North Dakota house gives fertilized eggs human status.

[Third Eye Open]

North Dakota (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/north-dakota-house-gives-fertilized-eggs-human-status/) has given fertilized eggs the status of 'human'.

So, would this mean that wearing an IUD is the equivalent of premeditated murder?

A large percentage of fertilized eggs are washed out with menstrual flow, would this make menstruating akin to involuntary manslaughter?

Could I 'adopt' several hundred of these 'humans' and keep them in a freezer while claiming them as dependents?

Any guesses how long it will be before this is overturned by the supreme court?

Also, when do you think it should be called 'human' ?

[godless dave]

A large percentage of fertilized eggs are washed out with menstrual flow, would this make menstruating akin to involuntary manslaughter?


I would think it would be death by natural causes. Of course only a coroner or medical examiner can make that determination for sure. Therefore, if this law comes into effect, sexually active North Dakota women should make sure to collect their menstrual flow every month and bring it to a medical examiner's office so they can see if there is a fertilized egg in there and, if so, determine a cause of death and draw up a death certificate.

[ImaginalDisc]

OK, that's not going to work at all. They obviously haven't thought this through. The law, according to the articles, "The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws." Nevermind that NO ONE has "the genome of homo sapiens" only A human genome. That's like saying "a book is anything which contains all words ever written." Beyond the stupidity of that, here's a scenario which demonstrate what a badly worded law that'd be.

Assume you're female (there's about a 50% chance this is not a difficult assumption to make.) You get pregnant and then take out a life insurance policy on your zygote. There's a relatively good chance the embryo will fail to come to term, at least a good chance that justifies the cost/benefit ration of a few months of life insurance payments.

[Rasmus]

Actually, I'd question whether the female egg or a sperm cell meets the definition of "organism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

A human is able to reproduce, but a single ovum? I doubt that. Of course, not even all humans have that capability...

[Safe-Keeper]

A human being, much like a cake, goes through several stages of creation and formation. I get the bowl, I combine and manipulate ingredients, I put the dough in the oven, I retrieve it from the oven. During this process, the contents that will eventually be known as a 'cake', as said, go through many stages, from 'separate ingredients' to 'dough' to 'unbaked cake' to 'partly baked cake' to 'cake'. When exactly the ingredients can be called a cake is up for debate, but what these nitwits are essentially saying is that the instant I mix sugar and butter in a bowl, I have, for all intents and purposes, a Mississippi Mudpie.

Utterly and completely ridiculous.

[Hokulele]

Anything to increase the tax base, eh?

[Steelmage]

Is sperm considered human being too by these people?

This reminds me of a George Carlin route:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4097676664266345213&ei=d0aeScybI4nK-gHTscSVBg&q=george+carlin+abortion&hl=en

[Smackety]

I think any woman in ND who might be pregnant should no longer be allowed to drive, it is not something the unborn child would consent to.

[Aerik]

And thus, about all sexually active women in North Dakota are about to become murderers.

All sexually active women are sure, at least once in their lives, have an egg become fertilized, but fail to implant, and pass in the next menstruation. This bill makes these women murderers for this, because they dare to have sex. It also means that miscarriages are, what, manslaughter?

But most of all, it makes women slaves. Slaves to people that had no right to leech onto their bodies.

disgusting. As always, pro-life just means anti-woman.

[KingMerv00]

And thus, about all sexually active women in North Dakota are about to become murderers.

The law is stupid but the above isn't true.

[uruk]

North Dakota (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/north-dakota-house-gives-fertilized-eggs-human-status/) has given fertilized eggs the status of 'human'. When a sperm fertilizes an ovum all the necessary chromosomes shuffle to produce the genetic make up of an individual human being. That is how a human is created. Ovum is fertilized and a zygote is produced. The zygote then goes on to embryo then fetus and is born if left in the womb to develop.

So, would this mean that wearing an IUD is the equivalent of premeditated murder? I think it is better to prevent conception rather than preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Here is a thought, why is it when someone murders a pregnant woman the muderer is also charged with the murderof the unborn child?

A large percentage of fertilized eggs are washed out with menstrual flow, would this make menstruating akin to involuntary manslaughter? Than is very different than pourposly removing the zygote. "Natural causes" I think someone said.

Could I 'adopt' several hundred of these 'humans' and keep them in a freezer while claiming them as dependents? So how is frozen zygotes costing you money? the electric bill maybe? little tiny frozen diapers?

Any guesses how long it will be before this is overturned by the supreme court?

Also, when do you think it should be called 'human' ?

So then a person at stage one of it's development is not a person?

[uruk]

OK, that's not going to work at all. They obviously haven't thought this through. The law, according to the articles, "The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws." Nevermind that NO ONE has "the genome of homo sapiens" only A human genome. That's like saying "a book is anything which contains all words ever written." Beyond the stupidity of that, here's a scenario which demonstrate what a badly worded law that'd be.
Actually Ithink that that is great idea. Any organizim that has a human genome, or is genetcaly a human being, is protected. That would protect the rights of clones when we get around to producing them. A human being is a human being reguardless of how they were concieved.

[uruk]

Actually, I'd question whether the female egg or a sperm cell meets the definition of "organism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

A human is able to reproduce, but a single ovum? I doubt that. Of course, not even all humans have that capability...
Sperm and ovums are gametes They only have half the genetic material necessary to produce a human. A sperm or ovum is not a person. It is when the chromosomes shuffle into a complete set does it become a person.

That is how humans reproduce.

[uruk]

A human being, much like a cake, goes through several stages of creation and formation. I get the bowl, I combine and manipulate ingredients, I put the dough in the oven, I retrieve it from the oven. During this process, the contents that will eventually be known as a 'cake', as said, go through many stages, from 'separate ingredients' to 'dough' to 'unbaked cake' to 'partly baked cake' to 'cake'. When exactly the ingredients can be called a cake is up for debate, but what these nitwits are essentially saying is that the instant I mix sugar and butter in a bowl, I have, for all intents and purposes, a Mississippi Mudpie.

Utterly and completely ridiculous.

A human is not a cake. It has fewer ingrediants. Just two.

But use the analogy, When all the ingrediants are mixed you have "cake batter" When cooked it will become a cake. The cake is already in the batter. It is the batter. It just has to go through the baking process to become what we readily recognize as cake.

It depends on wether you see the cake in the batter.

I guess it is easy to see the zygote as nothing more than a collection of cells rather than a human being because it does not look recognizeably human. But the person is all there genetically. The heart the brain and the eventual mind if the zygote is allowed to continue to develop.

As mentioned before, this is the first step in the creation of a person. Is a person not a person because he/she is only a few cells in early development? So when does that group of cells become a human? How many cells does it take?

I guess the difference is location. If those few cells are in a womb, it is a person. If it is in a petri dish in a freezer it is not a person.

Same group of cells, different location.

[uruk]

Is sperm considered human being too by these people?

This reminds me of a George Carlin route:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4097676664266345213&ei=d0aeScybI4nK-gHTscSVBg&q=george+carlin+abortion&hl=en

I hope not. Sperm is not a person. You need the other part.

[MattusMaximus]

Actually, the law isn't as stupid as it first sounds. That is, as long as you look past the obvious stupidity - calling a freshly fertilized egg the equivalent of a full-fledged human being - to the real reason why it is being worked through the ND legislature.

This is meant as a setup to challenge Roe v. Wade - period. Recall that ND was the state where they've tried these wacky anti-choice laws before and they've been turned back (twice now) by voter referendums.

The nutbags in the religious right are hoping that eventually they'll get one of these stupid laws to stick past a voter referendum so that they can mount a potentially successful challenge to Roe v. Wade. Apparently, these nitwits think they have a chance of winning such a case given the current make up of the Supreme Court.

Until the SCOTUS becomes a bit more moderate to liberal, this is going to be a recurring pattern. Enjoy the show.

[uruk]

And thus, about all sexually active women in North Dakota are about to become murderers.

All sexually active women are sure, at least once in their lives, have an egg become fertilized, but fail to implant, and pass in the next menstruation. This bill makes these women murderers for this, because they dare to have sex. It also means that miscarriages are, what, manslaughter?

But most of all, it makes women slaves. Slaves to people that had no right to leech onto their bodies.

disgusting. As always, pro-life just means anti-woman.

