NationStates Jolt Archive

*snip*

And the award for pointing out the obvious goes to :drumroll: Muravyets.

Then you are in favor of legalized slavery. Congratulations.

Actually, he gains dominion there. If you don't give him permission to paint something of yours, he cannot. So he's gaining something to paint. But that is really neither here nor there.

Thank you, but I could draw a poor analogy as well Dems shall we look at how people enlisting in the army works?

Ok so I pay a painter to paint my house, he begins paints half the house in the wrong colour mind and then leaves because he doesn't want to do it anymore, and that is alright with you.

One thing I find ironic is that during a debate where using the term 'baby' is being characterized as a blatant attempt at emotionalism, you're using the phrase 'anti-choice' to describe your opponents.

Isn't that one of your rules of debate NB? Something which many people claimed wasn't how they operated?

I'm challenging WHETHER it should be legal, and just because something is legal doesn't make it RIGHT.

So you think it is wrong for the law to recognize a person's bodily autonomy? You think it is, in fact, right for one person's to be bodily subjugated for the purposes of another?

Like I said before, plenty of things were legal at different points throughout history that YOU would find morally objectionable.

Plenty of things are legal now that I find morally objectionable. That is beside the point.

Do you or do you not believe that human beings have personal sovereignty - that they should have the right to determine who and what gets to use their bodies?

Thank you, but I could draw a poor analogy as well Dems shall we look at how people enlisting in the army works?

The army pushes that boundary very hard, if not crossing over it. But even in the army, they don't tie you to a gun and bodily force you to shoot it if you choose to refuse. They court marshal you.

Ok so I pay a painter to paint my house, he begins paints half the house in the wrong colour mind and then leaves because he doesn't want to do it anymore, and that is alright with you.

It is his right to leave if he so wishes. However, he has damaged your property and broken a contract. As such, you are entitled to recoup the expenses you incur in that process - anything you paid him, time lost if it is important, and the cost of fixing what he screwed up.

I never said there should be no consequences for a broken contract. I simply said that slavery cannot be enforced by the government. If you contract with someone and they don't hold up to their end of the deal, you are entitled to seek monetary recompense. You are not entitled to use force in order to make them finish the contract.

Now that I gave you the courtesy of answering your hypothetical, I'm going to pick it apart.

1) The unconscious two year old: children aren't allowed in most fertility clinics, much less in a clinical area, and definitely not in the clinic at all without immediate supervision of the parents due to liability issues.

2) A petri dish can be put in your pocket, which allows you to grab the two year old and make a run for it. Takes all of a second.

3) Fertility clinics must have plans to include multiple routes for evacuating everything in the event of an actual fire anywhere in the building - even including unfertilized eggs and sperm. JACHO mandates it.

Thats why its a hypothetical scenario. You are supposed to give a response as to what you would do given the possibilities offered, not provide a breakdown of why such an exact scenario probably wouldn't happen to you.

But given that you did answer - don't you think it somewhat immoral that you value the life of one being over two simply because one is bigger?

Yes, a person should be legally allowed to do to their body that which would be deemed sane.

What I deny is your supposition that the person has no rights at all just because they haven't developed yet. Of course, I realize that you don't see them as a person, so this argument is going to go nowhere. What you don't seem to get is that science which you stand behind like its impermeable and concrete can't rule out the possibility of the supernatural, which is what the spirit is. Without that, there's no reason at all why anyone shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone else for any reason at all.

It is his right to leave if he so wishes. However, he has damaged your property and broken a contract. As such, you are entitled to recoup the expenses you incur in that process - anything you paid him, time lost if it is important, and the cost of fixing what he screwed up.

I never said there should be no consequences for a broken contract. I simply said that slavery cannot be enforced by the government. If you contract with someone and they don't hold up to their end of the deal, you are entitled to seek monetary recompense. You are not entitled to use force in order to make them finish the contract.

Mmmm, Ok, but I still say that if someone decides to be a surrogate then the surrogate should carry through to the end of the period.

Yes, a person should be legally allowed to do to their body that which would be deemed sane.

Like denying the use of it to others?

What I deny is your supposition that the person has no rights at all just because they haven't developed yet.

I didn't say that the unborn has no rights. I said that, like any born person, they have no right to use a person's body against that person's will.

Of course, I realize that you don't see them as a person, so this argument is going to go nowhere. What you don't seem to get is that science which you stand behind like its impermeable and concrete can't rule out the possibility of the supernatural, which is what the spirit is. Without that, there's no reason at all why anyone shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone else for any reason at all.

Maybe you're a bit confused here. I didn't say anything at all about whether or not I see them as a person or the relationship between science and the supernatural.

I am simply talking about the rights we all share - including bodily autonomy. That right means that a woman can deny the use of her body to anyone and anything - including an embryo/fetus. She can do this even if a human being will die because of her decision. It isn't pretty and it may very well be morally wrong, but it is her body and, therefore, her decision.

Mmmm, Ok, but I still say that if someone decides to be a surrogate then the surrogate should carry through to the end of the period.

Should and "should be forced to" are very different things, however.

I agree that someone who agrees to be a surrogate should carry to term unless there are very extreme circumstances (ie. complications that threaten her own life). But I cannot agree that she should be forced to or that those who contract with her gain dominion over her body.

Thats why its a hypothetical scenario. You are supposed to give a response as to what you would do given the possibilities offered, not provide a breakdown of why such an exact scenario probably wouldn't happen to you.

But given that you did answer - don't you think it somewhat immoral that you value the life of one being over two simply because one is bigger?

Yes, I did respond *first* before going into all that. :cool: I did that because having to make that choice in and of itself is so unlikely to happen.

Bigger? No, not the reason at all. I cited my reasoning for the choice I chose. It's because the loss of the two year old would affect far more lives than the loss of the blastocysts. Case in point, look at all the abortions that have happened since it became legal to do so. Nobody misses those 4X million lives because they never knew them. If one person dies, it is a tragedy. When millions die, it becomes a statistic. People don't generally deal with death except in the sugar and makeup coated ceremony that is most funerals. Go see an unprocessed dead body in a morgue, especially that of someone who died an untimely or wrongful death. Look at their face. Then, and only then, will it become personal unless you knew the person when they were alive. If it's not personal, it doesn't have nearly the same effect. And thats what abortion does - it impersonalizes the death and dehumanizes the person, making it a lot easier to swallow in their consciences.

Like denying the use of it to others?



I didn't say that the unborn has no rights. I said that, like any born person, they have no right to use a person's body against that person's will.



Maybe you're a bit confused here. I didn't say anything at all about whether or not I see them as a person or the relationship between science and the supernatural.

I am simply talking about the rights we all share - including bodily autonomy. That right means that a woman can deny the use of her body to anyone and anything - including an embryo/fetus. She can do this even if a human being will die because of her decision. It isn't pretty and it may very well be morally wrong, but it is her body and, therefore, her decision.


No, you didn't *say* it but you implied it. That all works well and good except the woman's body who the unborn is inside had a part in making that life. Excepting rape, she had a choice ahead of time. Covering up one bad choice with murder is not a choice that should be legal - it isn't legal for any other. And even in the case of rape, it's not the child's fault their father was a criminal. There's other options - namely putting the child up for adoption and never having to deal with them again.

Yes, I did respond *first* before going into all that. :cool: I did that because having to make that choice in and of itself is so unlikely to happen.

Bigger? No, not the reason at all. I cited my reasoning for the choice I chose. It's because the loss of the two year old would affect far more lives than the loss of the blastocysts. Case in point, look at all the abortions that have happened since it became legal to do so. Nobody misses those 4X million lives because they never knew them. If one person dies, it is a tragedy. When millions die, it becomes a statistic. People don't generally deal with death except in the sugar and makeup coated ceremony that is most funerals. Go see an unprocessed dead body in a morgue, especially that of someone who died an untimely or wrongful death. Look at their face. Then, and only then, will it become personal unless you knew the person when they were alive. If it's not personal, it doesn't have nearly the same effect. And thats what abortion does - it impersonalizes the death and dehumanizes the person, making it a lot easier to swallow in their consciences.
Hmmm...Well, I wouldn't say it's so much that the blastocyst's death is impersonalized, as much as it is a death that is no way the same as a two year-old losing his or her life. In this same vain, I would say that the issue extends far beyond just the number of people whose lives would be affected by the deaths, though that is definitely a factor. In my opinion, a blastocyst's death is intrinsically different because this entity has no thoughts or feelings, because a primitive lifeform of this type does not have a functioning brain. Therefore, in taking the blastocyst's life, one is not depriving it of any established cognitive or emotional bonds to the world around it, because it never had such bonds in the first place. With a two-year old, one would be doing so, and that, in my opinion, is unjust. When one makes such connections to his or her world, one has the fundamental human right to see those connections left unbroken until natural death or impairment.

The part of when life begins has been raised. At what point is the fetus alive? 8 months, 1 month 1 sec

Do you go back furthur and say that every egg must have a child? That is the true start in a female (living cells)

The reason why I believe people should be able to choose abortion is because as iv said before the world is overpopulated and the fetus is very very very likely to have a shit life when borne.

Katonazag
New Member


Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 37 Yes, a person should be legally allowed to do to their body that which would be deemed sane.

What I deny is your supposition that the person has no rights at all just because they haven't developed yet. Of course, I realize that you don't see them as a person, so this argument is going to go nowhere. What you don't seem to get is that science which you stand behind like its impermeable and concrete can't rule out the possibility of the supernatural, which is what the spirit is. Without that, there's no reason at all why anyone shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone else for any reason at all.

You show my point of a religous view. Why should we be mandated to your religion. If im going to hell let me. Im willing to take the chance considering that altho i can prove a negative (Which is impossible especially if coupled with a preconcieved notion) I dont believe in other things such as big foot, santa clause, the easter bunny or the loc ness monster. Im sure you cant disprove them yourself. The simple reply if "magic" or in the case of religion "God"

No, you didn't *say* it but you implied it.

No, you assumed it.

That all works well and good except the woman's body who the unborn is inside had a part in making that life.

So? Does that mean she loses her human rights?

Excepting rape, she had a choice ahead of time.

Again, does having sex lead to someone losing their human rights?

Covering up one bad choice with murder is not a choice that should be legal - it isn't legal for any other.

Is it murder if I refuse to donate my bone marrow when I am the only known match for a person who will otherwise die?

And even in the case of rape, it's not the child's fault their father was a criminal. There's other options - namely putting the child up for adoption and never having to deal with them again.

Those options do not remove the fact that the woman's body is being used and altered against her will.

And to answer what Dempublicents1 said: it's very simple, and had you read earlier posts you would have already seen my point. But since you seem to not be able to read the previous post for whatever reason, I'll repeat myself. I'm challenging WHETHER it should be legal, and just because something is legal doesn't make it RIGHT. Like I said before, plenty of things were legal at different points throughout history that YOU would find morally objectionable. And I challenge the whole line of thinking that it's just a clump of tissue to be removed. Hitler thought different groups of people were sub-human and therefore not wrong to terminate like animals - does that make his line of reasoning right? What if I thought you were just a clump of tissue breathing my air, drinking my water, eating my food and thought you needed to be terminated? You can explain it away using whatever excuse you like, but you are doing the same thing: justifying murder of the innocent.

Wow when short of fact you bring up hitler. Whats wrong with that? Hitler went outside his body. Hitler went outside his elected time as fuher. Hitler went outside his nation

Heres a question for the next "pro life" person.
Why do you think you know better about one females body (and her fetus)then they do themselves?

If you know better then them for medical procedures can i dictate your life in other areas. I think you should be forced to eat a raw lemon everyday without anything else. Its not physically painful. Its much less life changing and is proven to be healthy. Its all great. Fruit it roundly accepted as being healthy unlike religion.

This is far diferent the abortion that could be done to prevent death or a childs suffering from birth

Just remember I know better then you on this issue therefor my opinion should over rule yours. How do i know better. The same reason you believe you should be able to control others medical decisions

I sit here, blank screen, trying to be the best first, First Lord for my little colonizing country, and my judgement decides the decisions of (a fictional) millions of people.

