The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[ding]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

An unfertilized egg is not a new genetically distinct human being. A fertilized egg is. But as pointed out already, is that really what we are talking about when we are discussing abortion? Or is it a fetus that get aborted?

I only bring up a zygote because that is when it's personhood and humanity is established.

That unfertilized egg has a unique set of chromosomes. Incomplete but still unique.

My personal belief is that a fertilized egg is not equivalent to a human being. A newborn baby is a human being. Somewhere between those two states is an arbitrary line that, when crossed, means a human being now exists and has legal rights. Science can not determine where that line is any more than science can say when someone is old enough to drive. I think the courts have done a reasonable job setting that arbitrary line and I don't want to see it moved for reasons I don't believe are rational.

Are you telling me that you believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being?

 

[ding]

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

An unfertilized egg is not a new genetically distinct human being. A fertilized egg is. But as pointed out already, is that really what we are talking about when we are discussing abortion? Or is it a fetus that get aborted?

I only bring up a zygote because that is when it's personhood and humanity is established.

You have evidence to back that up?

Humans are not inherited behavior they are learned behavior which helps to develop a character while growing into adulthood...

“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

Actually human beings begin life at sexual intercourse...Which doesn't matter 'cause yer birth certificate determines your day of birth......Not your day of conception....And it never will be recognized legally....

The abortion issue troubles me mightily

 

[MPS777]

Potentially two genetically distinct human beings actually (identical twins); but that’s ok, here’s the question, do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

Potentially two new genetically distinct human beings.... yes.

Morally equivalent? Are you morally equivalent to another human?

I don't know what you mean by that.

They are both fully human and have the appropriate traits and characteristics for each of their respective stages of the human life cycle.

If all men are created equal with inalienable rights then they are equivalent in that regard.

>>>”Are you morally equivalent to another human?”

That depends on the other human. I don’t think I’m morally equivalent to a 90 year old in a vegetative state with irreversible brain damage. If someone else was presented with a moral dilemma of saving my life or the aforementioned 90 year old, I’d hope they’d choose me; because we are not morally equivalent. Nor do I think I’m morally equivalent to a zygote.

What does morally equivalent mean?

In the context I was using it, it’s a philosophical measurement tool of sorts I suppose. I don’t view all human beings as morally equivalent because the moral implications of aiding them, letting them die, or even killing them can be different. Many people I do view as morally equivalent though. Being a philosophical measurement (and a fairly blunt one at that), it is imprecise. I suppose it can be relativistic as well. Personally, everyone in my family (as they are), is morally equivalent to me. The “state” or “the laws” will assign different moral value to different people in its own way. I don’t know if I’m using the term “morally equivalent” right, but it’s a useful measurement to me in some moral/ethical dilemmas.

Given that the laws treat everyone the same when it comes to crimes like murder (not making a reference to abortion here) the law sees everyone as morally equivalent.

A good example of when the law saw others as not being morally equivalent was when slavery was legal. In fact, the Greeks justified slavery on the grounds that they were morally superior.

The laws also don’t protect people who are deemed “brain dead” equally to those who are not. The laws will apply differently to someone who “society” deems a “danger to themselves” (they can lose their liberty because of something they’re thinking). The laws will protect people “below the age of consent” differently.

Much of this is due to the conscious state of the given person. And to me, one that has never been conscious, and one that will never again be conscious, are roughly morally equivalent to me. If I was a firefighter responding to a fire at a fertility clinic, I would make sure all those people who had already been “born” were safe, before I tried to save any frozen embryos. Quite frankly, I would place more value on the conscious.

 

[LittleNipper]

Those who support the legality of abortion do not seek to force anything on anyone.

Those who are against the legality actively seek to control others, and the full heat of their wrath falls on the poor and working class.

Those that seek the legality of abortion may not value anyone else's life any higher (contributing to a society that doesn't value human life other than one's OWN). And those who are against general abortion realize that choice is best left at the point of engaging in the act of sex and not over ending the life of a baby --- wanted or not!

 

[buttercup]

Those who support the legality of abortion do not seek to force anything on anyone.

Those who are against the legality actively seek to control others, and the full heat of their wrath falls on the poor and working class.

Those that seek the legality of abortion may not value anyone else's life any higher

It definitely cheapens human life. You can see on this thread that most of the people who are pro-death at the beginning of life are also pro-death at the end of life. They are very shortsighted, iyam.