You seem to be making a facetious assumption. If the zygote does not implant on the womb or is miscarried it is due to natural causes or accident. How is the woman responsible for that?

I'm sorry that biology made the female the gestator. But it's fact of life. Does not the child, who is a human being, due any consideration? Does it's life have any value at all?

I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination. I just happen to value human life.

I see no issue with abortion if it means the survival of the mother's life.
I cannot begrudge any woman who choses her life over the life of the child who's gestation is a direct threat to her life. No one has the authority to force the woman into a choice under those conditions. Conception due to rape might also fall into this catagory.


But it is quite another issue when the abortion is due to indescretion, or cosmetics, or inconvienace. If the woman or man does not want to concieve a child or is incapable of taking care of the children then they should take measures to prevent conception.

In these cases adoption should the choice over abortion. As far as I know any church will accept a new born from a woman, no questions asked, if the woman does not want the child or feels that they cannot care for the child. And maybe the experiance of carrying the child to term will serve to remind the woman to take responsibilty over her own body and actions and prevent another unwanted pregnancy.

Again that is not to say that the male is innocent but the fact remains that it is the female who carries the burden of gestation. Unfortunately it is the woman who has to take responsibilty over her own body and men have to respect that responsibility.

The child did not ask to be concieved, why should it be condemened for the mistake of others?

And this is why it is convienent to see the zygote or embryo as not being human. No guilt. It is just a few cells to be flushed.


Having said all this I do not believe that abortion should be made illegal, But abortion for anything other than an imminent threat to the mothers life should be socialy unnacceptable.

[uruk]

Actually, the law isn't as stupid as it first sounds. That is, as long as you look past the obvious stupidity - calling a freshly fertilized egg the equivalent of a full-fledged human being - to the real reason why it is being worked through the ND legislature. The freshly fertilized egg has all the genetic information of a full fledged human being and will become a full fledged human being when gestated. Doesn't that person in the early stages of it's development have any importance? Just a meaningless group of cells?

This is meant as a setup to challenge Roe v. Wade - period. Recall that ND was the state where they've tried these wacky anti-choice laws before and they've been turned back (twice now) by voter referendums.

The nutbags in the religious right are hoping that eventually they'll get one of these stupid laws to stick past a voter referendum so that they can mount a potentially successful challenge to Roe v. Wade. Apparently, these nitwits think they have a chance of winning such a case given the current make up of the Supreme Court.

Until the SCOTUS becomes a bit more moderate to liberal, this is going to be a recurring pattern. Enjoy the show.
Now that I am opposed to. I think abortion is justified under certain circumstances.

[MattusMaximus]

The freshly fertilized egg has all the genetic information of a full fledged human being and will become a full fledged human being when gestated. Doesn't that person in the early stages of it's development have any importance? Just a meaningless group of cells?

So your criteria for something being "human" is simply genetic information? So are strands of DNA thus "human" by your definition, since that is where all the genetic information resides?

Strip away everything but the DNA, because that is the "human" part. All those DNA samples in crime labs all over the country are actually "humans" being imprisoned! I think we should pass laws giving "human" DNA full-fledged rights under the U.S. Constitution. To be consistent, that is the sort of loony argument you'd have to make, uruk.

Now that I am opposed to. I think abortion is justified under certain circumstances.

So you're okay with abortion when you get to set the circumstances & criteria, as opposed to allowing other people set their criteria? Sounds to me like you're pro-choice, in the sense that you'd like to choose for everyone else.

Nice :rolleyes:

[uruk]

So your criteria for something being "human" is simply genetic information? So are strands of DNA thus "human" by your definition, since that is where all the genetic information resides?

Strip away everything but the DNA, because that is the "human" part. All those DNA samples in crime labs all over the country are actually "humans" being imprisoned! I think we should pass laws giving "human" DNA full-fledged rights under the U.S. Constitution. To be consistent, that is the sort of loony argument you'd have to make, uruk. No. My argument is that a human being is created when the ovum is fertilized. That is how human beings procreate. That is how you make a human being.
You start by fertilizing an ovum.

It is silly to argue that the zygote is not a human being simply because it a just a few cells and does not resemble a full fledge human being. Is a person who is severly malformed not a human being? Even in the case of anacephaly, not having a brain does not mean that the infant is not human. What makes it physiologicaly a human being?

The DNA by it self, especially derived from full fledge differentiated cells, is not in and of itself a human being. It is the context the DNA is in that makes a human being.

The DNA in the cells of a zygote is what is guiding the zygote into the fully developed form of a human being. Fertilization and the resultant zygote are the first stages in the developement of a human being. No fertilized ovum, No zygote. No Zygote, no Foetus. No foetus, no fully formed human being.

So tell me again that a fertilized ovum is not a human being.


So you're okay with abortion when you get to set the circumstances & criteria, as opposed to allowing other people set their criteria? Sounds to me like you're pro-choice, in the sense that you'd like to choose for everyone else.

Nice :rolleyes:

Who says that I get to set the circumstances and criteria? It's the people who choose.
I am just presenting my argument. Right now the law says a zygote and foetus is not a human being. I just disagree with that assesment. It seems to me to be a institutionalized denial of facts in favor of convienance or expediancy.

I do not want Rowe vs. Wade reversed because of the what the consequences will be. What I would prefer is that people show some personal responsibility and protect themselves from creating unwanted pregnancies. And if they don't or can't prevent the unwanted pregnancy, at least give the developing person a chance at life via adoption if they can't deal with raising a child.

Aren't you glad your parents did not choose to have you aborted? Why deny the foetus that chance?

I think it should be moraly reprehensible to terminate a developing human life simply for the reason of inconvienance or expediancy. Seems to me to be a needless death of a human life.

But I know that is not realisitic to ask people to act responsibly. So right now it's just easier and legal to kill the developing person in the name of convienance and expediancy than to owe up to our mistakes and deal with the consequences of our actions.

Don't you think it would be a better world if we did?

[MattusMaximus]

So tell me again that a fertilized ovum is not a human being.

Okay, a fertilized ovum is not a human being.

Who says that I get to set the circumstances and criteria? It's the people who choose.
I am just presenting my argument. Right now the law says a zygote and foetus is not a human being. I just disagree with that assesment. It seems to me to be a institutionalized denial of facts in favor of convienance or expediancy.

By arguing that this law is a good idea, you are trying to set the circumstances and criteria for everyone else. Duh :rolleyes:

I do not want Rowe vs. Wade reversed because of the what the consequences will be.

If this law, which you think is such a good idea, were to stick, then it would most definitely overturn Roe v. Wade. So I don't see how your argument is at all consistent.

What I would prefer is that people show some personal responsibility and protect themselves from creating unwanted pregnancies. And if they don't or can't prevent the unwanted pregnancy, at least give the developing person a chance at life via adoption if they can't deal with raising a child.

In other words, no abortions - ever. Which is tantamount to overturning Roe v. Wade. You're tripping over your own arguments.

Aren't you glad your parents did not choose to have you aborted? Why deny the foetus that chance?

Let's suppose your daughter/sister/wife/mother was raped and subsequently impregnated. You would force her to carry the pregnancy to term, even if she didn't want to?

I think it should be moraly reprehensible to terminate a developing human life simply for the reason of inconvienance or expediancy. Seems to me to be a needless death of a human life.

Life, yes. Human, no.

But I know that is not realisitic to ask people to act responsibly. So right now it's just easier and legal to kill the developing person in the name of convienance and expediancy than to owe up to our mistakes and deal with the consequences of our actions.

Don't you think it would be a better world if we did?

I think it would be a better world if certain people would pull their heads out of their rear ends.

[UnrepentantSinner]

This is a rediculous law, but that doesn't mean we need to have rediculous arguments to oppose it. I applaud those of you who responded to the lack of critical thinking that some have exhibited in this thread. :thumbsup:

[uruk]

Okay, a fertilized ovum is not a human being. Everybody has a right to thier opinion. Just make sure you think about how you arived at that opinion.


By arguing that this law is a good idea, you are trying to set the circumstances and criteria for everyone else. Duh :rolleyes: I understand that the people who are trying to pass that law are using it to overturn Rowe vs. Wade. I do not agree with thier reasons or thier intentions but I agree with thier statement that a fertilized ovum is a human being. I think that they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Remember that just because you rule a zygote human does not mean that we should reverse Rowe vs. Wade. There are good reasons why it should stay in place.