I cannot say anything other then, barring medical reasons, let the woman decide.

WHY:
If both men and women were responsible in their sexual act/s, abortion would not be considered, or carried out. I seriously believe it is the duty of every person looking to have sex (however you define it), to carry at least two condoms.

One for you, one for your lover if you are bi, or gay.
Both for you if you are straight, and decide on "round two" with her.

Same with women, even lesbians, that way ANY one can ask ANY one for a condom, and it will be provided.

Its like putting spare car keys next to your pillow, stupid; you know you will eventually need them, so keep them close to you, like a credit-card slot in your wallet.

What ever happened to common sense? Its not like they are too bulky or heavy to carry around.

-Rafe
The Rafe System

I sit here, blank screen, trying to be the best first, First Lord for my little colonizing country, and my judgement decides the decisions of (a fictional) millions of people.

I cannot say anything other then, barring medical reasons, let the woman decide.

WHY:
If both men and women were responsible in their sexual act/s, abortion would not be considered, or carried out. I seriously believe it is the duty of every person looking to have sex (however you define it), to carry at least two condoms.

One for you, one for your lover if you are bi, or gay.
Both for you if you are straight, and decide on "round two" with her.

Same with women, even lesbians, that way ANY one can ask ANY one for a condom, and it will be provided.

Its like putting spare car keys next to your pillow, stupid; you know you will eventually need them, so keep them close to you, like a credit-card slot in your wallet.

What ever happened to common sense? Its not like they are too bulky or heavy to carry around.

-Rafe
The Rafe System

so abortion is for those who cant be bothered to use condoms?

what about those who do but end up pregnant anyway?

To the Relevant People,

Stop using adoption for a cure-all. You want to stay away from something as simple as a condom, the morning after pill, and abortion, forcing abstinance, and declaring masturbation wrong, on a species that has "boinked" its numbers to global domination, and six-billion plus in number of individuals.

That is a whole hell of a lot of kids up for adoption, with no loving parents; because every new parent-to-be, always says "its not the same if you adopt".:headbang::confused:

Thanks for your "what about the children" retoric, you forgot to consider the fetus' life a few years from now when they ask who their parents were, have no one reading them bed-time stories, and possible problems later in life for everything being "their fault".

You were lucky, you had parents everyday of your life, the same ones too.

-Rafe

so abortion is for those who cant be bothered to use condoms?

what about those who do but end up pregnant anyway?

I think the last quote in my sig works here...
I meant it in the sense of "I dont want kids [now/ever]", and/or "I think abortion is wrong", and/or "I dont know if the person I am having sex with wants kids or not".

If a person has sex, and it is for fun, not for making a future generation, then yes, they should use a condom.

If they cannot be bothered?:confused: It takes a few seconds to put on, and I would rather be bothered now, then for the next 18 years as my sexual excretion matures and can finally take care of its self.

If/when I personally want kids, you can bet (dont, im gay) your life I would have "the talk" with my lover, before not using a condom.

As for broken condom pregnancies(sp?) I believe that an abortion should be undertaken, as the intent of the sexual act was recreational, not reproductional(not a word? probable.)

However, there would be exceptions with the broken condom pregnancy.

I think the last quote in my sig works here...
I meant it in the sense of "I dont want kids [now/ever]", and/or "I think abortion is wrong", and/or "I dont know if the person I am having sex with wants kids or not".

If a person has sex, and it is for fun, not for making a future generation, then yes, they should use a condom.

If they cannot be bothered?:confused: It takes a few seconds to put on, and I would rather be bothered now, then for the next 18 years as my sexual excretion matures and can finally take care of its self.

If/when I personally want kids, you can bet (dont, im gay) your life I would have "the talk" with my lover, before not using a condom.

As for broken condom pregnancies(sp?) I believe that an abortion should be undertaken, as the intent of the sexual act was recreational, not reproductional(not a word? probable.)

However, there would be exceptions with the broken condom pregnancy.

now i understand what youre saying but this is framed as public policy.

so

if a person HAS used a condom but ended up pregnant anyway, what must she do to get the abortion she has decided that she wants?

...if it is to be denied to those who didnt use birth control but allowed for those who did, how would that idea be administered?

In the hypothetical scenario presented, I would chose the two year old because they at least have parents that care about them as an individual.

i'm glad you chose the answer that doesn't result in you being called a monster by every observer on the planet, but i don't believe your reasoning. because you don't know that. for all you know, the child could be getting constantly sexually molested by both of their parents, or perhaps the parents have already died in the fire.

based on the information you have, and the premise that blastocysts are persons, you would be morally required to save two persons rather than one under any plausible reading of our moral obligations to persons. that is exactly what you would choose if it was between two children or one, for example.

and we can make this even more stark by noting how very very small blastocysts are. we could have a stack of petri dishes in a cooler - 1000 persons vs 1. and everyone, both in the heat of the moment and in calm contemplation, will save the child without hesitation. (except, of course, if they are trying to find a way to make their obvious choice mesh with their clearly conflicting stated principles. then it will either take them a few hours, or a few posts of trying to duck the question. without fail.)

Yes, a person should be legally allowed to do to their body that which would be deemed sane.

What I deny is your supposition that the person has no rights at all just because they haven't developed yet. Of course, I realize that you don't see them as a person, so this argument is going to go nowhere. What you don't seem to get is that science which you stand behind like its impermeable and concrete can't rule out the possibility of the supernatural, which is what the spirit is. Without that, there's no reason at all why anyone shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone else for any reason at all.

Okay, that's a hell of a mixed bag... legalistic, pseudo-scientific, moralistic and theistic... I'm surprised you have time to breath.

Let's hit a couple of those points:

1) "a person should be legally allowed to do to their body that which would be deemed sane". Why sane? What if the definition of sanity (which is, as I'm sure you know, fluid) changes? You only have to go back a century to find strong arguments that homosexuality - and even masturbation - are 'acts of insanity'.

Why should your definition of 'sane' determine what I'm allowed to do? Surely, if it's MY body, I should get to decide what happens to it?

2) "What I deny is your supposition that the person has no rights at all just because they haven't developed yet." Well - why SHOULD a foetus have rights? We allow that 'rights' change with age - that's why babies aren't allowed to drive cars, infants can't vote, and you can't join the army at 8. Our laws are FILLED with instances where allocation of rights changes based on something as trivial as age.

Even more importantly - why should the foetus have any 'rights' that TRUMP the 'rights' of the mother?

3) "Of course, I realize that you don't see them as a person, so this argument is going to go nowhere." That isn't the only argument against the 'rights' of a foetus - although it IS a good one. You say "this argument is going to go nowhere" - but that could be argued as being because YOU won't change your perspective in the face of overwhelming evidence?

4) "...science which you stand behind like its impermeable and concrete..." Science isn't impermeable or concrete. That'd be a pretty unusual argument to get from a scientist, since one of the BIG strengths of science is it's fluidity - the fact that it adapts as the evidence changes.

Indeed, in these debates about abortion, science has shifted position a few times, but the most common response is a theological one - cited from a book that has been held to be inerrant and unmoved for two thousand years.... which argument is beign represented as 'impermeable and concrete', would you say?

5) "...can't rule out the possibility of the supernatural..." This is irrelevent, and wrong. Science doesn't rule out OR include the supernatural - that's not it's job. The confusion arises when we can show the mechanisms by which something seems to be working....it doesn't say that supernatural influence CAN'T be involved... but why suppose it is, when the evidence explains the situation without it?

6) "...which is what the spirit is." According to who? According to the Old Testament, the 'spirit' is just the breath in your lungs. According to the skeptic, maybe there IS no such thing as a spirit. SHow me this 'spirit', and WHY I should accept your definition?

7) "Without that, there's no reason at all why anyone shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone else for any reason at all". Utter rot. SImple pragmatism (for example) is a perfectly good root for basis of law. I dont want you to kill me, so I don't kill you - pragmatism. Practise it long enough, and it becomes a contract that binds a society.

...I would chose the two year old because they at least have parents that care about them as an individual...

Everything else can be ignored. This was the important point. You differentiate between a foetus and a child.

I don't even think murder is government's business....but this is an abortion debate. 100% prochoice, but I'm staunchly opposed to any tax payer funded abortions

I don't even think murder is government's business....but this is an abortion debate. 100% prochoice, but I'm staunchly opposed to any tax payer funded abortions

So - abortions are only for the people who can afford to support children whether or not they want them?

I'm sure there's some logic in that somewhere.

I don't even think murder is government's business....but this is an abortion debate. 100% prochoice, but I'm staunchly opposed to any tax payer funded abortions

im assuming you are some kind of radical libertarian.

would you be in favor of taxpayer funded abortion if you couldnt also deny welfare to poor families?

Sorry, I was away for a couple of days.

No, what I'm saying is that one doesn't need to perform an abortion during a debate about abortion, nor does one need to debate abortion during a procedure.
I see. So, unless you are actually performing a medical procedure, you can get away with describing it inaccurately. Uh-huh.

The very act of debating is putting forward one's ideology. That needn't necessarily be emotion-based.
I already said as much. But not being emotional doesn't make one honest.

No. Your opinion is that the term 'baby' is inadequate. Mine is that it is not.
As I said.

One thing I find ironic is that during a debate where using the term 'baby' is being characterized as a blatant attempt at emotionalism, you're using the phrase 'anti-choice' to describe your opponents.
What's ironic about that? I'm following your standard: It is my opinion that "anti-choice" is an adequate term for the debate, and there is nothing emotional in my use of it, according to me. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, NB. If you get to use your terms, I get to use mine, and if your usage is not emotional, then neither is mine.

Not at all. One's intent defines their intent. Plain and simple. If someone wants to use the term 'baby' because they feel it's more appropriate, there's no reason to presuppose any intent beyond that, any more than it would be appropriate to assume their opponent was using the term 'fetus' in an inflammatory way until shown otherwise.
And how do we determine the speaker/writer's intent? By what they tell us their intention was? How do we know they are not lying, especially if their stated intent does not jibe with the logical structure of their arguments or the actual affect they have?

Who decides it's inaccurate?
Reasonable readers.

Why must it necessarily be accusatory?
Why is a question you should ask the people who say such things.

If you think it's inappropriate then you should. Although that presupposes that there are circumstances where you wouldn't think it inappropriate within the context of a debate.
Of course there are. It is entirely appropriate to use the word "baby" in this debate when we are talking about babies.

I would invite Muravyets to hug a foetus, play with it, hold it, breast feed it. Oh, you can't? Because it is no more a baby than a human heart, which is capable of the same self-defence reaction to being removed from the body, upon which surgery looks equally gruesome, posesses the same complete DNA as a human being and which is capable of assisted life outside the human body.

I've always found it interesting you can be anti-choice on abortion, but perfectly fine with open heart surgery.
I think you addressed this to the wrong person. I am pro-choice on abortion.

Sorry, I was away for a couple of days.


NP, so was I.


I see. So, unless you are actually performing a medical procedure, you can get away with describing it inaccurately. Uh-huh.


I don't see it as inaccurate, but then, that's the issue being discussed.


I already said as much. But not being emotional doesn't make one honest.


How true.


As I said.

So we agree on that.


What's ironic about that? I'm following your standard: It is my opinion that "anti-choice" is an adequate term for the debate, and there is nothing emotional in my use of it, according to me. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, NB. If you get to use your terms, I get to use mine, and if your usage is not emotional, then neither is mine.


I have no problem making that concession if you don't.


And how do we determine the speaker/writer's intent? By what they tell us their intention was? How do we know they are not lying, especially if their stated intent does not jibe with the logical structure of their arguments or the actual affect they have?


That's just it... We can't. At least not unless they're blatant about it. In any discussion like this we have to decide whether or not to extend the benefit of the doubt, at least for the sake of having the discussion. It's just like with the above issue of whether to call somebody "pro-life" or "anti-choice." If I had to make a guess on first inspection I'd think "Well that's emotional hyperbole." Not unlike how you might react to someone talking about an embryo and calling it a 'baby.' But you say it's not meant to be emotional, so that leaves me (or whoever you're talking to) to decide to either extend the benefit of the doubt for the sake of discussion, or not, in which case the discussion can go no further in a useful way. Since I wish to continue the discussion I then take you at your word.