Mod Edit: fix misattributed quote

 

[LittleNipper]

Potentially two new genetically distinct human beings.... yes.

Morally equivalent? Are you morally equivalent to another human?

I don't know what you mean by that.

They are both fully human and have the appropriate traits and characteristics for each of their respective stages of the human life cycle.

If all men are created equal with inalienable rights then they are equivalent in that regard.

>>>”Are you morally equivalent to another human?”

That depends on the other human. I don’t think I’m morally equivalent to a 90 year old in a vegetative state with irreversible brain damage. If someone else was presented with a moral dilemma of saving my life or the aforementioned 90 year old, I’d hope they’d choose me; because we are not morally equivalent. Nor do I think I’m morally equivalent to a zygote.

What does morally equivalent mean?

In the context I was using it, it’s a philosophical measurement tool of sorts I suppose. I don’t view all human beings as morally equivalent because the moral implications of aiding them, letting them die, or even killing them can be different. Many people I do view as morally equivalent though. Being a philosophical measurement (and a fairly blunt one at that), it is imprecise. I suppose it can be relativistic as well. Personally, everyone in my family (as they are), is morally equivalent to me. The “state” or “the laws” will assign different moral value to different people in its own way. I don’t know if I’m using the term “morally equivalent” right, but it’s a useful measurement to me in some moral/ethical dilemmas.

Given that the laws treat everyone the same when it comes to crimes like murder (not making a reference to abortion here) the law sees everyone as morally equivalent.

A good example of when the law saw others as not being morally equivalent was when slavery was legal. In fact, the Greeks justified slavery on the grounds that they were morally superior.

The laws also don’t protect people who are deemed “brain dead” equally to those who are not. The laws will apply differently to someone who “society” deems a “danger to themselves” (they can lose their liberty because of something they’re thinking). The laws will protect people “below the age of consent” differently.

Much of this is due to the conscious state of the given person. And to me, one that has never been conscious, and one that will never again be conscious, are roughly morally equivalent to me. If I was a firefighter responding to a fire at a fertility clinic, I would make sure all those people who had already been “born” were safe, before I tried to save any frozen embryos. Quite frankly, I would place more value on the conscious.

Frankly, when a person is termed brain dead the question arises as to turning off the life support systems. The doctor doesn't pull out a gun an shoot the "brain dead " patient in the head. Yes, he pulls the plug, but then there are cases where the patient continues to survive. The point of death is still in GOD's hands. And I can fully understand grabbing crying babies in a fire and looking for bodies later.

 

[deanrd]

As I posted before, the infant mortality rate in Appalachia has risen to 16% while the national abortion rate is 14%.

That means Republicans are letting children die while fighting for the fetus. So what if abortion for unwanted children was outlawed. Would the infant mortality rate skyrocket to 25 or 30% in Red States? Would Republicans be OK with that?

They just want to get them born and if they die - so what, we did our part. After they are born, we don't care. It's NOT our responsibility. We only MAKE them have the baby. After that, we don't care.

 

[Chuz Life]

As I posted before, the infant mortality rate in Appalachia has risen to 16% while the national abortion rate is 14%.

That means Republicans are letting children die while fighting for the fetus. So what if abortion for unwanted children was outlawed. Would the infant mortality rate skyrocket to 25 or 30% in Red States? Would Republicans be OK with that?

They just want to get them born and if they die - so what, we did our part. After they are born, we don't care. It's NOT our responsibility. We only MAKE them have the baby. After that, we don't care.

How are the republicans who are fighting abortions doing anything in the way of keeping YOU From doing more for the children in Appalachia?

Why aren't YOU doing more to save them?

 

[ding]

Potentially two new genetically distinct human beings.... yes.

Morally equivalent? Are you morally equivalent to another human?

I don't know what you mean by that.

They are both fully human and have the appropriate traits and characteristics for each of their respective stages of the human life cycle.

If all men are created equal with inalienable rights then they are equivalent in that regard.

>>>”Are you morally equivalent to another human?”

That depends on the other human. I don’t think I’m morally equivalent to a 90 year old in a vegetative state with irreversible brain damage. If someone else was presented with a moral dilemma of saving my life or the aforementioned 90 year old, I’d hope they’d choose me; because we are not morally equivalent. Nor do I think I’m morally equivalent to a zygote.

What does morally equivalent mean?