If this law, which you think is such a good idea, were to stick, then it would most definitely overturn Roe v. Wade. So I don't see how your argument is at all consistent. I think it is a good idea for what it will mean for cloned human beings when get around to producing them. I don't think we should outlaw cloning human beings but they definitly should be given the same rights as person who was created by the usual means.



In other words, no abortions - ever. Which is tantamount to overturning Roe v. Wade. You're tripping over your own arguments. No, that would mean there would be no need for a law like Rowe vs. Wade. Abortions would still be necessary for medical reasons and possibly rape. In that case I feel it is the woman's right to choose.
It's her life against the child's life. I don't think anybody has the right legaly or morally to take that choice away from her.

I just do not approve of abortions for reasons having to do with personal irresponsibility.
Why should the child die simply because the parents do not want to be inconvienenced by the pregnancy or child? It's thier mistake, they should take responsibility for thier mistake.

They don't have to raise the child, but they should at least allow it the same chance at life that we all have. Who are you or any of us to take that right (a right we all have) away from it?


Let's suppose your daughter/sister/wife/mother was raped and subsequently impregnated. You would force her to carry the pregnancy to term, even if she didn't want to? I have already stated before:
I see no issue with abortion if it means the survival of the mother's life.
I cannot begrudge any woman who choses her life over the life of the child who's gestation is a direct threat to her life. No one has the authority to force the woman into a choice under those conditions. Conception due to rape might also fall into this catagory.




Life, yes. Human, no. Please explain to me how a zygote that was produced by human gametes, that would have grown into a fully formed human if it had not been terminated, not be human before it was terminated?

What is your criteria for being a human being?

When does that group of developing cells go from not being human to being human?

[uruk]

I guess an easier question would be: Why is a fertilized ovum not a human being?

[MattusMaximus]

I guess an easier question would be: Why is a fertilized ovum not a human being?

Can a fertilized ovum think? Does it show neural activity?

That's pretty hard to do in the absence of, oh I don't know... neurons.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, it's definitely in conflict with Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure how they can make the case to go against that.

At any rate, one of the points I raised when I said that no one truly believes "Abortion is murder" is that I doubt if ND (or anyone else) plans to prosecute the woman for having an abortion. They feel OK going after the doctor, but if it were actually murder, the doctor's role (that of a contract murderer) would be less culpable than the woman (the person asking for and either paying the fee or causing it to be paid).


Also, if it's murder (because the fetus is a human), why do most pro-lifers make exception when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest? If it's murder because the fetus is human, then the circumstances of the conception are irrelevant. Yet very few pro-lifers want to force a victim of rape or incest to carry it to term.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, if the medical choice is the life of the fetus or the life of the mother, how does the ND law let you choose the mother's life (by aborting the fetus)? Again, if it's a human being, you can't just kill someone to save yourself. You'd be very hard-pressed to make that into a case of self-defense. (Allowing that would open up a can of worms--can I save my life in a traffic emergency by intentionally running over a pedestrian?)

[uruk]

Can a fertilized ovum think? Does it show neural activity?

That's pretty hard to do in the absence of, oh I don't know... neurons.

And it would be impossible to have neurons if the ovum was never fertilized.

The cells that would eventualy become neurons are in there waiting to be differentiated by the splitting stem cells guided by the unique DNA in that ovum.

And a newborn infant really isn't thinking so much as responding to instinct. So a new born is not human by the first part of your criteria.

A person who is in a coma does not cease to be a human because he/she has ceased to think while in the coma. They cease to be a fully functioning human but they are still human.

[uruk]

Yeah, it's definitely in conflict with Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure how they can make the case to go against that.

At any rate, one of the points I raised when I said that no one truly believes "Abortion is murder" is that I doubt if ND (or anyone else) plans to prosecute the woman for having an abortion. They feel OK going after the doctor, but if it were actually murder, the doctor's role (that of a contract murderer) would be less culpable than the woman (the person asking for and either paying the fee or causing it to be paid). I think it is because thier agenda is more political than one of conviction. It's about attaining and holding political power to push a larger agenda.

And it's easier to go after the doctor who services several women than to go after each individual woman. Plus you would be alienating women from your cause if you blamed them.


Also, if it's murder (because the fetus is a human), why do most pro-lifers make exception when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest? If it's murder because the fetus is human, then the circumstances of the conception are irrelevant. Yet very few pro-lifers want to force a victim of rape or incest to carry it to term.
I guess in religious thinking incest would be an abomination and the foetus should not live. In biological terms the product of incest has a higher chance of ending up with a genetic defect. Personal I don't see either as a valid reason to terminate. But there could be traumatic psychological problems witht he mother carrying the child to term.

This would certainly be an issue with rape. I have personally known two friends who became pregnant due to rape but chose to keep the child and are happily raising the child.

But I can see where the rape may have been so brutal and traumatic that the woman may no be able to carry the child to term and remain psychologicaly intact. Hopefully medical technology will advance enough where the mother can be relived of the burden and the child can live.

But again, I cannot begrudge a woman who chooses to terminate the child under those conditions.

[Beerina]

Actually, I'd question whether the female egg or a sperm cell meets the definition of "organism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

A human is able to reproduce, but a single ovum? I doubt that. Of course, not even all humans have that capability...

Healthy individuals of the appropriate age, I suppose. Everybody else too old, broken down, or young, would count, too. But also inherent in that definition is being a separate, produced individual, which clearly isn't "of age" to reproduce, if healthy, at least in humans.

As for a single, fertilized egg, well, a human is a multicellular colony, so a single cell is no more a human than a brick is a house. It doesn't even make any sense.

In any case, this will have zero effect on abortion legality.

[Uncayimmy]

In any case, this will have zero effect on abortion legality.
I agree.

From Roe v Wade (http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/):

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

and later

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

[uruk]

Also, if the medical choice is the life of the fetus or the life of the mother, how does the ND law let you choose the mother's life (by aborting the fetus)? Again, if it's a human being, you can't just kill someone to save yourself. You'd be very hard-pressed to make that into a case of self-defense. (Allowing that would open up a can of worms--can I save my life in a traffic emergency by intentionally running over a pedestrian?)

Current law states that you can take the life of another if they present a direct threat to your life. The difference is that the child is not intentionaly threating your life.

But the child's life is dependant on the mother's life. Under certain conditions if the mother dies so does the child so it is pointless to let both die when the mother could be saved by terminating the pregnancy. (since the child would obviously not survive without the mother if the threat was very early in the pregnancy.)

In the case of your hypothetical situation, (which would not quite be the same as the pregnancy issue) It would depend on the conditions, but in any event the worst case would be that you be charged with involuntary manslaughter. It's hard to convict when the issue of self preservation under threat is present.

[uruk]

As for a single, fertilized egg, well, a human is a multicellular colony, so a single cell is no more a human than a brick is a house. It doesn't even make any sense.

The single cell of the fertilized egg is not the same thing as an individual brick of a house. The single brick of a house is the equivilent of a differentiated cell.

The differentiated cell comes from the initial cell of the fertilized ovum. No fertilized ovum, no differentiated cells, therfore no multicellular colony of a fully formed human.

So that single cell is a human because the fully formed human comes from that single cell.

As far asI know you can't get a human from a skin or muscle cell, You need the specialized cell combination of the sperm and ovum.

[Piero]

Uruk, you seem to make every argument except the important one: why is abortion wrong? The only reasonable foundation for a moral stance is the avoidance of pain. Can a set of cells where no neurons have yet developed feel pain? Nope. So what is it you are trying to protect? A "potential" human being? By your reasoning, the US should invade Mexico, because it is a "potential" enemy.

[uruk]

Uruk, you seem to make every argument except the important one: why is abortion wrong?

I do not think that all abortion is wrong. I just think that abortion for personal convieneance or irresponsibility does not justify the needless loss of life.

Abortion is wrong under these conditions because you are preventing a fertilized ovum (which is alive) from continuing into a fully developed person for no other reason than it being an inconvienance. From a moral stand point, it is a needless waste of the human life that could have been.