Reasonable readers.


Defined how? Is someone only reasonable if they share your viewpoint, or is there some other, more objective measure?

Which is not really a very good question since this whole thing is a matter of opinion to begin with, which by definition can't be measured objectively.

Why is a question you should ask the people who say such things.


Of course there are. It is entirely appropriate to use the word "baby" in this debate when we are talking about babies.

Which is exactly the case if you're a pro-life debater.

Really it doesn't matter what one calls a pre-natal human being in the womb, blastocyst, embryo, foetus, baby, the first three are only usefull for defining stages in developement and the last is just the commonly used term for a human infant. The essential point remains the same, the right to life only runs so far.
A good analogy would be if someone were terminaly ill and could only live if they were surgicaly attached to another human being for a period of time.
No one would insist that someone become the host for this terminaly ill person , no one would see it as a sin to refuse this person and no one would legislate to force thousands of people to go through an involuntary surgical attachment regardless of the effects on either party to the proceedure.
A strict "pro-life" position would logically call for this kind of insanity, but in real life most anti-choice organisations heartily oppose calls for mandatory post mortem organ donation. One suspects that were my hypothetical situation ever to come to pass "pro-life"/anti choice persons would continue to show the lack of reasoning and logic that is the hallmark of their world view.

NP, so was I.

I don't see it as inaccurate, but then, that's the issue being discussed.
Then why did you go to that effort to give yourself an excuse to be inaccurate -- with that malarkey about performing the procedure versus just talking about it. If you think your language is accurate, then you should have no need to define when it's okay for you to be inaccurate. As usual, NB, you twist your argument into knots trying to tie up all your loose ends. You already acknowledged that your language is inaccurate, you don't get to airily dismiss that by claiming that you really think you're being accurate after all.

How true.


So we agree on that.


I have no problem making that concession if you don't.
What concession? There is no concession there, merely an observation.

That's just it... We can't.
Then all attempts to either dismiss or allow an argument based on the speaker's intent are invalid. You have tried to dismiss my arguments that anti-choice arguments are suspect because of the speakers' intent, yet you have tried to defend your own argument by that very same standard -- the speakers' intent. You can't have it both ways. You don't get to deny me intent as a tool of argument while reserving it for yourself to use.

At least not unless they're blatant about it. In any discussion like this we have to decide whether or not to extend the benefit of the doubt, at least for the sake of having the discussion.
It seems pretty clear to me that you have no intention of extending the benefit of the doubt to pro-choicers like me, but you expect us to extend the benefit of the doubt to anti-choicers like you. Hm, gosh, I'm kind of thinking such a one-sided arrangement is not going to happen.

It's just like with the above issue of whether to call somebody "pro-life" or "anti-choice." If I had to make a guess on first inspection I'd think "Well that's emotional hyperbole." Not unlike how you might react to someone talking about an embryo and calling it a 'baby.' But you say it's not meant to be emotional, so that leaves me (or whoever you're talking to) to decide to either extend the benefit of the doubt for the sake of discussion, or not, in which case the discussion can go no further in a useful way. Since I wish to continue the discussion I then take you at your word.
I don't believe you. If you were willing to take me at my word, you would not have made your initial snarky and dismissive wisecrack about it -- especially considering that in past abortion discussions, I have explained at length to you exactly why I use that phrase. Actually, if you hold to your past patterns, then I believe you will likely latch onto that phrase every time you see it and claim that the speaker is making an appeal to emotion to make your side look bad. You will then fail to explain precisely how the term "anti-choice" is inaccurate or emotional or hyperbolic, but you will insist that it is, regardless. As I say, I base this on your past behavior.

Defined how? Is someone only reasonable if they share your viewpoint, or is there some other, more objective measure?
No. Someone is reasonable if they read what is actually written in the context in which it is written and apply logic and reasoning to their analysis of the statements.

Which is not really a very good question since this whole thing is a matter of opinion to begin with, which by definition can't be measured objectively.
You always say that at some point in every abortion thread. I wonder why, sometimes.

Which is exactly the case if you're a pro-life debater.
Uh-huh. Doesn't make their language accurate, realistic or truthful, though. It doesn't change the simple fact that when you discuss the actual procedures of abortion and replace words like "blastocyst," "embryo" and "fetus" with "baby," you are erasing all factual content of the discussion in favor of a propagandistic promotion of opinion.

Then why did you go to that effort to give yourself an excuse to be inaccurate -- with that malarkey about performing the procedure versus just talking about it. If you think your language is accurate, then you should have no need to define when it's okay for you to be inaccurate. As usual, NB, you twist your argument into knots trying to tie up all your loose ends. You already acknowledged that your language is inaccurate, you don't get to airily dismiss that by claiming that you really think you're being accurate after all.


Your entire perspective appears to be founded upon the assumption that yours is the absolute right position and it only remains for the rest of us to open our eyes. While I'm well aware that you may well believe exactly that, I think you're doing yourself no favors by adamantly refusing to acknowledge any other possible point of view--which is a courtesy I've extended you this whole time.


What concession? There is no concession there, merely an observation.


The concession that says your 'anti-choice' term can be equally emotionless as using 'baby.'


Then all attempts to either dismiss or allow an argument based on the speaker's intent are invalid. You have tried to dismiss my arguments that anti-choice arguments are suspect because of the speakers' intent, yet you have tried to defend your own argument by that very same standard -- the speakers' intent. You can't have it both ways. You don't get to deny me intent as a tool of argument while reserving it for yourself to use.


How do you mean?


It seems pretty clear to me that you have no intention of extending the benefit of the doubt to pro-choicers like me, but you expect us to extend the benefit of the doubt to anti-choicers like you. Hm, gosh, I'm kind of thinking such a one-sided arrangement is not going to happen.


Where do you get that from, when I've explicitly said that I do?


I don't believe you. If you were willing to take me at my word, you would not have made your initial snarky and dismissive wisecrack about it -- especially considering that in past abortion discussions, I have explained at length to you exactly why I use that phrase. Actually, if you hold to your past patterns, then I believe you will likely latch onto that phrase every time you see it and claim that the speaker is making an appeal to emotion to make your side look bad. You will then fail to explain precisely how the term "anti-choice" is inaccurate or emotional or hyperbolic, but you will insist that it is, regardless. As I say, I base this on your past behavior.


Where have I been snarky in this particular exchange? I've been quite careful to avoid being sarcastic or snarky precisely to deny you the luxury of this accusation. It's possible that you misunderstood my meaning somewhere in this exchange, but I know you won't admit it. (Although I would love to be proven wrong on that last.)

Or are you reaching back to a different exchange, either in this thread (which was a different point of debate) or a previous thread (Which indicates a weak argument, since this is a form of an ad hominem attack)?

I don't really care whether you believe me or not, since I have no personal stake in this, although one wonders why you're bothering to reply if your assumption is that I'm lying--or maybe that's what you need to assume in order to keep from *gasp* reaching some kind of mutual understanding with me.

God forbid.


No. Someone is reasonable if they read what is actually written in the context in which it is written and apply logic and reasoning to their analysis of the statements.


Which amounts to the same thing, In your point of view, hm?


You always say that at some point in every abortion thread. I wonder why, sometimes.


Because it's true.


Uh-huh. Doesn't make their language accurate, realistic or truthful, though. It doesn't change the simple fact that when you discuss the actual procedures of abortion and replace words like "blastocyst," "embryo" and "fetus" with "baby," you are erasing all factual content of the discussion in favor of a propagandistic promotion of opinion.

In your opinion, which is the issue being discussed.

*Hint: Restating your position is not a support for your argument, nor does it constitute a new argument, just BTW.

its odd that some living cells can be deemed living by the religous. If i remove a wart of my back that wont get a funeral. The cells were living. They came from a human. So whats the difference

The real question is when does the fetus become a baby. The idea that as soon as sperm and ovary meet a baby should be defined and the fetus stage skipped is esential for the "pro life" rational.

Why that is the case I am willing to bet comes from the fact that their religous body told them so. If you are so keen to say when an ovary and sperm cell meet a child is formed you dont take into account mental development at all.

I believe that the fetus needs time to develope a functioning mind. When this happens is very late during the pregnancy. It take alot of cells, nutrients and time for a mind to develope.

Even when the mind developes there is one huge question that must be asked
Will the life be full of suffering and should be end this as painlessly as possible? When there is a miscarriage or a genetic default within the child (im talking about serious genetic flaws here not that they will have orange hair) this will negatively effect the famalies and childs life. Simularly horrid experiences occur when the parents are unfit.

Abortion should be avaliable ASAP before a fetus developed let alone a baby. And when the fetus has propely developed only serious genetic traits or horrid parenting should warrant abortion.

Your entire perspective appears to be founded upon the assumption that yours is the absolute right position and it only remains for the rest of us to open our eyes. While I'm well aware that you may well believe exactly that, I think you're doing yourself no favors by adamantly refusing to acknowledge any other possible point of view--which is a courtesy I've extended you this whole time.


The concession that says your 'anti-choice' term can be equally emotionless as using 'baby.'



How do you mean?



Where do you get that from, when I've explicitly said that I do?



Where have I been snarky in this particular exchange? I've been quite careful to avoid being sarcastic or snarky precisely to deny you the luxury of this accusation. It's possible that you misunderstood my meaning somewhere in this exchange, but I know you won't admit it. (Although I would love to be proven wrong on that last.)

Or are you reaching back to a different exchange, either in this thread (which was a different point of debate) or a previous thread (Which indicates a weak argument, since this is a form of an ad hominem attack)?

I don't really care whether you believe me or not, since I have no personal stake in this, although one wonders why you're bothering to reply if your assumption is that I'm lying--or maybe that's what you need to assume in order to keep from *gasp* reaching some kind of mutual understanding with me.

God forbid.



Which amounts to the same thing, In your point of view, hm?



Because it's true.



In your opinion, which is the issue being discussed.

*Hint: Restating your position is not a support for your argument, nor does it constitute a new argument, just BTW.
Praise from the master. I love the way you try to dismiss me as doing exactly what you have been doing yourself all along -- refusing to admit the possibility of the other point of view; acting as if your viewpoint is total truth; ad hominem attacks (albeit mild ones). In addition, you also deny saying things that you have said in this thread, and try to put words into my mouth.

But one criticism I will take to heart, even though your condescending tone really gets on my nerves, and that's the part about repeating myself. You are right, I did merely restate my argument, but I did so in response to your equally repetitious arguments. Since we are repeating ourselves, it is clear that we have made our arguments in their entirety and have nothing more to add until a new point comes up.

Praise from the master. I love the way you try to dismiss me as doing exactly what you have been doing yourself all along -- refusing to admit the possibility of the other point of view; acting as if your viewpoint is total truth; ad hominem attacks (albeit mild ones). In addition, you also deny saying things that you have said in this thread, and try to put words into my mouth.

Actually I've always been very willing to look at these issues from the opposing point of view. I think you might perceive otherwise when it doesn't actually change my mind. Ask Ashmoria about whether this is true or not. I have enough confidence in my ability to find the truth that I never fear looking at things form a new angle. I'm not going to ask for the specifics related to those last couple of accusations you make, because it became evident a long time ago that you and I just can't match wavelengths and reach an understanding.


But one criticism I will take to heart, even though your condescending tone really gets on my nerves, and that's the part about repeating myself. You are right, I did merely restate my argument, but I did so in response to your equally repetitious arguments. Since we are repeating ourselves, it is clear that we have made our arguments in their entirety and have nothing more to add until a new point comes up.

Agreed.

Abortion is an abomination, no less than the murder of innocent children. Life begins at conception, when two become one, and nothing else but a good in-utero environment is necessary for growth. All supposed stages between conception and natural death (i.e. heart, brain, birth, adolescence, etc) are completely arbitrary. Life is never a choice, nor does any person have the right to take the life of an innocent. These are my views, however as I believe true morality cannot exist without a God to base them on, they are difficult to defend . Taking a perfect being out of the picture reduces morality to personal preference, just like choosing a favorite color or an item from a restaurant menu. As I said, unless we actually want to debate the validity of one faith or another, and pre-suppose the judeo-christian God to be real, morality debates like this are difficult, if not impossible.