In the context I was using it, it’s a philosophical measurement tool of sorts I suppose. I don’t view all human beings as morally equivalent because the moral implications of aiding them, letting them die, or even killing them can be different. Many people I do view as morally equivalent though. Being a philosophical measurement (and a fairly blunt one at that), it is imprecise. I suppose it can be relativistic as well. Personally, everyone in my family (as they are), is morally equivalent to me. The “state” or “the laws” will assign different moral value to different people in its own way. I don’t know if I’m using the term “morally equivalent” right, but it’s a useful measurement to me in some moral/ethical dilemmas.

Given that the laws treat everyone the same when it comes to crimes like murder (not making a reference to abortion here) the law sees everyone as morally equivalent.

A good example of when the law saw others as not being morally equivalent was when slavery was legal. In fact, the Greeks justified slavery on the grounds that they were morally superior.

The laws also don’t protect people who are deemed “brain dead” equally to those who are not. The laws will apply differently to someone who “society” deems a “danger to themselves” (they can lose their liberty because of something they’re thinking). The laws will protect people “below the age of consent” differently.

Much of this is due to the conscious state of the given person. And to me, one that has never been conscious, and one that will never again be conscious, are roughly morally equivalent to me. If I was a firefighter responding to a fire at a fertility clinic, I would make sure all those people who had already been “born” were safe, before I tried to save any frozen embryos. Quite frankly, I would place more value on the conscious.

No. It is 100% due to the irreversible nature of being brain dead. Something that does not apply to a fetus in the womb. At every stage of the continuum, human life in the womb has the appropriate attributes for that stage of it's human life cycle.

As for the old fire at the embryo clinic canard, it is just that, a canard. It is an attempt to dehumanize life in the womb for the express purpose of ending it. There is no fire to justify killing him.

As to your consciousness argument, it seems that you are saying that it is ok to end a human life as long as they don't know you are doing it. If someone killed you in your sleep you would not be conscious of it, right?

I'm not going to even get into the morality of freezing embryos, ok?

 

[deanrd]

As I posted before, the infant mortality rate in Appalachia has risen to 16% while the national abortion rate is 14%.

That means Republicans are letting children die while fighting for the fetus. So what if abortion for unwanted children was outlawed. Would the infant mortality rate skyrocket to 25 or 30% in Red States? Would Republicans be OK with that?

They just want to get them born and if they die - so what, we did our part. After they are born, we don't care. It's NOT our responsibility. We only MAKE them have the baby. After that, we don't care.

How are the republicans who are fighting abortions doing anything in the way of keeping YOU From doing more for the children in Appalachia?

Why aren't YOU doing more to save them?

That is the most lame argument. If you are anti abortion, doesn't it stand to reason you should be pro kids? Doesn't seem like you are.

 

[ding]

As I posted before, the infant mortality rate in Appalachia has risen to 16% while the national abortion rate is 14%.

That means Republicans are letting children die while fighting for the fetus. So what if abortion for unwanted children was outlawed. Would the infant mortality rate skyrocket to 25 or 30% in Red States? Would Republicans be OK with that?

They just want to get them born and if they die - so what, we did our part. After they are born, we don't care. It's NOT our responsibility. We only MAKE them have the baby. After that, we don't care.

Give me a break.

 

[ding]

As I posted before, the infant mortality rate in Appalachia has risen to 16% while the national abortion rate is 14%.

That means Republicans are letting children die while fighting for the fetus. So what if abortion for unwanted children was outlawed. Would the infant mortality rate skyrocket to 25 or 30% in Red States? Would Republicans be OK with that?

They just want to get them born and if they die - so what, we did our part. After they are born, we don't care. It's NOT our responsibility. We only MAKE them have the baby. After that, we don't care.

How are the republicans who are fighting abortions doing anything in the way of keeping YOU From doing more for the children in Appalachia?

Why aren't YOU doing more to save them?

That is the most lame argument. If you are anti abortion, doesn't it stand to reason you should be pro kids? Doesn't seem like you are.

See post #411.

 

[MPS777]

>>>”Are you morally equivalent to another human?”

That depends on the other human. I don’t think I’m morally equivalent to a 90 year old in a vegetative state with irreversible brain damage. If someone else was presented with a moral dilemma of saving my life or the aforementioned 90 year old, I’d hope they’d choose me; because we are not morally equivalent. Nor do I think I’m morally equivalent to a zygote.