At one time we were all just a fertilized ovum. Everything we are now physiologicaly was in that fertilized ovum. Were you less a human at that point in your life. Was your life worth less then than it is now? Your mother did not seem to think so. She chose to let you develop into a fully formed person rather than abort you.

What is the difference between you, when you were a zygote, and a zygote that is going to be aborted? That your mother wanted you and the other did not? Does that change what those zygotes are?

Is it the choice of the mother that makes you human? Or is it that it was her choice that allowed you to become a fully developed human?


The only reasonable foundation for a moral stance is the avoidance of pain. Can a set of cells where no neurons have yet developed feel pain? Nope. There are people who were born without the capacity to feel pain. Are they less than human because they can't feel pain? Do we apply morality diffrerently to them because they feel no pain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

Again, it is because it is easy not the see the person that will be in that simple group of unfeeling, developing cells that makes it easy to terminate that life that would have been. It is still a human life in that group of growing multipling cells that you are preventing from continuing on.


So what is it you are trying to protect? A "potential" human being? By your reasoning, the US should invade Mexico, because it is a "potential" enemy.
Wasn't that reason why we invaded Iraq? Anyhoos joking aside, It is not the same thing. There are alot of things we do based on potentialities. Gambling, the stock market, loans, basicaly anything we plan or do based on what will or will not happen in the futur.

The differerence between you when you were a fertilized ovum and you now fully developed is time. The time it took for you to develop. Everything you are geneticaly and physiologicaly now was all there in that single celled fertilized ovum. That fertilized ovum was you. If that zygote was aborted there would be no you. Aren't you glad that your mother protected you then?

Don't other fertilied ovum deserve the same as you did?

The only reason we say it is not human is because it does not have all the fully formed, recognizable features of a fully developed human. But it's all there. The brain, the legs, nose, the liver. It's all there in that fertilized ovum starting to form. All it needs is time to develop.

[sophia8]

ts
Aren't you glad your parents did not choose to have you aborted? That is, word for word, an argument that anti-abortionists constantly use. Are you sure you're pro-choice?
Let's take a look at it: "You wouldn't be here if you mother had had an abortion."
In that case, you wouldn't be here. Period. There would be no 'you' reading this thread and complaining about not being here. You also wouldn't be here if:
your father's sperm hadn't made it to your mother's ovum;
your mother had had a natural miscarriage;
your parents had used contraception;
your parents' contraception hadn't failed;
your parents had made love on another day;
your parents had never met;
Your grandparents had never met....

And so on. We are all here today because of an infinite series of happening and chances. Singling out "You wouldn't be here if you had been
aborted" is a really, REALLY lame argument that nobody should use.

[Safe-Keeper]

So tell me again that a fertilized ovum is not a human being.Tell me again how butter and sugar together in a bowl isn't a cake.

Aren't you glad your parents did not choose to have you aborted?Don't you realize this is irrelevant to the discussion?

I cannot begrudge any woman who choses her life over the life of the child who's gestation is a direct threat to her life. No one has the authority to force the woman into a choice under those conditions. Conception due to rape might also fall into this catagory.What about girls who can't prove they were raped?

[AWPrime]

So tell me again that a fertilized ovum is not a human being.It might have human dna, but it isn't a being.

[ponderingturtle]

A human is not a cake. It has fewer ingrediants. Just two.

So humans are candy not cake, as it is a long involved process of how you treat those ingrediants determines what outcome you get.

[ponderingturtle]

You seem to be making a facetious assumption. If the zygoteperson does not implant on the womb or is miscarried it is due to natural causes or accident. How is the woman responsible for that?


Fixed it for you.

[Ladewig]

At one time we were all just a fertilized ovum. Everything we are now physiologicaly was in that fertilized ovum. Were you less a human at that point in your life.

Yes. I am prepared to define a human as something that is capable of living outside of a womb. I would also listen to arguments that a human beings have heartbeats. A fertilized ovum is tissue: simply a collection of cells. I am also prepared to listen to the argument that human beings are macroscopic.

I appreciate that it is difficult to draw the line and say today we are looking at a human being but yesterday we were not. I appreciate that very late term abortions can look like murder. But I cannot believe that the solution is to define fertilized ova as people.

[slingblade]

Places I'd like to live:

North Dakota

[MattusMaximus]

And it would be impossible to have neurons if the ovum was never fertilized.

The cells that would eventualy become neurons are in there waiting to be differentiated by the splitting stem cells guided by the unique DNA in that ovum.

So you admit that a fertilized ovum does not have neurons, is incapable of thought, is incapable of feeling pain, correct?

Thus, using these criteria among others, I maintain that such a bundle of cells does not qualify as a human being.

Potentially, it could be a human if it got to a more advanced stage of development. Just as you could potentially understand the point I'm attempting to make - but until you actually do get the point your arguments are still erroneous.

And a newborn infant really isn't thinking so much as responding to instinct. So a new born is not human by the first part of your criteria.

Fail - nice strawman, uruk. Show me a healthy newborn that doesn't exhibit neural activity :rolleyes:

A person who is in a coma does not cease to be a human because he/she has ceased to think while in the coma. They cease to be a fully functioning human but they are still human.

Many people in comas do exhibit neural activity, you know. Try thinking a bit more about your arguments before you make them.

Of course, on that topic one must acknowledge that there are those unfortunate sods like Terri Schiavo, whose brain all but turned into mush. But that's for another thread.

[Aerik]

@uruk or anybody else who thinks abortions should be illegal based simply on calling an embryo a human being:

http://punkassblog.com/2006/04/24/Bluey-the-body-rights-thingamabob-teaches-dawn-eden-about-choice/


Bluey: Hi kids!

Kids: Hi Bluey!!

Bluey: Do you know where I escaped from?

Kids: The Land of Forced Body Mutilation!!

Bluey: That’s right! The Land of Forced Body Mutilation, where Grumpus Tuskamorts lurk around every corner waiting to steal parts of your body, whether you like it or not. Do you kids like Grumpus Tuskamorts?

Kids: Noooooo!!

Bluey: That’s good! Because Grumpus Tuskamorts don’t like you, either. They just like themselves. Why, look at me! I used to have a heart this big until one took it from me so he could use it. Now I can barely love anything at all.

Kids: Awwwww!

Bluey: Lucky for me, I was able to get away so I could warn you kids about the dangers of other people controlling your body. Now, I want to ask you kids a question. If your brother or sister was sick and needed one of your kidneys to live, would you choose give it to him or her?

Kids: Yes, Bluey!!

Bluey: That’s great! You would choose to give up your kidney to help out someone you love. You kids have big hearts… hey, can I have one?

[audience giggles]

Now, instead of your brother or sister, let’s say that a man from Nicaragua is sick and wanted your kidney so he could live. Would you choose to give him your kidney?

[audience murmurs, a few children raise their hands]

It’s okay, kids, there’s no right answer. Some of you would, and some of you wouldn’t. That’s the beauty of choice! Now, let’s say that same man flew here, cloroformed you, cut out your kidney, and left you in a pool of ice with a note to call 911 without asking permission first. Would that be okay?

Kids: Noooooo!!

Bluey: Good! He coerced you into giving up part of your body so he could live. And even though he was going to die if he didn’t, he had no right to take your body from you against your will. Only you can choose what to do with your body, kids. It’s the one thing to which you have an inalienable right. Can you say inalienable?

Kids: [silence]

Bluey: ….anyway, it’s all yours. If a baby or a fetus or a fireman or Saddam Hussein wanted to use your body so it could live, you have the right to say “no.” Now, does that give you a right to kill them if they don’t need to use your body to live?

Kids: Noooooo!!

Bluey: That’s fantastic! Now you kids understand why the “natural law argument” is a complete fallacy. There’s a big difference between killing someone and being required to give up part of your body against your will so they can live. I think you kids are ready to do battle with the evil Grumpus Tuskamorts now, don’t you?

Kids: Yeah!!


It doesn't matter even if you think a fetus or embryo is a person. It doesn't have a right to another person's body. Ever. Even at the expense of its life.

However, when it comes to these abortion laws, the legislatures disregard the distinction in Bluey's last paragraph. They deliberately turn this into murder.

Here's a comparison some people make to abortion: Imagine, currently, that you're driving a car and somebody jumps out into the street and you hit them. It's not your fault that they're injured. Should you be required to give up your kidney to save them?