Abortion is an abomination, no less than the murder of innocent children. Life begins at conception, when two become one, and nothing else but a good in-utero environment is necessary for growth. All supposed stages between conception and natural death (i.e. heart, brain, birth, adolescence, etc) are completely arbitrary. Life is never a choice, nor does any person have the right to take the life of an innocent.
I am interested in your use of the word "innocent." If we have no right to take the life of an innocent, does that mean we have the right to take the life of a guilty person? If so, what does that do to your assertion that "life is never a choice"? If not, then why bother talking about innocence?

If life is never a choice, then I assume you oppose suicide, but if we have no right to take our own lives, then what does that do to free will and self-determination? Are there no such things in your world view? If I have no right to end my own life, does that mean I also have no right to refuse medical treatment to extend my life? Or do you require the lack of choice to not live to cover a lack of choice to keep on living as well, which I guess would require me to refuse all medical treatment and let god or fate decide what happens to me? How far do you carry this lack of choice? What if pregnancy is putting a woman's life in danger due to a new or previously undiagnosed health problem? What if you can only save one -- the woman or the fetus, but not both? If life is never a choice, what then?

Is that when innocence comes into play? Do you judge the relative innocence or guilt of the fetus and the woman? How would you do that?

These are my views, however as I believe true morality cannot exist without a God to base them on, they are difficult to defend . Taking a perfect being out of the picture reduces morality to personal preference, just like choosing a favorite color or an item from a restaurant menu.
Not necessarily. There are other philosophical and ethical standards which are more demanding than mere personal preference.

As I said, unless we actually want to debate the validity of one faith or another, and pre-suppose the judeo-christian God to be real, morality debates like this are difficult, if not impossible.
How does it become a one faith versus another matter? Actually, let that be a rhetorical question, or something to think about in another thread. I don't want to hijack this one.

Actually I've always been very willing to look at these issues from the opposing point of view. I think you might perceive otherwise when it doesn't actually change my mind. Ask Ashmoria about whether this is true or not. I have enough confidence in my ability to find the truth that I never fear looking at things form a new angle. I'm not going to ask for the specifics related to those last couple of accusations you make, because it became evident a long time ago that you and I just can't match wavelengths and reach an understanding.
I have told you often enough my opinion of you and how I interpret the things you post. Our personal opinions of each other are not the topic of this thread.

I have told you often enough my opinion of you and how I interpret the things you post. Our personal opinions of each other are not the topic of this thread.

One wonders why you brought it up then.

Abortion is an abomination, no less than the murder of innocent children. Life begins at conception, when two become one, and nothing else but a good in-utero environment is necessary for growth. All supposed stages between conception and natural death (i.e. heart, brain, birth, adolescence, etc) are completely arbitrary. Life is never a choice, nor does any person have the right to take the life of an innocent. These are my views, however as I believe true morality cannot exist without a God to base them on, they are difficult to defend . Taking a perfect being out of the picture reduces morality to personal preference, just like choosing a favorite color or an item from a restaurant menu. As I said, unless we actually want to debate the validity of one faith or another, and pre-suppose the judeo-christian God to be real, morality debates like this are difficult, if not impossible.

I bolded a really good point here. If the stages of growth are completely arbitrary (and they are.) Then it becomes even more ridiculous to quibble over terminology like 'baby' vs. 'fetus.' If a person wants to call it a baby then that's no less correct than 'fetus' especially from a philosophical point of view, which is what the morality of abortion is.

Really it doesn't matter what one calls a pre-natal human being in the womb, blastocyst, embryo, foetus, baby, the first three are only usefull for defining stages in developement and the last is just the commonly used term for a human infant. The essential point remains the same, the right to life only runs so far.
A good analogy would be if someone were terminaly ill and could only live if they were surgicaly attached to another human being for a period of time.
No one would insist that someone become the host for this terminaly ill person , no one would see it as a sin to refuse this person and no one would legislate to force thousands of people to go through an involuntary surgical attachment regardless of the effects on either party to the proceedure.
A strict "pro-life" position would logically call for this kind of insanity, but in real life most anti-choice organisations heartily oppose calls for mandatory post mortem organ donation. One suspects that were my hypothetical situation ever to come to pass "pro-life"/anti choice persons would continue to show the lack of reasoning and logic that is the hallmark of their world view.

f i'm sure i'm being ignored for a very good reason (forum manners doubtless) but i have to agree with Neo Bretonnia but perhaps for the opposite reasons.

I bolded a really good point here. If the stages of growth are completely arbitrary (and they are.) Then it becomes even more ridiculous to quibble over terminology like 'baby' vs. 'fetus.' If a person wants to call it a baby then that's no less correct than 'fetus' especially from a philosophical point of view, which is what the morality of abortion is.

f i'm sure i'm being ignored for a very good reason (forum manners doubtless) but i have to agree with Neo Bretonnia but perhaps for the opposite reasons.

This is why I do not use such arguments in my support for abortion rights, though I do insist that when people discuss such matters, they use the terms accurately, according to the standards of the medicine they are talking about.

But my personally preferred argument in favor of abortion rights -- and the one that is based on my personal ethics -- is that the embryo/fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it does not have a right to its life that supercedes my right to my life. If no born person has a right to use me for its purposes against my will, then neither does an unborn person. That is my position on the matter, and I have yet to see any argument that has made me question that position.

This is why I do not use such arguments in my support for abortion rights, though I do insist that when people discuss such matters, they use the terms accurately, according to the standards of the medicine they are talking about.

But my personally preferred argument in favor of abortion rights -- and the one that is based on my personal ethics -- is that the embryo/fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it does not have a right to its life that supercedes my right to my life. If no born person has a right to use me for its purposes against my will, then neither does an unborn person. That is my position on the matter, and I have yet to see any argument that has made me question that position.


well i understand your point about medical accuracy, but i think i've made the exact same point as you, just in different terms. don't you think?

well i understand your point about medical accuracy, but i think i've made the exact same point as you, just in different terms. don't you think?
Feh, who can keep track anymore? I should go do some work or laundry or something. Give my brain a rest.

Abortion is an abomination, no less than the murder of innocent children.


Much less, actually. A bundle of jelly is not a child.


Life begins at conception, when two become one, and nothing else but a good in-utero environment is necessary for growth.


So, why do a third of all 'conceived' babies drop straight through without implanting?


All supposed stages between conception and natural death (i.e. heart, brain, birth, adolescence, etc) are completely arbitrary. Life is never a choice,


You've clearly never heard of 'suicide'.


...nor does any person have the right to take the life of an innocent. These are my views, however as I believe true morality cannot exist without a God to base them on, they are difficult to defend.


You're right - your religious arguments carry no weight without the assumption of a god.


Taking a perfect being out of the picture reduces morality to personal preference, just like choosing a favorite color or an item from a restaurant menu.


Not even true. Social, cultural and pragmatic models work just as well.

All supposed stages between conception and natural death (i.e. heart, brain, birth, adolescence, etc) are completely arbitrary.

Define "natural death". Is our determination of exactly when a person has died equally arbitrary?

If the stages of growth are completely arbitrary (and they are.) Then it becomes even more ridiculous to quibble over terminology like 'baby' vs. 'fetus.'
Or to quibble over a difference like 'baby' vs. 'sperm'.

Or to quibble over a difference like 'baby' vs. 'sperm'.

riiiiight. :rolleyes:

riiiiight. :rolleyes:
Indeed. To me, the difference between a sperm, or an unfertilized egg cell, vs. an embryo at a couple weeks' development, is utterly TRIVIAL, while the difference between that embryo and a baby is PROFOUND.

One wonders why you brought it up then.

I bolded a really good point here. If the stages of growth are completely arbitrary (and they are.) Then it becomes even more ridiculous to quibble over terminology like 'baby' vs. 'fetus.' If a person wants to call it a baby then that's no less correct than 'fetus' especially from a philosophical point of view, which is what the morality of abortion is.

The problem is, 'arbitrary' doesn't instantly disqualify.

My daughter is 9. Someone arbitrarily decided she's not old enough to do a whole lot of things, from drink, to drive, to vote, to marry. She's not a 'woman', and she's neither an 'infant' nor a 'baby'. All those things are 'arbitrary'... but that doesn't make it ridiculous, as you claim.

And that's why anti-abortion arguments are such a plea for special exception - every single day, we accept as perfectly reasonable, a hundred 'arbitrary' stages. You can't drive just because one day you MIGHT be able to. You don't get buried just because one day you MIGHT day. They can't tax you on a job you MIGHT get. You can't collect the presents for the wedding you MIGHT one day have.

On the subject of 'arbitrary', of course... the idea of the 'point' of conception (like it takes place in a split-second?) as the start of life is entirely arbitrary - considering it follows on from life progressing into life, and fully a third of all 'concepta' actually fail to implant. Compared to THAT, arguing the difference between a 'foetus' and a 'baby' is looking positively UN-arbitrary.

Indeed. To me, the difference between a sperm, or an unfertilized egg cell, vs. an embryo at a couple weeks' development, is utterly TRIVIAL, while the difference between that embryo and a baby is PROFOUND.

Then I recommend you go back to your Biology text and get yourself a refresher. The difference between a sperm or an egg and an embryo is that they're different things entirely. The difference between an embryo and a newborn baby is a difference in stages of development.

(This moment of pedantry has been brought to you by the letters D, U, H and the number 6)

The problem is, 'arbitrary' doesn't instantly disqualify.

My daughter is 9. Someone arbitrarily decided she's not old enough to do a whole lot of things, from drink, to drive, to vote, to marry. She's not a 'woman', and she's neither an 'infant' nor a 'baby'. All those things are 'arbitrary'... but that doesn't make it ridiculous, as you claim.

And that's why anti-abortion arguments are such a plea for special exception - every single day, we accept as perfectly reasonable, a hundred 'arbitrary' stages. You can't drive just because one day you MIGHT be able to. You don't get buried just because one day you MIGHT day. They can't tax you on a job you MIGHT get. You can't collect the presents for the wedding you MIGHT one day have.

On the subject of 'arbitrary', of course... the idea of the 'point' of conception (like it takes place in a split-second?) as the start of life is entirely arbitrary - considering it follows on from life progressing into life, and fully a third of all 'concepta' actually fail to implant. Compared to THAT, arguing the difference between a 'foetus' and a 'baby' is looking positively UN-arbitrary.

Who said it did? I have no problem with arbitrary terms, I just refuse to be slavishly bound by them in an abortion debate. See the difference?

The difference between a sperm or an egg and an embryo is that they're different things entirely.
They are both biological tissue, of the human species, but bereft of any mentality. Neither of them is of any "moral" concern, anymore than any other piece of non-sentient tissue.
The difference between an embryo and a newborn baby is...
that one is not a conscious entity, and the other is.

Then I recommend you go back to your Biology text and get yourself a refresher. The difference between a sperm or an egg and an embryo is that they're different things entirely. The difference between an embryo and a newborn baby is a difference in stages of development.

(This moment of pedantry has been brought to you by the letters D, U, H and the number 6)

Ah, yes, the classic textbook definition: "The difference is that they're different, duh!" That's not even pedantry, that's just absurdity.

And, frankly, by any reasonable definition, a zygote is quite obviously a heck of a lot more similar to an unfertilized egg than it is to a human baby. It's pretty clearly absurd to suggest that the change between "unfertilized egg" and "fertilized egg" is bigger than the difference between "fertilized egg" and "actual living breathing human being." Obviously, at some point in embryonic development, it's going to be closer to the latter than the former, and there's no specific way to prove when that is, but I think we can safely conclude it isn't during the first few weeks of pregnancy at the very least.

Who said it did? I have no problem with arbitrary terms, I just refuse to be slavishly bound by them in an abortion debate. See the difference?

No.

You accept that an adult is not a baby.