What does morally equivalent mean?

In the context I was using it, it’s a philosophical measurement tool of sorts I suppose. I don’t view all human beings as morally equivalent because the moral implications of aiding them, letting them die, or even killing them can be different. Many people I do view as morally equivalent though. Being a philosophical measurement (and a fairly blunt one at that), it is imprecise. I suppose it can be relativistic as well. Personally, everyone in my family (as they are), is morally equivalent to me. The “state” or “the laws” will assign different moral value to different people in its own way. I don’t know if I’m using the term “morally equivalent” right, but it’s a useful measurement to me in some moral/ethical dilemmas.

Given that the laws treat everyone the same when it comes to crimes like murder (not making a reference to abortion here) the law sees everyone as morally equivalent.

A good example of when the law saw others as not being morally equivalent was when slavery was legal. In fact, the Greeks justified slavery on the grounds that they were morally superior.

The laws also don’t protect people who are deemed “brain dead” equally to those who are not. The laws will apply differently to someone who “society” deems a “danger to themselves” (they can lose their liberty because of something they’re thinking). The laws will protect people “below the age of consent” differently.

Much of this is due to the conscious state of the given person. And to me, one that has never been conscious, and one that will never again be conscious, are roughly morally equivalent to me. If I was a firefighter responding to a fire at a fertility clinic, I would make sure all those people who had already been “born” were safe, before I tried to save any frozen embryos. Quite frankly, I would place more value on the conscious.

No. It is 100% due to the irreversible nature of being brain dead. Something that does not apply to a fetus in the womb. At every stage of the continuum, human life in the womb has the appropriate attributes for that stage of it's human life cycle.

As for the old fire at the embryo clinic canard, it is just that, a canard. It is an attempt to dehumanize life in the womb for the express purpose of ending it. There is no fire to justify killing him.

As to your consciousness argument, it seems that you are saying that it is ok to end a human life as long as they don't know you are doing it. If someone killed you in your sleep you would not be conscious of it, right?

I'm not going to even get into the morality of freezing embryos, ok?

>>>”It is 100% due to the irreversible nature of being brain dead”
It’s also due to having a brain. A zygote doesn’t have, and has never had, anything close to a brain.

>>>”Something that does not apply to a fetus in the womb”
Remember my original question pertained to human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization, not a fetus (a fetus has a brain).

>>>” At every stage of the continuum, human life in the womb has the appropriate attributes for that stage of it's human life cycle.”
So?

>>>” As for the old fire at the embryo clinic canard, it is just that, a canard. It is an attempt to dehumanize life in the womb for the express purpose of ending it.”
No, it’s a great example of how almost all of us value some lives more than others. A crying four year old in the corner of the room, or a 1000 frozen embryos, what do you save? Be honest.

>>>” If someone killed you in your sleep you would not be conscious of it, right?”
I’ve already attained consciousness, and still have the capacity. False equivalency.

If someone premeditatedly kills an innocent healthy 16 year old girl, or an innocent healthy 61 year old male, the punishment for the killer would be roughly the same. They’d be looking at (at least) a very long prison sentence. That’s because society views the lives of those two people killed as morally equivalent. So given that, and all that I’ve discussed so far about moral equivalency, I’ll ask you again: do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

 

[Chuz Life]

As I posted before, the infant mortality rate in Appalachia has risen to 16% while the national abortion rate is 14%.

That means Republicans are letting children die while fighting for the fetus. So what if abortion for unwanted children was outlawed. Would the infant mortality rate skyrocket to 25 or 30% in Red States? Would Republicans be OK with that?

They just want to get them born and if they die - so what, we did our part. After they are born, we don't care. It's NOT our responsibility. We only MAKE them have the baby. After that, we don't care.

How are the republicans who are fighting abortions doing anything in the way of keeping YOU From doing more for the children in Appalachia?

Why aren't YOU doing more to save them?

That is the most lame argument. If you are anti abortion, doesn't it stand to reason you should be pro kids? Doesn't seem like you are.

Why are you talking to me? Fucktard?

There are kids dying in Appalachia (according to you) that need YOUR help.

 

[Chuz Life]

First thing to agree on is what does equal protection if the 'child' has rights that supersede those of the mother.

Let me flip that around, does the mother's desire to not carry a child to term supersede the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of a new and genetically distinct human being? Especially when she was the one who created him?