But let's say you were driving drunk, and it is your fault. Should you then be required to give up your kidney to save them?

Pro-lifers often compare the second scenario to an unintended pregnancy.

Currently, the answer both morally and legally in either of the driving accident scenarios is NO. It's obvious somebody doesn't have the right to your body under any circumstances.

But these "pro-life" wingnuts will erase that basic right to bodily autonomy. Because they feel you don't have it. Because that is exactly what is at stake.

[Piero]

At one time we were all just a fertilized ovum. Everything we are now physiologicaly was in that fertilized ovum. Were you less a human at that point in your life. Was your life worth less then than it is now?
I had no nervous system, so there was no "I" to speak about.

What is the difference between you, when you were a zygote, and a zygote that is going to be aborted?
None. Though I object to your use of "you" to refer to a zygote. "I" was never a zygote.

There are people who were born without the capacity to feel pain. Are they less than human because they can't feel pain? Do we apply morality diffrerently to them because they feel no pain?
Pain includes psychological suffering.

Again, it is because it is easy not the see the person that will be in that simple group of unfeeling, developing cells that makes it easy to terminate that life that would have been. It is still a human life in that group of growing multipling cells that you are preventing from continuing on.
Easy not to see? Impossible to see, more likely. A group of cells do not constitute a person. A zygote can do exactly none of the things that characterize a person. It will eventually become a person, but calling a zygote a person is a category fallacy.

It is not the same thing. There are alot of things we do based on potentialities. Gambling, the stock market, loans, basicaly anything we plan or do based on what will or will not happen in the future.
Sorry, but I fail to see why it is not the same thing. By your reasoning, someone who has a million dollars and someone who asks for a million-dollar loan are in the same situation.

The differerence between you when you were a fertilized ovum and you now fully developed is time. The time it took for you to develop. Everything you are geneticaly and physiologicaly now was all there in that single celled fertilized ovum. That fertilized ovum was you. If that zygote was aborted there would be no you. Aren't you glad that your mother protected you then?
Again, "I" never was a fertilized ovum. My mother did not protect "me". At the time, "I" was not there yet. Hence, I cannot be glad she protected me, just as "I" couldn't regret it if she hadn't.

The only reason we say it is not human is because it does not have all the fully formed, recognizable features of a fully developed human. But it's all there. The brain, the legs, nose, the liver. It's all there in that fertilized ovum starting to form. All it needs is time to develop.
Great. That's why when I was born my mother told her friends she had just given birth to a mathematician, and in answer to her friends' puzzled look, she said: "Oh, all it needs is time to develop. But it's all there."

[JoeTheJuggler]

And it's easier to go after the doctor who services several women than to go after each individual woman. Plus you would be alienating women from your cause if you blamed them.
Yes, I know. But they surely don't believe that abortion is murder or that a zygote is a human being.

I guess in religious thinking incest would be an abomination and the foetus should not live. In biological terms the product of incest has a higher chance of ending up with a genetic defect. Personal I don't see either as a valid reason to terminate. But there could be traumatic psychological problems witht he mother carrying the child to term.

This would certainly be an issue with rape. I have personally known two friends who became pregnant due to rape but chose to keep the child and are happily raising the child.

But I can see where the rape may have been so brutal and traumatic that the woman may no be able to carry the child to term and remain psychologicaly intact. Hopefully medical technology will advance enough where the mother can be relived of the burden and the child can live.

But again, I cannot begrudge a woman who chooses to terminate the child under those conditions.
But you do blame women or doctors who terminate a pregnancy under other conditions?

This "abomination" status--how can you tell the difference? From the fetus' point of view, is there a difference between conception by rape or incest and conception under other circumstances?

An "abomination" is not a human being? Why not?

Again, this "abomination" business shows that no one really believes a zygote is a human being or that abortion is murder. If it were murder (because the fetus is human), it would be murder no matter what the circumstances of conception (think of the freeze-dried fetuses from IVF) and the woman would be just as guilty of a capital crime as the doctor.

[ponderingturtle]

Many people in comas do exhibit neural activity, you know. Try thinking a bit more about your arguments before you make them.

Of course, on that topic one must acknowledge that there are those unfortunate sods like Terri Schiavo, whose brain all but turned into mush. But that's for another thread.

I think she had plenty of autonomic nervous function, just no voluntary nervous function.

[Sun Countess]

The differerence between you when you were a fertilized ovum and you now fully developed is time. The time it took for you to develop. Everything you are geneticaly and physiologicaly now was all there in that single celled fertilized ovum. That fertilized ovum was you. If that zygote was aborted there would be no you. Aren't you glad that your mother protected you then? The difference between me when I was a fertilized ovum and me now is astronomical! Obviously I have no memory of being a fertilized ovum, but I'm guessing there wouldn't really be much to remember, seeing as I didn't have a functioning brain or any other functioning organs. I didn't have green eyes, I didn't like math, I didn't enjoy reading, and I wasn't a human being. If my mother didn't "protect" me, I wouldn't be here to protest her decision. As the fully-formed human being that I am now, I would absolutely stand up for her right to make that decision for her body.

Don't other fertilied ovum deserve the same as you did? Yes. All they deserve is the result of whatever random chance (which particular sperm meets which particular egg) and their own mother's choice dictate.

A zygote, an embryo, a fetus are all potential human beings, but that's all. Their mothers are most definitely human and they need to retain control of their own reproduction. (And honestly, it's such a cliche, but if men were the ones who had to endure a pregnancy, this discussion would never take place.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

I had no nervous system, so there was no "I" to speak about.

None. Though I object to your use of "you" to refer to a zygote. "I" was never a zygote.

Pain includes psychological suffering.

I think this line of thinking is on the right track.

Alonzo Fyfe has a somewhat clearer way of stating it, I think, using desire utilitarianism (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/12/better-place-selected-essays-on-desire.html).

He's got an essay (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/03/morality-and-being-human.html) on why saying something is "human" isn't really very good. It has a bit about abortion and desire utilitarianism. In my own words, I'd say it says that if there isn't the neural substrate for an entity to have desires that can be fulfilled or thwarted, then morally ending that entity is not equivalent to killing.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The difference between me when I was a fertilized ovum and me now is astronomical!

Yes. When I was a one-celled zygote, I had no desires that could be fulfilled or thwarted. Now I do.

[Cactus Wren]

My own experience, after years of debate on various abortion fora, is that it's useful to avoid the phrase "human being" in this debate precisely because it can so easily be distorted. Instead I use "person".

And the definition of "person" is simple. A person is that which is human, born, and alive. Anything that fails any one of these criteria is not a person.

[uruk]

That is, word for word, an argument that anti-abortionists constantly use. Are you sure you're pro-choice?
Let's take a look at it: "You wouldn't be here if you mother had had an abortion."
In that case, you wouldn't be here. Period. There would be no 'you' reading this thread and complaining about not being here. You also wouldn't be here if:
your father's sperm hadn't made it to your mother's ovum;
your mother had had a natural miscarriage;
your parents had used contraception;
your parents' contraception hadn't failed;
your parents had made love on another day;
your parents had never met;
Your grandparents had never met....

And so on. We are all here today because of an infinite series of happening and chances. Singling out "You wouldn't be here if you had been
aborted" is a really, REALLY lame argument that nobody should use.
Well, even though it was repeated by anti-abortionists does not make the statement any less true.
Can you prove the statement to be incorrect?

Besides that statement is just a very small part of my argument. Care to comment on the other arguments?

[JoeTheJuggler]

And the definition of "person" is simple. A person is that which is human, born, and alive. Anything that fails any one of these criteria is not a person.
So someone delivered via C-section isn't a person? Nor is a completely viable unborn third trimester fetus? Also, what if we had the technology to conduct gestation by a machine? Would such a human not be a person?

I think switching the word from "human" to "person" does nothing to advance the argument.

[Piero]

Alonzo Fyfe has a somewhat clearer way of stating it, I think, using desire utilitarianism (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/12/better-place-selected-essays-on-desire.html).
Thank you for the link, Joe. That's a very interesting blog.

[uruk]

Tell me again how butter and sugar together in a bowl isn't a cake. Cake is more than just butter and surgar. Check the recipe.
A human being is not a cake. The fertilized ovum is alive and will develop into a person.