Why plead special exception for this one subject of debate?

They are both biological tissue, of the human species, but bereft of any mentality. Neither of them is of any "moral" concern, anymore than any other piece of non-sentient tissue.

that one is not a conscious entity, and the other is.

Ah, yes, the classic textbook definition: "The difference is that they're different, duh!" That's not even pedantry, that's just absurdity.

And, frankly, by any reasonable definition, a zygote is quite obviously a heck of a lot more similar to an unfertilized egg than it is to a human baby. It's pretty clearly absurd to suggest that the change between "unfertilized egg" and "fertilized egg" is bigger than the difference between "fertilized egg" and "actual living breathing human being." Obviously, at some point in embryonic development, it's going to be closer to the latter than the former, and there's no specific way to prove when that is, but I think we can safely conclude it isn't during the first few weeks of pregnancy at the very least.

So, both of you are perfectly comfortable pretending that a single sperm cell or a single unfertilized egg is more equivalent to an embryo, despite the fact that they're both examples of cell types that have only half the DNA of a complete organism, are meant to do nothing but merge with their counterpart, and are created directly by the body of their parents, than an embryo is to a newborn baby, both of which contain the complete genetic code of a full fledged organism and are both, in fact, stages of developmoent of said organism?

You go with that.

No.

You accept that an adult is not a baby.

Why plead special exception for this one subject of debate?

What special exception? I have a daughter too (2 of them, actually, but let's use the 8 year old for the purpose of this discussion) and if I refer to her as a young woman but you prefer to call her a child, while yet a third party calls her simply a girl, would it make sense to you for us to argue over the terminology, given that all are logically appropriate?

You guys seem to be arguing reflexively these days.

So, both of you are perfectly comfortable pretending that a single sperm cell or a single unfertilized egg is more equivalent to an embryo, despite the fact that they're both examples of cell types that have only half the DNA of a complete organism....
There is absolutely nothing morally compelling to me about the chromosome count of the cells, or the other purely biochemical factors you go on about. Why should such matters have any relevance in this discussion? I care about people because they have the capacity to think and feel. A sperm cell, or a blood cell, or an embryo, or a tumor: these have no aspect of "personality" about them at all, only biochemistry. They are in the same category as a tree or a rock, so far as moral issues are concerned.

So, both of you are perfectly comfortable pretending that a single sperm cell or a single unfertilized egg is more equivalent to an embryo, despite the fact that they're both examples of cell types that have only half the DNA of a complete organism, are meant to do nothing but merge with their counterpart, and are created directly by the body of their parents, than an embryo is to a newborn baby, both of which contain the complete genetic code of a full fledged organism and are both, in fact, stages of developmoent of said organism?

You go with that.

Yes, I am comfortable "pretending" that a single cell is more like a single cell than a person. I also think that a white thread is more like a black thread than a wedding gown. Crazy, that.

What special exception? I have a daughter too (2 of them, actually, but let's use the 8 year old for the purpose of this discussion) and if I refer to her as a young woman but you prefer to call her a child, while yet a third party calls her simply a girl, would it make sense to you for us to argue over the terminology, given that all are logically appropriate?


Wouldn't it make sense if - for example - there were 'rights' attached to those terms? If she gets to marry as a 'woman', wouldn't you be wishing to make it VERY clear that your 8 year old daughter is not 'a woman' in the absolute sense?

If babies are not allowed to be in school without parental accompaniment, wouldn't you want to be very clear that - while she is YOUR 'baby', she isn't 'A baby'?

We encounter these barriers (arbitrary though they often are) every day, and most of the time, we just suck it up, because there's a certain amount of logic attached to separating things into certain backets - even if we quibble about where those boundaries might lie.

So - is a fertilised egg identical to a three week old baby? No - not even close. Is a fertilised egg identical to a twenty-week-foetus? No - not even close. Is there important distiction between the blastocyst, embryo and foetus stages? Yes - absolutely. (That's not to say there is no fuzzing of the borders). Is a six-week-foetus identical to a newborn? No - still not really even close.

Sometimes - the distinctions are more than just numbers and semantics.


You guys seem to be arguing reflexively these days.

This part - I'm not sure what you mean.

So, both of you are perfectly comfortable pretending that a single sperm cell or a single unfertilized egg is more equivalent to an embryo, despite the fact that they're both examples of cell types that have only half the DNA of a complete organism, are meant to do nothing but merge with their counterpart, and are created directly by the body of their parents, than an embryo is to a newborn baby, both of which contain the complete genetic code of a full fledged organism and are both, in fact, stages of developmoent of said organism?

Ah, similarity is a matter of what criteria you choose to look at. If you limit the discussion in a circular manner by choosing the differences between an unfertilized egg and a zygote as your sole determinants, you can obviously argue that they are more dissimilar than a zygote and a fetus or infant. Certainly, if the only criteria you are going to use is haploid vs. diploid and the "purpose" of the cells, as it were, you can make that argument. But you're excluding a lot of other criteria.

Who said it did? I have no problem with arbitrary terms, I just refuse to be slavishly bound by them in an abortion debate. See the difference?
Yes, you're like Humpty Dumpty who knows that the only point at issue with language is who is to be master, you or the words. That is why you use words to mean just what you want them to mean at any given time. That's why you can insist that, although there clearly are different things properly referred to as "blastocyst," "embryo" and "fetus" -- which you acknowledged earlier in this thread -- you still reserve for yourself the right to call all of them "baby" if it suits your purpose.

Neo: since chromosome count, apparently, is the only feature that has moral significance, are you OK with killing Down's Syndrome children?

From what I remember from my psychology classes few years back, the baby isn't even completely self-aware at time of birth, but instead begins to show signs of individuality after week or two.

Not that I found that particular part of the courses (developement of human psyche from baby to adult) too interesting, and as such my memory might be hazy on that particular part.

Be that as it may, I personally believe it's the mother's right to decide about abortion in all situations. The only immoral part in the act in my eyes is getting pregnant with unwanted baby in the first place. Of course, in the case of rape there's not even that in the mother's case.

The father on the other hand... Let's just say that I believe some crimes are deserving of slow, painful death.

Wouldn't it make sense if - for example - there were 'rights' attached to those terms? If she gets to marry as a 'woman', wouldn't you be wishing to make it VERY clear that your 8 year old daughter is not 'a woman' in the absolute sense?

If babies are not allowed to be in school without parental accompaniment, wouldn't you want to be very clear that - while she is YOUR 'baby', she isn't 'A baby'?

We encounter these barriers (arbitrary though they often are) every day, and most of the time, we just suck it up, because there's a certain amount of logic attached to separating things into certain backets - even if we quibble about where those boundaries might lie.

So - is a fertilised egg identical to a three week old baby? No - not even close. Is a fertilised egg identical to a twenty-week-foetus? No - not even close. Is there important distiction between the blastocyst, embryo and foetus stages? Yes - absolutely. (That's not to say there is no fuzzing of the borders). Is a six-week-foetus identical to a newborn? No - still not really even close.

Sometimes - the distinctions are more than just numbers and semantics.


Sure, sometimes. But it doesn't mean that a person who, unless finding it necessary to use a particular term, can't simply prefer one over another.


This part - I'm not sure what you mean.

What I mean is that I'm beginning to get the impression from some that at this point they're quibbling over individual points that, in any other context, they would stipulate or agree with, but it's becoming a pissing match.

Ah, similarity is a matter of what criteria you choose to look at. If you limit the discussion in a circular manner by choosing the differences between an unfertilized egg and a zygote as your sole determinants, you can obviously argue that they are more dissimilar than a zygote and a fetus or infant. Certainly, if the only criteria you are going to use is haploid vs. diploid and the "purpose" of the cells, as it were, you can make that argument. But you're excluding a lot of other criteria.

Which goes right off on a tangent.

Yes, you're like Humpty Dumpty who knows that the only point at issue with language is who is to be master, you or the words. That is why you use words to mean just what you want them to mean at any given time. That's why you can insist that, although there clearly are different things properly referred to as "blastocyst," "embryo" and "fetus" -- which you acknowledged earlier in this thread -- you still reserve for yourself the right to call all of them "baby" if it suits your purpose.

I find this ironic to the point of hilarity, but it doesn't really say anything new, so in the spirit of our earlier agreement to let it go until something new comes up, I'm going to leave it be.

Neo: since chromosome count, apparently, is the only feature that has moral significance, are you OK with killing Down's Syndrome children?

Don't be obtuse.

Don't be obtuse.
I'm not. I'm asking you a serious question. I cannot for the life of me understand why you think chromosome count is a morally relevant category. Suppose instead of a Down's Syndrome child (47 chromosomes instead of the usual 46; other syndromes involve 45 or 44 chromosomes), we have a haploid human, with only 23 chromosomes in each cell. As long as she was conscious and capable of feeling, *I* would consider her in the same moral category as any other person (as opposed to a non-sentient embryo, zygote, ovum or sperm) while *you* apparently would consider "it" in the same disposable category as an ovum or sperm.

I'm not. I'm asking you a serious question. I cannot for the life of me understand why you think chromosome count is a morally relevant category. Suppose instead of a Down's Syndrome child (47 chromosomes instead of the usual 46; other syndromes involve 45 or 44 chromosomes), we have a haploid human, with only 23 chromosomes in each cell. As long as she was conscious and capable of feeling, *I* would consider her in the same moral category as any other person (as opposed to a non-sentient embryo, zygote, ovum or sperm) while *you* apparently would consider "it" in the same disposable category as an ovum or sperm.

This is where you're being obtuse. I'm not even going to dignify it further.

This is where you're being obtuse. I'm not even going to dignify it further.

Recap: I told you I didn't see any particularly relevant difference between a sperm or ovum on the other, and a zygote or embryo on the other (as opposed to a baby or even later-stage fetus). You flew off the handle asking how I could possibly fail to see that they are totally different. I explained that to me, the relevant trait is sentience, all of those having no consciousness whatsoever (as opposed to a "baby", or for that matter a fetus which is at least to the point of kicking around). I asked you in what respect you distinguish between a sperm and a zygote, and you explained that to you, the relevant trait was chromosome count. Why do you consider that relevant? This makes zero sense. It is not MY fault if what YOU said makes zero sense: I am willing to assume that you intended to convey something sensible, but you need to try again if you actually want to convey your meaning.

Recap: I told you I didn't see any particularly relevant difference between a sperm or ovum on the other, and a zygote or embryo on the other (as opposed to a baby or even later-stage fetus). You flew off the handle asking how I could possibly fail to see that they are totally different.


Flew off the handle? Really? If your point is so strong why do you feel the need to throw that in there?


I explained that to me, the relevant trait is sentience, all of those having no consciousness whatsoever (as opposed to a "baby", or for that matter a fetus which is at least to the point of kicking around). I asked you in what respect you distinguish between a sperm and a zygote, and you explained that to you, the relevant trait was chromosome count.


Hmm leaving something out, are we?


Why do you consider that relevant? This makes zero sense. It is not MY fault if what YOU said makes zero sense: I am willing to assume that you intended to convey something sensible, but you need to try again if you actually want to convey your meaning.

How about this: I indicated that terminology like 'fetus' or 'zygote' are terms for varying stages of development of a human being. In that way, they're more like a newborn baby than a single sperm cell, which isn't a stage of development but rather a separate entity that helps start the ball rolling. (If it were a fully fledged stage of development, it would be equipped with 100% of the DNA that will be present down the line.)

Now, when you went off on that tangent about Down's Syndrome, that told me that you'd missed the point I was getting at, either deliberately as a way of muddling the issue, or as an honest misunderstanding, but your tone suggested to me that the latter was unlikely. By all means, let me know if I'm mistaken.

But let me ask you to take a step back and look at this for a second from a broader perspective. It has long been my contention that people sometimes insist on scientific terminology as a way of drawing attention away from the humanity of the subject. Can you see how this obsessive tendency to argue the point down to where we're putting MUCH too fine a point on it can be seen as a part of the dehumanizing goal?

I mean, after all, if your objective is NOT to dehumanize the subject for the sake of salving the conscience, then what do you care if I call it a baby or a fetus?