If her 'child' is a single fertilized egg, yes. That egg is alive but has little else, no liberty and no happiness. It may obtain those things in the future but you could say the same about an unfertilized egg.

An unfertilized egg is not a new genetically distinct human being. A fertilized egg is. But as pointed out already, is that really what we are talking about when we are discussing abortion? Or is it a fetus that get aborted?

I only bring up a zygote because that is when it's personhood and humanity is established.

That unfertilized egg has a unique set of chromosomes. Incomplete but still unique.

My personal belief is that a fertilized egg is not equivalent to a human being. A newborn baby is a human being. Somewhere between those two states is an arbitrary line that, when crossed, means a human being now exists and has legal rights. Science can not determine where that line is any more than science can say when someone is old enough to drive. I think the courts have done a reasonable job setting that arbitrary line and I don't want to see it moved for reasons I don't believe are rational.

When does a human being's (or any mammals) biological aging begin?

That should tell you something.

 

[alang1216]

Are you telling me that you believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being?

It is a new and genetically distinct human cell. Human cell does not equal human being.

 

[ding]

Are you telling me that you believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being?

It is a new and genetically distinct human cell. Human cell does not equal human being.

That if left unfertilized would never be anything more.

Which is a round about way of saying that you do not believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being.

But is the egg really a new and genetically distinct human cell? Or does it have the genetics of the mother? Which means it is really just a new human cell.

 

[ding]

It’s also due to having a brain. A zygote doesn’t have, and has never had, anything close to a brain.

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland

Remember my original question pertained to human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization, not a fetus (a fetus has a brain).

Right. Which means that it is a moot point. Gestational weeks are measured from the first day of the woman's last menstruation and not from the day of conception. Though it does not provide an accurate fetal age (which is roughly 2 weeks less than the gestational age), it is the simplest way for an OB/GYN to age a pregnancy since the day of conception is often not known. Hence, if an abortion occurs at 8 weeks gestation, it is actually aborting a 6 week embryo.

No, it’s a great example of how almost all of us value some lives more than others. A crying four year old in the corner of the room, or a 1000 frozen embryos, what do you save? Be honest.

And has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of a child in the womb. It's a canard whose only purpose is to justify a wrong as a right.

I’ve already attained consciousness, and still have the capacity. False equivalency.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do when you began to exist as a human being.

If someone premeditatedly kills an innocent healthy 16 year old girl, or an innocent healthy 61 year old male, the punishment for the killer would be roughly the same. They’d be looking at (at least) a very long prison sentence. That’s because society views the lives of those two people killed as morally equivalent. So given that, and all that I’ve discussed so far about moral equivalency, I’ll ask you again: do you think a human being that’s only existed 48 hours since fertilization is morally equivalent to a human being that’s existed 48 months since fertilization?

What percentage of abortions are done at 48 hours?

 

[alang1216]

Are you telling me that you believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being?

It is a new and genetically distinct human cell. Human cell does not equal human being.

That if left unfertilized would never be anything more.

Which is a round about way of saying that you do not believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being.

But is the egg really a new and genetically distinct human cell? Or does it have the genetics of the mother? Which means it is really just a new human cell.

If a fertilized egg is not provided with a protected place to grow and all the nutrients it needs it too would never be anything more.

The unfertilized egg is unique, it doesn't have exactly half of the mothers chromosomes since it is distinct from every other egg the mother has. The sperm is the same. Two unique sets of chromosomes merge to create a unique set of chromosomes. I just don't see that new unique set as being so very different from the unique set of the egg and sperm.

 

[ding]

Are you telling me that you believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being?

It is a new and genetically distinct human cell. Human cell does not equal human being.

That if left unfertilized would never be anything more.

Which is a round about way of saying that you do not believe that an unfertilized egg is a new and genetically distinct human being.

But is the egg really a new and genetically distinct human cell? Or does it have the genetics of the mother? Which means it is really just a new human cell.

If a fertilized egg is not provided with a protected place to grow and all the nutrients it needs it too would never be anything more.

The unfertilized egg is unique, it doesn't have exactly half of the mothers chromosomes since it is distinct from every other egg the mother has. The sperm is the same. Two unique sets of chromosomes merge to create a unique set of chromosomes. I just don't see that new unique set as being so very different from the unique set of the egg and sperm.

So you are saying it does not have it's mother's DNA?