You can't make a person without first fertilizing the ovum.

Don't you realize this is irrelevant to the discussion? How so? It illustrates how every living person, or persons who have ever lived, started out as a fertilized ovum. To say that the fertilized ovum is not a person does not make sense.

What about girls who can't prove they were raped? Nothing is ever black and white or cut and dry and no man made system is perfect. Those girls would also have trouble prosecuting the rapist in a court of law. It's a crappy world all over.
People always fall through the cracks in a system. It's called reality.

Look at it from the other side. Right now it is legal to terminate a devloping person for any reason at all. No questions asked. Moraly it stinks. But right now it is necessary to keep it legalized because the consequence of making it illegal would make thing worse rather than better.

In a perfect world people would exercise responisbility while having sex inorder to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

In a perfect world men would not rape women.

But reality is what it is.

[uruk]

It might have human dna, but it isn't a being.

Why not? Please explain.

The fertilized ovum is the first cell that you were made from. It was you many years ago.

You sprang from that cell. How was it not you? How can you not consider it a being when it is you when you first started?

[uruk]

Fixed it for you.

How does that change the meaning of the statement? How is the woman responsible for the life of the ovum/person if it does not implant in her womb?

Can you clarify?

[Cactus Wren]

So someone delivered via C-section isn't a person? Born by Ceasarian birth? Of course.

Nor is a completely viable unborn third trimester fetus? No. It's not born. Persons do not live inside or batten upon the bodies of other persons.

Also, what if we had the technology to conduct gestation by a machine? Would such a human not be a person? Now you're just being silly.

[uruk]

Yes. I am prepared to define a human as something that is capable of living outside of a womb. I would also listen to arguments that a human beings have heartbeats. You do know that the heart starts beating in the womb. So essentially you are making a arbitrary definition of human. Even though that human outside the womb starts it's life in the womb.

A fertilized ovum is tissue: simply a collection of cells. I am also prepared to listen to the argument that human beings are macroscopic. It's is more than just tissue. That "tissue" develops into a fully formed person independent of the mother given time. That differentiates it from lung tissue or brain tissue. There is a significant difference.

I appreciate that it is difficult to draw the line and say today we are looking at a human being but yesterday we were not. I appreciate that very late term abortions can look like murder. But I cannot believe that the solution is to define fertilized ova as people. Defineining a fertilized ova as a person is just acknowledging biological facts. Legality is a different subject.

I know the people in North Dakota have an ulterior motive for making the definition law. For that reason alone thier law should not pass.

I'm arguing scientific fact and morality not political power plays.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You do know that the heart starts beating in the womb. So essentially you are making a arbitrary definition of human. Even though that human outside the womb starts it's life in the womb.
Are you suggesting that "a beating heart" defines human life? And how is that not arbitrary?


Defineining a fertilized ova as a person is just acknowledging biological facts. Legality is a different subject.
(Ova is the plural of ovum.)
Legally defining anything as a person or a human is not a matter of biological fact. Biology doesn't work through legislation.

[Piero]

Defineining a fertilized ova as a person is just acknowledging biological facts. Legality is a different subject.
"Person" is not a biological category.
By the way, what's your position on the death penalty?

[JoeTheJuggler]

A fertilized ovum is tissue: simply a collection of cells.
Just for the record, a fertilized ovum is a single cell--a zygote. By the 5th day, it becomes a blastocyst. (I'm not sure at what stage true "tissue" is present, but a single cell really couldn't be considered even "tissue".)

It's just an ovum that a sperm has entered and combined nuclear DNA (so that it is a diploid cell).

[uruk]

So you admit that a fertilized ovum does not have neurons, is incapable of thought, is incapable of feeling pain, correct? Of course. The differentiated cells have not yet formed. In time they will form those organs and have those attributes because that is what a fertilized ovum does. It becomes a fully formed person. Everything that you are now is right there in that bundle of cells. The only difference between you and that group of cells is time.

Thus, using these criteria among others, I maintain that such a bundle of cells does not qualify as a human being.
Just because at that point in time it can't yet feel or think? That is the only thing that separates you from being an inhuman collection of cells. Not your genenome, not the reproductive process. Not the biology.

Of course you are saying that at one time early in your development you werent human. Some how some thing along the way divided you from being not human to being human.


Potentially, it could be a human if it got to a more advanced stage of development. Just as you could potentially understand the point I'm attempting to make - but until you actually do get the point your arguments are still erroneous. So essentially you are saying that only when the organs are formed does that group of cells become a human. It makes no difference to you that all those organs come from that fertilized ovum. Or that those organs begin to form with in the first month.



Fail - nice strawman, uruk. Show me a healthy newborn that doesn't exhibit neural activity :rolleyes:

Many people in comas do exhibit neural activity, you know. Try thinking a bit more about your arguments before you make them. Your first statement said "though"t. So now you shift from thought to neural activity. Not all neural activity is thought. Thought is a specific kind of neural activity.

Do two newly formed neurons in a zygote sending signals between each other count as neural activity? Or are you going to shift back to thought?

[uruk]

"Person" is not a biological category.
By the way, what's your position on the death penalty?

Sorry, that should have been human being.


I'm against the death penalty under certain circumstance. The legal system is not perfect. Innocent people have been wrongfully convicted and executed.

When a capital case is overturned because of error, you can't bring back the executed person.

If there is any doubt you should not execute the convicted.

[uruk]

@uruk or anybody else who thinks abortions should be illegal based simply on calling an embryo a human being:

http://punkassblog.com/2006/04/24/Bluey-the-body-rights-thingamabob-teaches-dawn-eden-about-choice/



It doesn't matter even if you think a fetus or embryo is a person. It doesn't have a right to another person's body. Ever. Even at the expense of its life.

However, when it comes to these abortion laws, the legislatures disregard the distinction in Bluey's last paragraph. They deliberately turn this into murder.

Here's a comparison some people make to abortion: Imagine, currently, that you're driving a car and somebody jumps out into the street and you hit them. It's not your fault that they're injured. Should you be required to give up your kidney to save them?

But let's say you were driving drunk, and it is your fault. Should you then be required to give up your kidney to save them?

Pro-lifers often compare the second scenario to an unintended pregnancy.

Currently, the answer both morally and legally in either of the driving accident scenarios is NO. It's obvious somebody doesn't have the right to your body under any circumstances.

But these "pro-life" wingnuts will erase that basic right to bodily autonomy. Because they feel you don't have it. Because that is exactly what is at stake.

Interesting, but the issue of pregnancy is not the same as the car crash scenario.
The reproduction process is not an accident. It can happen by accident but the conditions are defined by biology not chance.

The foetus is dependent on the mother for survival and development. There is no intent on the part of the foetus to use the mothers body. It is biology. The reproduction process requires the use of the mothers body for procreation. That dependancy not a matter of legal rights, it a biological reality. It's the reproductive process.

It sucks from a indiviual rights stand point, but reality is what it is. Hopefully technology might be able to make this a moot issue.

And the reason everyone is trying hard to deny the existance of the potential human in the zygote is to keep issue of the rights of the infant that will be from conflicting with the mothers rights.

That is why pregnancy is so contraversial from a legal stand point. And there is no neat, cut and dry answers from a legal stand point.

Legaly I can see where the rights of the mother, who already has an established life with relationships and memories and experiances can over rule the rights of the infant who's life outside the womb has not yet been established. You can't miss what you never had, right?

But what you can't deny is that that developing group of cells is alive and it is a human life. It's just that legaly it is not considered a person in light of the mother's life or rights.

I would also like to stress that I am not for making abortion illegal. What I would preferr is that the issue be sociological rather than legislative. As I've said before if we would just exercise personal responsibilty there would be no need to pass a law to make abortion legal. There would just be no need for abortion except for medical reasons.

But reality is what it is and making abortion illegal is worse than keeping it legal.

[Piero]

Uruk, your view on abortion is morally indefensible. You are proposing a course of action that would cause great suffering to some while causing benefit to none. A pregnant woman may not want to have a child for a variety of reasons. From your point of view, she should not abort at any stage, because from the fertilization of the ovum she is carrying a human being within her. That's a fallacy: a human genome does not a human being make. Maybe you should stop cutting your hair, because after all you are killing cells that carry your genome.

