definition for what a "natural person" is should be open enough and inclusive enough as to avoid excluding any human beings of any age, sex, creed, religion, or gender?

What about their (especially temporary) level of development?

 

[BackAgain]

You constant attempts to personalize this discussion are annoying. I will answer in the abstract and if you persist in making this about me again, then "I" will be done with "you".

A newly conceived egg+sperm is an organism. In that sense it is a "he" or "she". But it's not a person, IMO. Personhood comes later. I could put that picture of the blastula back up, but I made that point already. A blob of cells is not a person, any more than a person is just a big blob of cells.

Actually, whether it’s a he or a she comes later.

And your reference to a blastula wasn’t a point you “made.” It was one you merely attempted to make.

Personhood is co-extensive with conception. It’s merely the first stage of development.

Hey, sometimes wisdom teeth come in earlier and sometimes they come in later. Either way it’s a stage of life and not the demarcation-line of “personhood.”

 

[toobfreak]

Do you agree that any legal definition for what a "natural person" is should be open enough and inclusive enough as to avoid excluding any human beings of any age, sex, creed, religion, or gender? What about their (especially temporary) level of development?

Well now you are really pulling at threads. I'm not sure what a natural person is, as that implies the existence of an "unnatural" person. I assume you are speaking from an allodial POV. The sticky widget is that we base age on birth. Your age is counted from the time of your birth, not conception.

I'm not sure the ramifications of clocking age from conception, that would mean you are nearly a year old already when born, so that obviates any arguments for age discrimination.

If age were counted from time of conception (which can often only be estimated to approximate dates), that might open the door for arguing that abortion is a form of age discrimination.

In a sense, what the Left are really arguing is that the unborn fetus is simply /too young/ to have any human rights yet. But since the courts routinely prosecute the murder of a fetus (like shooting the mother with a gun), this becomes really complicated.

So basically, I will stick by my guns that the fetus is alive, is a human, therefore entitled to most every right any ordinary person walking around has. And that makes abortion a murder.

I could show you photos of actual aborted fetuses to support my murder argument, but they are probably too gruesome and might either shock and disturb some people here or be deemed too graphic for display by the mods.

But believe me, no mother arguing her "rights" would ever volunteer to undergo an abortion herself.

 

[toobfreak]

And your reference to a blastula wasn’t a point you “made.” It was one you merely attempted to make.

The blastula is an interesting point. I take it that the blastula and the cytoblast both have a common root origin, the blastula being the outer cell membrane holding the fluid within which the zygote will grow, whereas the cytoblast is the actual life organism growing within.

Personhood is co-extensive with conception. It’s merely the first stage of development.

Again, personhood implies individuality, and while the fetus is an individual, they are not yet autonomous as a person should be, so, I steer clear of using that word just yet in describing any fetus. For example, a baby can be counted in a census of population, but a fetus cannot, making the baby a "person."

Either way it’s a stage of life and not the demarcation-line of “personhood.”

Exactly. As soon as someone admits that the fetus, zygote, etc., are all just necessary developmental stages in a person's life (oops, I just said person ), no different from a senior citizen, teen, or infant, we immediately recognize the fetus as having individualized human rights beyond just the mere wishes of the recalcitrant mother.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm fairly versed at word meanings, word origins, etc., and while I can say the fetus is alive and human, I'm not sure it meets the definition of being a person yet. A person implies autonomy, and a fetus is not autonomous.

I don’t believe “autonomy” is a requirement of personhood. I’m not autonomous if I’m forever stuck in an iron lung. But I’d still be a person.

No one can argue that life does NOT begin at conception. I would win 10 out of 10 times in court arguing that the zygote is alive.

So far, so good.

Certainly, the intentional act of depriving a living human of life should be considered a homicide, and in fact, the law routinely declares the murder of any pregnant woman as a "double homicide."

That depends on the state, normally. But I get your meaning.

I wonder where this right is written down and who accorded it? Actually, to be fair, for a long time, a /very/ long time, it HAS been considered a woman's prerogative to abort her baby if she didn't want it. But that argument fails in the modern idiom because history is replete with actions done for centuries that in the modern context, is now deemed inappropriate. Slavery is a good example.

True dat.

Arguing that you have a "right" to own slaves because our forefathers did it for centuries will get you laughed out of court. People also used to get their hands cut off for stealing a loaf of bread to feed themselves--- that doesn't make it right in the modern era.

Absolutely correct.

I would argue that:

1. A woman has no inalienable right to abort her child because the baby inside her is not her body but another life living coaxially inside her.
2. A human is not property, therefore, no woman "owns" her child that she can just autocratically make life and death decisions for it, save for those of medical necessity. A woman has parenthood responsibilities to care for the welfare of the child.
3. Since the child is really the result of the actions of TWO people, it really confers some rights upon the father if it comes down to aborting a baby.

I note that how the Left treats and regards fetuses, you could not get away with treating a dog like that. All that leaves is the whole basis for the Left's obstinance on abortion really comes down to a group of people who really just want the freedom to sleep around, shack up, and have no worries about dumping the child, better still, not even having to pay for the abortion.

I am in general agreement.

Still, I go by definitions to a large extent. And to the extent that a “person” is defined as “a human being regarded as an individual,”

See:

… it follows that, from conception onward, the being with its own unique dna is a “person.”

 

[hondo 50]

You don't need 6 pages for this. Libs don't do science.

 

[BackAgain]

The blastula is an interesting point. I take it that the blastula and the cytoblast both have a common root origin, the blastula being the outer cell membrane holding the fluid within which the zygote will grow, whereas the cytoblast is the actual life organism growing within.


Again, personhood implies individuality, and while the fetus is an individual, they are not yet autonomous as a person should be, so, I steer clear of using that word just yet in describing any fetus. For example, a baby can be counted in a census of population, but a fetus cannot, making the baby a "person."


Exactly. As soon as someone admits that the fetus, zygote, etc., are all just necessary developmental stages in a person's life (oops, I just said person ), no different from a senior citizen, teen, or infant, we immediately recognize the fetus as having individualized human rights beyond just the mere wishes of the recalcitrant mother.

Again, I’m unfamiliar with any requirement for “autonomy.”