I say 'baby' because it's convenient. When I discuss the morals of abortion it usually doesn't matter what stage of development this unborn child is in. I could be talking about a few days in (embryo) or a few weeks in (fetus) or even an hour after fertilization (blastocyst). When I need to be specific, I will be. When the stage doesn't matter, then I'll just say 'baby.' It's that simple.

(Because you all know perfectly well if I say 'fetus' at a time when the proper medical term might be something else, like 'embryo' here would be no end to the criticism, or if I make some kind of philosophical point and say 'fetus' there will be at least 2 or 3 people who will challenge me on whether it applies to 'embryos' simply because I failed to specify them.)

I do realize that some people say 'baby' as a way to continue to reiterate their point of view. So what if they do? I think of it as a baby at all stages which is why the term is more comfortable for me, but that doesn't mean that by using it I MUST be on some kind of guilt-trip. Even if I were, why do you even care? If it's nothing but emotionalism on their part then what harm does it cause you that it's worth this level of term wrangling when you know ultimately nobody's mind will be changed?

But then, I have my suspicions on that answer which I will keep to myself.

Flew off the handle? Really? If your point is so strong why do you feel the need to throw that in there?



Hmm leaving something out, are we?



How about this: I indicated that terminology like 'fetus' or 'zygote' are terms for varying stages of development of a human being. In that way, they're more like a newborn baby than a single sperm cell, which isn't a stage of development but rather a separate entity that helps start the ball rolling. (If it were a fully fledged stage of development, it would be equipped with 100% of the DNA that will be present down the line.)

Now, when you went off on that tangent about Down's Syndrome, that told me that you'd missed the point I was getting at, either deliberately as a way of muddling the issue, or as an honest misunderstanding, but your tone suggested to me that the latter was unlikely. By all means, let me know if I'm mistaken.

But let me ask you to take a step back and look at this for a second from a broader perspective. It has long been my contention that people sometimes insist on scientific terminology as a way of drawing attention away from the humanity of the subject. Can you see how this obsessive tendency to argue the point down to where we're putting MUCH too fine a point on it can be seen as a part of the dehumanizing goal?

I mean, after all, if your objective is NOT to dehumanize the subject for the sake of salving the conscience, then what do you care if I call it a baby or a fetus?

I say 'baby' because it's convenient. When I discuss the morals of abortion it usually doesn't matter what stage of development this unborn child is in. I could be talking about a few days in (embryo) or a few weeks in (fetus) or even an hour after fertilization (blastocyst). When I need to be specific, I will be. When the stage doesn't matter, then I'll just say 'baby.' It's that simple.

(Because you all know perfectly well if I say 'fetus' at a time when the proper medical term might be something else, like 'embryo' here would be no end to the criticism, or if I make some kind of philosophical point and say 'fetus' there will be at least 2 or 3 people who will challenge me on whether it applies to 'embryos' simply because I failed to specify them.)

I do realize that some people say 'baby' as a way to continue to reiterate their point of view. So what if they do? I think of it as a baby at all stages which is why the term is more comfortable for me, but that doesn't mean that by using it I MUST be on some kind of guilt-trip. Even if I were, why do you even care? If it's nothing but emotionalism on their part then what harm does it cause you that it's worth this level of term wrangling when you know ultimately nobody's mind will be changed?

But then, I have my suspicions on that answer which I will keep to myself.



christ alive are you still banging on about what to call a foetus? this thread could have been interesting but it's been monopolised by this fruitless and sterile debate about baby vs foetus, there is no real debate about morals here at all!
why don't you actually get down to some meat and stop endlessly quibling about terminology?

christ alive are you still banging on about what to call a foetus? this thread could have been interesting but it's been monopolised by this fruitless and sterile debate about baby vs foetus, there is no real debate about morals here at all!
why don't you actually get down to some meat and stop endlessly quibling about terminology?

^This

(Thanks)

^This

(Thanks)

thanks for what? pointing out that instead of actually trying to justify the foolish position you take on womens right to choose you have spent two days perhaps more, correcting each others use of language?

Well, five of my cousins are adopted, and the thought that their parents could have aborted, rather than put them up for adoption makes me a little uneasy. People need to take responsibility for their actions (obviously rape is an exception), so I suppose I would consider myself pro-life.

Gaaa, I never thought I would actually agree with George Bush...I feel so dirty...

Flew off the handle? Really?
That's how it appeared to me, yes.
Hmm leaving something out, are we?
Are we?
How about this: I indicated that terminology like 'fetus' or 'zygote' are terms for varying stages of development of a human being.
So is a 'sperm' or an 'ovum'.
In that way, they're more like a newborn baby than a single sperm cell, which isn't a stage of development but rather a separate entity that helps start the ball rolling.
What makes an "entity" in your metaphysics?
(If it were a fully fledged stage of development, it would be equipped with 100% of the DNA that will be present down the line.)
How is this different from: "If a zygote were a fully fledged stage of development, it would be equipped with 100% of the nervous system that will be present down the line"?

Now, when you went off on that tangent about Down's Syndrome, that told me that you'd missed the point I was getting at
Precisely. You were not conveying the point to me, as I told you. You still are not making much sense.
either deliberately as a way of muddling the issue, or as an honest misunderstanding, but your tone suggested to me that the latter was unlikely. By all means, let me know if I'm mistaken.
I have already let you know, several times, that what you are saying does not convey any sense to me.
But let me ask you to take a step back and look at this for a second from a broader perspective. It has long been my contention that people sometimes insist on scientific terminology as a way of drawing attention away from the humanity of the subject.
A non-sentient blob of tissue, whether a tumor, a blood-stain, a sperm-stain, or an embryo, regardless of whether its DNA is of species Homo sapiens, doesn't HAVE any "humanity" in the sense that is morally relevant. You, by your loose usage of "baby", are trying to import humanity where it just isn't present.
When I discuss the morals of abortion it usually doesn't matter what stage of development this unborn child is in.
It makes all the difference in the world, to me, whether we are talking about a sentient being or not, and if that makes zero difference to you, then I don't understand what in the world makes a moral difference to you.
Because you all know perfectly well if I say 'fetus' at a time when the proper medical term might be something else, like 'embryo' here would be no end to the criticism
And rightly so, since there are major differences of great moral relevance.

That's how it appeared to me, yes.

Are we?

So is a 'sperm' or an 'ovum'.

What makes an "entity" in your metaphysics?

How is this different from: "If a zygote were a fully fledged stage of development, it would be equipped with 100% of the nervous system that will be present down the line"?

Precisely. You were not conveying the point to me, as I told you. You still are not making much sense.

I have already let you know, several times, that what you are saying does not convey any sense to me.

A non-sentient blob of tissue, whether a tumor, a blood-stain, a sperm-stain, or an embryo, regardless of whether its DNA is of species Homo sapiens, doesn't HAVE any "humanity" in the sense that is morally relevant. You, by your loose usage of "baby", are trying to import humanity where it just isn't present.

It makes all the difference in the world, to me, whether we are talking about a sentient being or not, and if that makes zero difference to you, then I don't understand what in the world makes a moral difference to you.

And rightly so, since there are major differences of great moral relevance.


and the sterility continues!! what you call the thing in question doesn't change the basic moral and logical kernel of this debate.
you either think abortion is murder because it takes a human life, or you accept that no person should be forced to do things with their body that they do not wish to do.

Personally that I think that the unborn child is a human being and therefore has human rights. Sure, it couldn't survive outside the mother's womb, but a person on life support couldn't survive if the machine was turned off - doesn't mean they aren't a human being. I think that except in cases of rape/incest/etc., or where the mother's life is in danger, the unborn child's/fetus'/embyro's (take your pick of descriptor - I don't care) right to life trumps rights to bodily autonomy (since imho the right to _have_ a body ranks higher than the right to full control over it).

Plus if we're on the point about control, use contraception and you have full control over whether to have a baby or not - problem solved.

Personally that I think that the unborn child is a human being and therefore has human rights.
It does not mean anything to talk of "rights" for something that has no mind or will. A rock does not have a "right" not to be broken: the rock doesn't care whether it is broken, that's the thing about matter, it doesn't matter to the matter what state it is transformed into next. Only beings with minds care. Ask a zygote whether it "wants" to live and you will get no answer, because it has nothing to answer with.

you either think abortion is murder because it takes a human life, or you accept that no person should be forced to do things with their body that they do not wish to do.
I don't entirely accept either position. A second-trimester abortion to me is a separate issue from a first-trimester abortion. When the fetus is able to kick and (as in the famous video) scream, there is a moral issue that is not present in the case of an embryo. I would not go so far as to call it "murder", but it is no longer solely a question of the woman's individual autonomy either, once there is the capacity to suffer.

Personally that I think that the unborn child is a human being and therefore has human rights.

....which don't include the use of another person's body against that person's will.

I think that except in cases of rape/incest/etc., or where the mother's life is in danger, the unborn child's/fetus'/embyro's (take your pick of descriptor - I don't care) right to life trumps rights to bodily autonomy (since imho the right to _have_ a body ranks higher than the right to full control over it).

Are you also in favor of forced organ donation, forced blood and marrow donation, etc.?

If not, you are basically arguing that an embryo/fetus has more rights than any other human - specifically, the right to another person's body.

Plus if we're on the point about control, use contraception and you have full control over whether to have a baby or not - problem solved.

You do realize that contraception can fail, correct?

thanks for what? pointing out that instead of actually trying to justify the foolish position you take on womens right to choose you have spent two days perhaps more, correcting each others use of language?

Yes.

That's how it appeared to me, yes.


Would it matter to you if I said you're mistaken?


Are we?


Yes.


So is a 'sperm' or an 'ovum'.


In your opinion.


What makes an "entity" in your metaphysics?


Ah now THAT is a relevant question. A human being. Obviously we'll disagree on whether a fetus is a human being, or perhaps an embryo, but I suspect from our own points of view we may very well agree that a human being, however you define one, is an entity.

..which excludes sperm and eggs.


How is this different from: "If a zygote were a fully fledged stage of development, it would be equipped with 100% of the nervous system that will be present down the line"?

Another useful question, but given the above answer, not directly relevant anymore.


Precisely. You were not conveying the point to me, as I told you. You still are not making much sense.


Then I don't know what to tell you.


I have already let you know, several times, that what you are saying does not convey any sense to me.


And I thus question the level of effort being put toward understanding it as opposed to looking for syntax loopholes.


A non-sentient blob of tissue, whether a tumor, a blood-stain, a sperm-stain, or an embryo, regardless of whether its DNA is of species Homo sapiens, doesn't HAVE any "humanity" in the sense that is morally relevant. You, by your loose usage of "baby", are trying to import humanity where it just isn't present.


This will be a good point when I refer to a tumor or a blood stain as a human being.


It makes all the difference in the world, to me, whether we are talking about a sentient being or not, and if that makes zero difference to you, then I don't understand what in the world makes a moral difference to you.


Why wouldn't it? If someone views the terms 'fetus' and 'baby' as interchangeable, then it follows that they're probably pro-life.


And rightly so, since there are major differences of great moral relevance.

No, it would be criticism for its own sake, like about 90% of this thread.

Personally that I think that the unborn child is a human being and therefore has human rights. Sure, it couldn't survive outside the mother's womb, but a person on life support couldn't survive if the machine was turned off - doesn't mean they aren't a human being. I think that except in cases of rape/incest/etc., or where the mother's life is in danger, the unborn child's/fetus'/embyro's (take your pick of descriptor - I don't care) right to life trumps rights to bodily autonomy (since imho the right to _have_ a body ranks higher than the right to full control over it).

Plus if we're on the point about control, use contraception and you have full control over whether to have a baby or not - problem solved.
In the interest of not giving Urgench a stroke and in the interest of not further feeding the monster that is Neo Bretonnia's apologetics on propaganda, I'll address this:

1) What is it, in your view, that gives the fetus the right to take control of my body against my will? Is that it is human?

2) If so, I am also human. What are my rights?