Your whole argument hinges on defining a human being as something for which "potential" and "actual" cannot be distinguished. By your logic, a block of marble and Michelangelo's David are the same thing.
Yes, a zygote can potentially become a human being, but when it is aborted, what dies is a cell, not a human being. You are not killing the potential human being, because that human being does not yet exist. In fact, killing a zygote cannot possibly be construed as murder: for one thing, there is no guarantee that it will ever become a human being, because it could be aborted spontaneously.

As I said before, the only rationale for morality is the avoidance of pain, in its wider sense. An action that causes no pain cannot be deemed inmoral in any reasonable sense, so aborting a zygote cannot reasonably be forbidden. On the other hand, forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child is guaranteed to make at least one person suffer, and possibly many more, including the child whose life you are so keen to protect.

Finally, you cannot consistently be against abortion and in favour of the death penalty.

[Piero]

Interesting, but the issue of pregnancy is not the same as the car crash scenario.
The reproduction process is not an accident. It can happen by accident but the conditions are defined by biology not chance.

The foetus is dependent on the mother for survival and development. There is no intent on the part of the foetus to use the mothers body. It is biology. The reproduction process requires the use of the mothers body for procreation. That dependancy not a matter of legal rights, it a biological reality. It's the reproductive process.

It sucks from a indiviual rights stand point, but reality is what it is. Hopefully technology might be able to make this a moot issue.

And the reason everyone is trying hard to deny the existance of the potential human in the zygote is to keep issue of the rights of the infant that will be from conflicting with the mothers rights.

That is why pregnancy is so contraversial from a legal stand point. And there is no neat, cut and dry answers from a legal stand point.

Legaly I can see where the rights of the mother, who already has an established life with relationships and memories and experiances can over rule the rights of the infant who's life outside the womb has not yet been established. You can't miss what you never had, right?

But what you can't deny is that that developing group of cells is alive and it is a human life. It's just that legaly it is not considered a person in light of the mother's life or rights.

I would also like to stress that I am not for making abortion illegal. What I would preferr is that the issue be sociological rather than legislative. As I've said before if we would just exercise personal responsibilty there would be no need to pass a law to make abortion legal. There would just be no need for abortion except for medical reasons.

But reality is what it is and making abortion illegal is worse than keeping it legal.
I agree with many things you say here (though not with all of them). I don't think abortion should be taken lightly, and become a sort of contraceptive method. Nor do I agree with considering abortion as a body rights issue: a foetus is not an organ in the mother's body. I would certainly be against aborting a foetus, with its developed neural network and the capacity to perceive its environment. So there must be a restriction on the timing of abortion. What the limit should be I have no idea, but surely we could establish a reasonably safe one, one that would make it highly unlikely that the group of aborted cells perceives anything about the process.

But I think your position is untenable, and does not contribute to a better solution of the problem.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If there is any doubt you should not execute the convicted.

That's why the legal line that's been drawn (first trimester) is where it is.

There is some point between fertilization and birth where the fetus has the ability to have desires that may be fulfilled or thwarted. We're not exactly sure where it is, but we're reasonably certain it's not before the end of the first trimester.

(I think the legal standard you're looking for is "reasonable doubt" not "any doubt". If it were "any doubt" we couldn't possible convict any criminal ever.)

[uruk]

I had no nervous system, so there was no "I" to speak about. It was the zygote from which the "I" came from. The cells that make up your brain from which the "I" is derived was once the dividing cells in a zygote.


None. Though I object to your use of "you" to refer to a zygote. "I" was never a zygote. How can you deny that? Did you come into being from somethng other than a zygote? Where you created and born in the same manner as the rest of us?


Pain includes psychological suffering. Two different kinds of pain you are talking about there.


Easy not to see? Impossible to see, more likely. A group of cells do not constitute a person. A zygote can do exactly none of the things that characterize a person. It will eventually become a person, but calling a zygote a person is a category fallacy. You keep forgeting that people come from zygotes. The zygote is just an early stage of "you". The difference is the perspective of time you are looking at.


Sorry, but I fail to see why it is not the same thing. By your reasoning, someone who has a million dollars and someone who asks for a million-dollar loan are in the same situation. That is not the same thing. Your example would be more accurate if you say that a person who has a million dollars and some one who is going to recieve a million dollars in 9 months is still a millionaire. The possesion of the million dollars is certain, the difference is 9 months time.

The fertilized cell will develop into a fully formed human being, barring anything that will prevent it. There is no question of it developing into anything other than a human being if left to come to term.


Again, "I" never was a fertilized ovum. My mother did not protect "me". At the time, "I" was not there yet. Hence, I cannot be glad she protected me, just as "I" couldn't regret it if she hadn't. The fertilized ovum grew into you, therfore you were once a fertilized ovum. The zygote that developed into you grew inside your mother womb therefore you were protected" by your mother. She chose not to abort the zygote that developed into you therefore the zygote continued to grow into you.


Great. That's why when I was born my mother told her friends she had just given birth to a mathematician, and in answer to her friends' puzzled look, she said: "Oh, all it needs is time to develop. But it's all there." Your mother told her friends that she gave birth to a baby. There is no way for your mother to know that you would become a mathmetician.

But what she could say is that she would give birth to a human baby the moment she became aware she was pregnant.

I mean she could not have given birth to anything else.

[MattusMaximus]

By uruk's reasoning, we should automatically award medical degrees & practices to every student who enters medical school, because they are "potential" doctors :rolleyes:

[JoeTheJuggler]

It was the zygote from which the "I" came from. The cells that make up your brain from which the "I" is derived was once the dividing cells in a zygote.
So what? You could say that all the sperm that doesn't make a baby is potentially a person. With cloning technology, you could say the same of any cell in the body.


You keep forgeting that people come from zygotes. The zygote is just an early stage of "you". The difference is the perspective of time you are looking at.
This is just begging the question.


The fertilized cell will develop into a fully formed human being, barring anything that will prevent it. There is no question of it developing into anything other than a human being if left to come to term.
And every human being someday will become a corpse. Should I then treat a living person as I would a corpse?

It's not merely a matter of the passage of time that distinguishes a zygote from a living person from a corpse. These three are given very different legal statuses that reflect their different capacities for having desires that might be fulfilled or thwarted.

BTW, I prefer to use that approach rather issues of the ability to feel pain or subjective consciousness. (That discussion is probably a whole other thread in itself.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

By uruk's reasoning, we should automatically award medical degrees & practices to every student who enters medical school, because they are "potential" doctors :rolleyes:

Or just write up a death certificate and cremate or bury every zygote. While it's not 100% certain that every zygote will become a human, it is 100% certain that they will all eventually die. . .sooner or later.

One of my favorite rants is the whole "It's a child not a choice". Why not say, "It's an adolescent, not a choice" or "It's a senior citizen, not a choice"?

[uruk]

Yes, I know. But they surely don't believe that abortion is murder or that a zygote is a human being. Some do. My mother is devotely Catholic and believes both statements. She is opposed to Rowe vs. Wade on both moral and religious grounds. But she accepts the legal ruling. She does not like it, but she isn't going to bomb them either.


But you do blame women or doctors who terminate a pregnancy under other conditions? The choice is the mother's to ternimate so the blame would be hers.
The doctor is providing the service. I do know that some doctors suggest to the mother to opt to give the child up for adoption So the mother is given alternatives.

This "abomination" status--how can you tell the difference? From the fetus' point of view, is there a difference between conception by rape or incest and conception under other circumstances? Incest can be determined geneticaly. Rape is context only. The religious follow what they believe the bible tells them and they think and act accordingly, for the most part.

Personaly I don't agree with thier mind set. I'm basing my opinion on biology and my own sense of morals.

There would be no difference as far as the foetus is concerned. But like anything religious or legal ther are extenuating circumstance and context.

An "abomination" is not a human being? Why not? From thier line of thinking, thier religious beliefs makes the determination. They feel it is not a human because it was not concieved in accordance to god's law.