3) If being human gives an entity the right to take over another human entity's body, can I have your body to use to sustain my life? Can any other human take and use my body, or any part thereof, to sustain themselves and do it against my will? For instance, if the person desperately needs a lung, and I am a match, can they just take my lung? After all, without it, they will die, right? And surely their right to live trumps my right to bodily integrity, according to you, doesn't it?

4) If there is such a thing as a right to have a body, and if the right to have a body supercedes the right to control one's body, then how can there be a right to have a body? I mean, how can you have something you can't control? How can you have something that someone else can just take away from you and use for themselves against your will? Surely, then, my body does not belong to me, it belongs to that fetus. So how come it has a right to have a body, but I don't?

5) Finally, if there is a right to have a body, but no right to control one's body, and if the right to life gives a person the right to take over another person's body for their own uses, does that not make it okay to make babies solely to harvest their organs? I mean, obviously, if a person is obligated to let their body be used for life support for someone else, and if a person can afford to give up a lung or a kidney or part of a liver or some bone marrow, etc, then surely no one loses if I produce babies solely to provide such materials for other people right (when they get old enough for the surgery, of course)? The kid gets their body and the other person gets their life, right? Win-win. If we follow your logic, that is.

In the interest of not giving Urgench a stroke and in the interest of not further feeding the monster that is Neo Bretonnia's apologetics on propaganda, I'll address this:

This from somebody who insists that the term 'anti-choice' isn't inflammatory propagandizing.


1) What is it, in your view, that gives the fetus the right to take control of my body against my will? Is that it is human?

For one thing, the fact that he or she didn't ask to be there.


2) If so, I am also human. What are my rights?


If we're gonna talk about rights, let's also talk responsibility. One never reasonably exists without the other.

(Much as people hate that)


3) If being human gives an entity the right to take over another human entity's body, can I have your body to use to sustain my life? Can any other human take and use my body, or any part thereof, to sustain themselves and do it against my will? For instance, if the person desperately needs a lung, and I am a match, can they just take my lung? After all, without it, they will die, right? And surely their right to live trumps my right to bodily integrity, according to you, doesn't it?


This question is covered by the answer to question 1.


4) If there is such a thing as a right to have a body, and if the right to have a body supercedes the right to control one's body, then how can there be a right to have a body? I mean, how can you have something you can't control? How can you have something that someone else can just take away from you and use for themselves against your will? Surely, then, my body does not belong to me, it belongs to that fetus. So how come it has a right to have a body, but I don't?


This is hyperbole. It is an attempt to assert a right without acknowledging a corresponding responsibility. The bolded part is also emotional rhetoric.


5) Finally, if there is a right to have a body, but no right to control one's body, and if the right to life gives a person the right to take over another person's body for their own uses, does that not make it okay to make babies solely to harvest their organs? I mean, obviously, if a person is obligated to let their body be used for life support for someone else, and if a person can afford to give up a lung or a kidney or part of a liver or some bone marrow, etc, then surely no one loses if I produce babies solely to provide such materials for other people right (when they get old enough for the surgery, of course)? The kid gets their body and the other person gets their life, right? Win-win. If we follow your logic, that is.

This is an interesting attempt to reflect the dehumanization of the unborn back onto the pro-life side. The rhetorical acrobatics here are almost impressive, except that they don't work. They're based on the mistaken presupposition that being pro-life is inexorably tied somehow to the mentality that people have no sovereignty over their body.

This may well inspire another satire post.

I don't entirely accept either position. A second-trimester abortion to me is a separate issue from a first-trimester abortion. When the fetus is able to kick and (as in the famous video) scream, there is a moral issue that is not present in the case of an embryo. I would not go so far as to call it "murder", but it is no longer solely a question of the woman's individual autonomy either, once there is the capacity to suffer.

i have the capacity to suffer does that give me the right to use your body against your will for my benefit? i can kick and sream like a demon:confused:

In the interest of not giving Urgench a stroke and in the interest of not further feeding the monster that is Neo Bretonnia's apologetics on propaganda, I'll address this:

1) What is it, in your view, that gives the fetus the right to take control of my body against my will? Is that it is human?

2) If so, I am also human. What are my rights?

3) If being human gives an entity the right to take over another human entity's body, can I have your body to use to sustain my life? Can any other human take and use my body, or any part thereof, to sustain themselves and do it against my will? For instance, if the person desperately needs a lung, and I am a match, can they just take my lung? After all, without it, they will die, right? And surely their right to live trumps my right to bodily integrity, according to you, doesn't it?

4) If there is such a thing as a right to have a body, and if the right to have a body supercedes the right to control one's body, then how can there be a right to have a body? I mean, how can you have something you can't control? How can you have something that someone else can just take away from you and use for themselves against your will? Surely, then, my body does not belong to me, it belongs to that fetus. So how come it has a right to have a body, but I don't?

5) Finally, if there is a right to have a body, but no right to control one's body, and if the right to life gives a person the right to take over another person's body for their own uses, does that not make it okay to make babies solely to harvest their organs? I mean, obviously, if a person is obligated to let their body be used for life support for someone else, and if a person can afford to give up a lung or a kidney or part of a liver or some bone marrow, etc, then surely no one loses if I produce babies solely to provide such materials for other people right (when they get old enough for the surgery, of course)? The kid gets their body and the other person gets their life, right? Win-win. If we follow your logic, that is.


i have to say you can stroke me all you like ;) oh and your completely correct, just because a foetus is cute and cuddly doesn't mean it has more rights than anyone else.

For one thing, the fact that he or she didn't ask to be there.

And that gives one extra rights? People find themselves in situations outside their control all the time. Do such situations all give them extra rights - particularly, rights over other human beings?

If we're gonna talk about rights, let's also talk responsibility. One never reasonably exists without the other.

Indeed. Of course, ask two people which actions are responsible and you'll likely get two different answers.

And people also quite often take on responsibilities that they feel they are morally obligated to take on without suggesting that others must do so. I feel morally obligated to give blood on a regular basis. If I knew I were a match for someone who needed bone marrow or a live organ donation, I would feel morally obligated to do that. I do not, however, feel that anyone should be legally obligated to do so. They have the right to refuse.

This question is covered by the answer to question 1.

If I have kidney failure, I didn't ask to have kidney failure. I didn't want to be in a situation where I need someone else's body to sustain me.

So this means that I gain rights to the body of whoever is a good match?

This from somebody who insists that the term 'anti-choice' isn't inflammatory propagandizing.



For one thing, the fact that he or she didn't ask to be there.



If we're gonna talk about rights, let's also talk responsibility. One never reasonably exists without the other.

(Much as people hate that)



This question is covered by the answer to question 1.



This is hyperbole. It is an attempt to assert a right without acknowledging a corresponding responsibility. The bolded part is also emotional rhetoric.



This is an interesting attempt to reflect the dehumanization of the unborn back onto the pro-life side. The rhetorical acrobatics here are almost impressive, except that they don't work. They're based on the mistaken presupposition that being pro-life is inexorably tied somehow to the mentality that people have no sovereignty over their body.

This may well inspire another satire post.
Are you in love with me? Is that your problem, that your emotions and your reason are at odds with each other? Is that why you find it impossible to respond to any post of mine -- even one that was not directed to you -- without being a flamebaiting jackass? Work it out with a therapist, NB, and let somebody else have a chance to argue with me.

Are you in love with me?

Nah, I'm just in it for fun :p

Would it matter to you if I said you're mistaken?
I have already said that I am willing to believe you are TRYING to convey a point; however, even assuming your sincerity, it may be that your difficulty in conveying a coherent point is that you really haven't thought things through.
Ah now THAT is a relevant question. A human being. Obviously we'll disagree on whether a fetus is a human being, or perhaps an embryo, but I suspect from our own points of view we may very well agree that a human being, however you define one, is an entity.

..which excludes sperm and eggs.
How? Sperm and eggs, like zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, babies, and adults, are genetically "human" (not "canine" or "elephantine"; the DNA is of species Homo sapiens) and are ontologically "beings" (they exist, rather than not existing). They are not "persons", as they have no sentience; neither are zygotes, blastocysts, or embryos.

In any case, you have changed your terminology just from the last post: it used to be that you were saying sperm and eggs WERE "entities", except that they were "separate" entities from the later stages, which were all evidently the "same" entity. I guessed that you were making some point about individual identity over time; from my Buddhist perspective I do not really believe in "entities" in such a sense, rather that all Self/Other borderlines are inherently blurry, transitory, and ultimately unreal. When a sperm enters an ovum, "two" things become "one", but the resulting zygote is not yet determined to become "one" person: it can often become "two" instead (twinning), or "three" or "four" (it happens), or "zero" (most common). The blastocyst typically becomes "two" or more, and then goes back to "one": cells drift off, and may reattach, or may implant separately, which could result in identical twins, but often the first implantation will overgrow and reabsorb any later ones; oddities like Siamese twins, or the recent babies with eight limbs, or two faces, or a little face in the middle of the chest, can be the result, although only in the Siamese case do I think it makes sense to speak at all about "two" persons (because of the two, separately conscious, brains).

If "individuation" is the mechanical-biochemical development you are morally interested in (rather than chromosome-count, which I hope we can agree doesn't mean much of anything), you ought to draw your line between blastocyst and embryo, not between ovum and zygote. (In the embryo, internal structures are forming, and each cell now "knows it place" in the body and no longer has the potential to strike off on its own to start a new embryo).
This will be a good point when I refer to a tumor or a blood stain as a human being.
It's human. It's a being. By "human being" obviously you mean more than just "human" + "being", so what is the extra trait that you consider morally relevant? In my case it is sentience. When you don't see any difference between the sentient and the non-sentient, I do have to ask you what makes you call some tissue-blobs "human beings" and others not.
No, it would be criticism for its own sake, like about 90% of this thread.
No, it would be talking about the reality here. It's like you are making no distinction between ripping the head of a Barbie doll and ripping the head off a baby, saying "they're both babies" and getting petulant if anyone tells you that the distinction a doll and a baby is, as a matter of fact, really important.

Nah, I'm just in it for fun :p

Wrong Neo :p

i have the capacity to suffer does that give me the right to use your body against your will for my benefit? i can kick and sream like a demon:confused:

If I saw you drowning, and could help, I would consider it a moral obligation to do so.

If I saw you drowning, and could help, I would consider it a moral obligation to do so.

But that doesn't mean you should have a legal obligation to.

Nah, I'm just in it for fun :p
You're allowed. ;) (I swear, the last few days, NSG has been like "A Tale of Two Neos" for me. Gads, what a contrast!)

If I saw you drowning, and could help, I would consider it a moral obligation to do so.
And I'm sure Urgench would be overwhelmed with gratitude. However, of course, you choosing to do something for him of your own volition, and him forcing you to do it against your will are two completely different things. Just getting in before this analogy gets derailed, too. :)

You're allowed. ;) (I swear, the last few days, NSG has been like "A Tale of Two Neos" for me. Gads, what a contrast!)

hmm, are you the good neo, or the bad neo?

hmm, are you the good neo, or the bad neo?

The Neo with the gun.

100 points to whoever gets that reference.

And I'm sure Urgench would be overwhelmed with gratitude. However, of course, you choosing to do something for him of your own volition, and him forcing you to do it against your will are two completely different things. Just getting in before this analogy gets derailed, too. :)Well, if he's drowning, he's probably not going to be able to force me-- and the fetus can't force a woman to do anything, either. But the law in some jurisdictions would force me to help, or at least, prosecute me afterwards for failure to do so; and if watching a stranger die without helping is not a crime in your jurisdiction, certainly watching your (born) child die would be. It is an interesting moral/legal question: SHOULD that be the law? How much risk or injury to yourself, before making it a duty would start to seem completely unreasonable?

The Neo with the gun.

100 points to whoever gets that reference.

Gimme some sugar, baby.

The Neo with the gun.

100 points to whoever gets that reference.

/thread

Abortion is the right of any mother. It's not a person for a long time. Any time before it it's not really a living, breathing, person.

Gimme some sugar, baby.

/thread

Hehe.

And that gives one extra rights? People find themselves in situations outside their control all the time. Do such situations all give them extra rights - particularly, rights over other human beings?

I'd say it has more to do with a responsibility generated by the mother.


Indeed. Of course, ask two people which actions are responsible and you'll likely get two different answers.


Ain't that the truth.


And people also quite often take on responsibilities that they feel they are morally obligated to take on without suggesting that others must do so. I feel morally obligated to give blood on a regular basis. If I knew I were a match for someone who needed bone marrow or a live organ donation, I would feel morally obligated to do that. I do not, however, feel that anyone should be legally obligated to do so. They have the right to refuse.


This thread isn't about legalities. As far as the law goes, we are in agreement.


If I have kidney failure, I didn't ask to have kidney failure. I didn't want to be in a situation where I need someone else's body to sustain me.

So this means that I gain rights to the body of whoever is a good match?

Did somebody cause your kidney failure? No. Therefore your analogy does not apply.


Are you in love with me? Is that your problem, that your emotions and your reason are at odds with each other? Is that why you find it impossible to respond to any post of mine -- even one that was not directed to you -- without being a flamebaiting jackass? Work it out with a therapist, NB, and let somebody else have a chance to argue with me.

Hm. You resort instantly to name calling and I'm flame baiting.

Grow up, Muravyets, please. Call me any name you want to but at least my tone remains civil (Pardon me for not bowing to your rhetoric). If you really can't stand to deal with my posts then just don't. Nobody's forcing you. Even better, put me on ignore and save yourself the temptation. In the past I've tried to offer you olive branches and truces but you generally scoffed. My conscience in this matter is clear.

I have already said that I am willing to believe you are TRYING to convey a point; however, even assuming your sincerity, it may be that your difficulty in conveying a coherent point is that you really haven't thought things through.

Or it could be that you and I have a very different idea of what, exactly, is relevant to the issue.


How? Sperm and eggs, like zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, babies, and adults, are genetically "human" (not "canine" or "elephantine"; the DNA is of species Homo sapiens) and are ontologically "beings" (they exist, rather than not existing). They are not "persons", as they have no sentience; neither are zygotes, blastocysts, or embryos.

In any case, you have changed your terminology just from the last post:
<snip>


Ok I did make a mistake here. I used the term 'entity' in two separate contexts and introduced confusion. My apologies. In the earlier post you referred to I used the term 'entities' to describe a sperm and eggs. I meant 'entities' more in a conceptual sense, which was unclear.

My bad.

Let's try to establish a common frame of reference before proceeding to avoid that happening again. Fair enough?


It's human. It's a being. By "human being" obviously you mean more than just "human" + "being", so what is the extra trait that you consider morally relevant? In my case it is sentience. When you don't see any difference between the sentient and the non-sentient, I do have to ask you what makes you call some tissue-blobs "human beings" and others not.


Sentience is a good place to start, but it can become difficult to establish exactly when somebody becomes sentient. Some even might argue that it doesn't happen until some weeks after birth.


No, it would be talking about the reality here. It's like you are making no distinction between ripping the head of a Barbie doll and ripping the head off a baby, saying "they're both babies" and getting petulant if anyone tells you that the distinction a doll and a baby is, as a matter of fact, really important.

See above.

Well, if he's drowning, he's probably not going to be able to force me-- and the fetus can't force a woman to do anything, either. But the law in some jurisdictions would force me to help, or at least, prosecute me afterwards for failure to do so; and if watching a stranger die without helping is not a crime in your jurisdiction, certainly watching your (born) child die would be. It is an interesting moral/legal question: SHOULD that be the law? How much risk or injury to yourself, before making it a duty would start to seem completely unreasonable?
I am opposed to "good samaritan" laws that would penalize me for not doing something I never made any promise or agreement to do. The divide between allowable inaction and something that could be called depraved indifference or criminal negligence or stuff like that is not sharp but neither is it narrow. There is a difference between the law forcing me to carry out an existing obligation and the law forcing me to take on an obligation.

And as far as I am concerned no reasonable law can require a person to place themselves at risk of physical injury or death against their will. So my answer would be that no such risk requirement would be reasonable.

If I saw you drowning, and could help, I would consider it a moral obligation to do so.


this is not the same at all though, a single act of voluntary heroism is entirely different to laws which force you to allow me to harvest your organs or to parasitise your body without your permission. oh and i live in a jurisdiction where women are not afforded any rights over their own bodies and where thousands of women must travel to other countries to avail of rights they should have at home.
as to the law demanding that i save a persons life,how would such a law be enforced? and what if two or three people all needed my assistance at once, who would the law demand i save first and would i be liable for those i did not save first?
the moral argument can only be; do what you can, when you can, if you can

well...

i'm not a tree hugger or animal lover or anything but as far as im concerned, what makes a fetus more life worthy than any other "Fully Developed" animal that we don't mind killing legally?

As mentioned before, i don't belief its anyone else's business and this idea that people get in their heads that is is just plain wrong,
there are millions of children with a real life that need help around the world.... why don't we all solve that massive moral problem before we go around arguing about whether a fetus that can't think, move, or live without a mother deserves a life that chances are, won't be particularly easy and will ruin the mothers (and fathers) life.

Or it could be that you and I have a very different idea of what, exactly, is relevant to the issue.
Yes indeed. But I have made it clear (I hope) what it is that I consider relevant, while you still don't convey what you consider relevant.
Let's try to establish a common frame of reference before proceeding to avoid that happening again. Fair enough?
Indeed. Clarity about your use of terms is really essential here.
Sentience is a good place to start, but it can become difficult to establish exactly when somebody becomes sentient. Some even might argue that it doesn't happen until some weeks after birth.
The ability to suffer pain is one component of sentience that is present well before birth-- but certainly not in the embryonic stage. The line is gray and blurry, not black and white, but we ought to be able to agree about cases where no shred of sentience is present at all-- unless you have something else that you consider relevant (see above).

I'd say it has more to do with a responsibility generated by the mother.

Such responsibility, if it exists (there is certainly disagreement on that matter) has nothing to do with rights carried by the embryo/fetus, however.

This thread isn't about legalities. As far as the law goes, we are in agreement.

When we start discussing rights, we are necessarily discussing legalities.

Did somebody cause your kidney failure? No. Therefore your analogy does not apply.

Maybe they did. Maybe somebody caused injuries to me that have resulted in my organ failure. I still don't get to take their kidney against their will.

Or maybe somebody stabs me. I need a blood transfusion and they are a healthy match. They still cannot be forced to donate blood to me.

This is true no matter what the intent of their actions was.

Or it could be that you and I have a very different idea of what, exactly, is relevant to the issue.

If you recognize the fact that people can have very different ideas of relevance, why claim that those with a different idea are "pretending"?

Yes indeed. But I have made it clear (I hope) what it is that I consider relevant, while you still don't convey what you consider relevant.

Alright let's begin there. If I understand you correctly, your position is that an entity (entity being a self-contained life form, not necessarily independent) must be sentient before it is morally wrong to cause its demise.


The ability to suffer pain is one component of sentience that is present well before birth-- but certainly not in the embryonic stage. The line is gray and blurry, not black and white, but we ought to be able to agree about cases where no shred of sentience is present at all-- unless you have something else that you consider relevant (see above).

I might, but I'll hold off on that until after we've got the definition of 'sentience' settled.

Such responsibility, if it exists (there is certainly disagreement on that matter) has nothing to do with rights carried by the embryo/fetus, however.


True, they are separate items. That may or may not be relevant.


When we start discussing rights, we are necessarily discussing legalities.


Then either we need to put aside the discussion of rights or explore the idea that there are moral rights that may or may not be codified into law.


Maybe they did. Maybe somebody caused injuries to me that have resulted in my organ failure. I still don't get to take their kidney against their will.

Or maybe somebody stabs me. I need a blood transfusion and they are a healthy match. They still cannot be forced to donate blood to me.

This is true no matter what the intent of their actions was.


Under the law, yes. No need to debate that as we both know this, but as this is a discussion about morality then I present the following:

Maybe in those cases, the guilty party DOES have a certain moral obligation to donate a kidney or blood or whatever in order to do what can be done to repair the damage they caused.

A discussion like this might warrant a new thread. What do you think?


If you recognize the fact that people can have very different ideas of relevance, why claim that those with a different idea are "pretending"?

? You quoted a remark specifically directed toward someone else in a limited context. It also didn't contain the word 'pretending.' What is the point here?

Alright let's begin there. If I understand you correctly, your position is that an entity (entity being a self-contained life form, not necessarily independent) must be sentient before it is morally wrong to cause its demise.
I kill huge numbers of bacteria every time I take a shower. Doesn't cause me the slightest moral qualm.
I might, but I'll hold off on that until after we've got the definition of 'sentience' settled.
It is inherently blurry. Can we at least agree that a rock, a bacterium, a sperm, an ovum, a zygote, a blastula, and an embryo are examples of things that have zero sentience, under any definition?

Under the law, yes. No need to debate that as we both know this, but as this is a discussion about morality then I present the following:

Maybe in those cases, the guilty party DOES have a certain moral obligation to donate a kidney or blood or whatever in order to do what can be done to repair the damage they caused.

A discussion like this might warrant a new thread. What do you think?

It could be interesting.

Personally, I feel a moral obligation to give blood on a regular basis without harming anyone else, as I am reasonably healthy and able to do so.

? You quoted a remark specifically directed toward someone else in a limited context. It also didn't contain the word 'pretending.' What is the point here?

It was part of a line of conversation begun when you posted the following:

So, both of you are perfectly comfortable pretending that a single sperm cell or a single unfertilized egg is more equivalent to an embryo, despite the fact that they're both examples of cell types that have only half the DNA of a complete organism, are meant to do nothing but merge with their counterpart, and are created directly by the body of their parents, than an embryo is to a newborn baby, both of which contain the complete genetic code of a full fledged organism and are both, in fact, stages of developmoent of said organism?

You go with that.

Bold mine.

I kill huge numbers of bacteria every time I take a shower. Doesn't cause me the slightest moral qualm.


Alright so then we need to tighten the definition up. I assume we will include sentience from here on?


It is inherently blurry. Can we at least agree that a rock, a bacterium, a sperm, an ovum, a zygote, a blastula, and an embryo are examples of things that have zero sentience, under any definition?

Yes.

It could be interesting.

Personally, I feel a moral obligation to give blood on a regular basis without harming anyone else, as I am reasonably healthy and able to do so.


Which is a good thing. I think I will start that thread after things cool down. I don't want anyone to think it's directly connected to any particular abortion thread.


It was part of a line of conversation begun when you posted the following:
Bold mine.

Sometimes I question the motives of people who take up particular positions under particular contexts.

So you think it is wrong for the law to recognize a person's bodily autonomy? You think it is, in fact, right for one person's to be bodily subjugated for the purposes of another?



Plenty of things are legal now that I find morally objectionable. That is beside the point.

Do you or do you not believe that human beings have personal sovereignty - that they should have the right to determine who and what gets to use their bodies?

So then does a Siamese twin have the right to determine who and what gets to use their body? Can they kill the other according to you?

Alright so then we need to tighten the definition up. I assume we will include sentience from here on?
[Tmut] Can we at least agree that a rock, a bacterium, a sperm, an ovum, a zygote, a blastula, and an embryo are examples of things that have zero sentience, under any definition?
Yes.

Well this is progress. Now are there any circumstances where you would think it right to do injury to a sentient being for the "sake" of a non-sentient being?

So then does a Siamese twin have the right to determine who and what gets to use their body?

Of course. But conjined twins have the added problem of determining which body parts are individual and which are shared.

Can they kill the other according to you?

Depends really. It isn't entirely uncommon for the twins to be separated when doing so will kill one of them. When one has most/all of the organs while the other is essentially leaching resources, doctors and parents often make the decision to remove the weaker twin to give the stronger twin a better chance.

Underdeveloped twins that are somehow attached (fetus in fetu, etc.) are also removed, despite the fact that doing so causes their death.

In the case of conjoined twins that have survived into adulthood, they have shared organs - organs that are a part of both of them and are thus "owned", as it were, by both of them. As such, they must both agree on what to do with said organs.