Again, this "abomination" business shows that no one really believes a zygote is a human being or that abortion is murder. If it were murder (because the fetus is human), it would be murder no matter what the circumstances of conception (think of the freeze-dried fetuses from IVF) and the woman would be just as guilty of a capital crime as the doctor. I gree with you for the most part. But there are some who hold to thier convictions ridgedly and do see it as murder except for whatever accomodates thier religious beliefs. There are always exceptions to rules for whatever reasons. Or everyone is a hypocrite to some extent if you wish.

[uruk]

Are you suggesting that "a beating heart" defines human life? And how is that not arbitrary? I was not defining a beating heart as human life, I was trying to illustrate that the line, If there is one, is not so clearly defined. And that defining a human by a beating heart is arbitrary.


(Ova is the plural of ovum.)
Legally defining anything as a person or a human is not a matter of biological fact. Biology doesn't work through legislation.[/QUOTE] Exactly, Biology defines what is alive or what is a human being. Legislation defines the rights that human life has and at which point it has those rights.

The legal definition of a human life is separate from the biological definition.

[Alex Libman]

Politicians can't "give human status". Human fertilized eggs are in fact human fertilized eggs. That doesn't mean they have a right to life though - that comes with physical autonomy (i.e. birth), at which point the baby can exist without violating the rights of its host.

[Piero]

I mean she could not have given birth to anything else.
Then you don't know my mother!:D

Uruk, I was never a zygote. I cannot say exactly when I began to be, but I can certainly say that there was a time interval after fertilization when I wasn't yet.

If you kill me, that's wrong because I don't want to be killed. Even if I was desperate, and asked you to help me commit suicide, you should first evaluate the alternatives and chose the one that would cause the least suffering. If I am suffering from a painful variety of terminal cancer, and there is nothing anybody can do to alleviate my suffering, then you should help me kill myself. If I want to commit suicide because my wife left me, then you should try to help me in some other way. The point is that an essential requisite in judging the morality of actions is the existence of a being who can perceive pain, in the broad sense of being able to suffer because of unfulfilled desires. You can build a case for becoming a vegetarian based on the desire to avoid animal suffering; I have yet to see a good argument against eating plants based on the desire to avoid their suffering. What's the difference between a plant and an animal? The relevant one in this case is the capacity to feel pain.

What's the difference between a plant and a zygote? In this context, none. Both lack the capacity to perceive pain, so none of them should be the object of discussions about morality. It does not make sense to apply moral judgements to non-sentient beings.

Why was "I" never a zygote? Obviously, because what makes "me" a person (in the morally interesting sense) is my capacity to feel pain. Yes, the zygote was one of the stages of development of my body. But that's morally irrelevant. For one thing, the cells in my body change continuously, so the only thing that makes me "me" is my mind, an emergent phenomenon of neural interaction.

[Piero]

These three are given very different legal statuses that reflect their different capacities for having desires that might be fulfilled or thwarted.

BTW, I prefer to use that approach rather issues of the ability to feel pain or subjective consciousness. (That discussion is probably a whole other thread in itself.)
I think they are more or less equivalent, if you equate "feeling pain" with "having your desires thwarted". But I agree: referring to desires makes the whole issue clearer.

[Piero]

Hey, I've just become a scholar! :D

[uruk]

Uruk, your view on abortion is morally indefensible. You are proposing a course of action that would cause great suffering to some while causing benefit to none. My biological view on abortion is that abortion is terminating a human life. I believe there are moral reasons to terminate a human life and reasons that are not moral.

A pregnant woman may not want to have a child for a variety of reasons. From your point of view, she should not abort at any stage, because from the fertilization of the ovum she is carrying a human being within her. That's a fallacy: a human genome does not a human being make. Maybe you should stop cutting your hair, because after all you are killing cells that carry your genome. There is a difference between a cell in a zygote and hair cell. As I mention before it is not he genome alone but the context of that genome. A zygote will become a human being. A hair cell will not.
And yes I do agree that ther are good reasons for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, but I also believe that there are reasons that do not justify the termination of a pregnancy.

[quote]Your whole argument hinges on defining a human being as something for which "potential" and "actual" cannot be distinguished. By your logic, a block of marble and Michelangelo's David are the same thing. There is a differerance. A marble block can be anything the artist sees in the block. A zygote will always develop into nothing but a human being if left to come to term therefore a zygote is a human being because it can't develop into anything else other than a human being.

Yes, a zygote can potentially become a human being, but when it is aborted, what dies is a cell, not a human being. You are not killing the potential human being, because that human being does not yet exist. In fact, killing a zygote cannot possibly be construed as murder: for one thing, there is no guarantee that it will ever become a human being, because it could be aborted spontaneously. When that cell dies so does the human life that it would have become.

Legaly you can sue for the loss of money that you could have earned from a job due to wrongfull termination or the loss of potential earning capability due to the death of a person. http://www.ualberta.ca/PAID/nov97.htm Those earnings do not yet exist and there is no guarantee that you would have earned that money but the law recognises that money could have been earned had you not lost your job or life.

Appernetly it is legal to recognize potential money. Why is it different for a potential person? It is soley because of the rights of the mother over the rights of the potential life. Not biology.

Killing a zygote is not considerd murder because the law does not recognize it as murder. Killing a zygote does kill the life that could have been. Biologicaly it terminates a life.

As I said before, the only rationale for morality is the avoidance of pain, in its wider sense. An action that causes no pain cannot be deemed inmoral in any reasonable sense, so aborting a zygote cannot reasonably be forbidden. On the other hand, forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child is guaranteed to make at least one person suffer, and possibly many more, including the child whose life you are so keen to protect. It's immoral because you are terminating a life needlessly (under the circumstances I stated in earlier posts). Not all sufferning is immoral just as not all killing is immoral.

I believe that abortion should not be made illegal because that would force women into performing abortions under dangerous conditions that would threaten thier lives.

That is why I also have no issue with abortions for pregnancies that present imminent threat to the mother's life.

Nothing is black and white.

Finally, you cannot consistently be against abortion and in favour of the death penalty.
I see that as a false dicotomy but I am against the death penalty for the reason I mentioned in a previous post. But I am also not ignorant of the deterent that the death penalty presents.

It still doesn't prevent all capital crimes but it does make one or two think twice about it.

[uruk]

By uruk's reasoning, we should automatically award medical degrees & practices to every student who enters medical school, because they are "potential" doctors :rolleyes:

You are talking apples and oranges. A potential human being is not the same thing as a potential doctor. It's biology that makes a potential human. It's education that makes a potential doctor.

[uruk]

Or just write up a death certificate and cremate or bury every zygote. While it's not 100% certain that every zygote will become a human, it is 100% certain that they will all eventually die. . .sooner or later. It is also 100% certain that zygote that comes to term will produce a human being and not a dog.

[JoeTheJuggler]

A zygote will always develop into nothing but a human being if left to come to term
Except when it doesn't. In other words, a zygote will not always develop into a human being.



therefore a zygote is a human being because it can't develop into anything else other than a human being.
A human being will always become a corpse--always. Therefore a human being is a corpse.

Does that make sense?


When that cell dies so does the human life that it would have become.
So what? Here's your logic: x will (usually) turn into y; therefore x is y.

I will turn into a corpse. (In this case it's absolutely 100% certain, unlike the zygote turning into a human being.) Am I therefore a corpse?

You're confusing "will be" for "is", and then trying to make a moral argument based on that. It's no more legitimate than my asserting that a living human should be treated as a corpse.

[uruk]

Then you don't know my mother!:D

Uruk, I was never a zygote. I cannot say exactly when I began to be, but I can certainly say that there was a time interval after fertilization when I wasn't yet. How could you have been born and never have been a zygote. It is a biological fact that you were once a zygote. That is unless you are actually an alien or an artificiqal intelligent computer program. In that case, congradulations on winning the Turing test!

If you kill me, that's wrong because I don't want to be killed. Even if I was desperate, and asked you to help me commit suicide, you should first evaluate the alternatives and chose the one that would cause the least suffering. If I am suffering from a painful variety of terminal cancer, and there is nothing anybody can do to alleviate my suffering, then you should help me kill myself. If I want to commit suicide because my wife left me, then you should try to help me in some other way. The point is that an essential requisite in judging the morality of actions is the existence of a being who can perceive pain, in the broad sense of being able to suffer because of unfulfilled desires. You can build a case for becoming a vegetarian based on the desire to avoid animal suffering; I have yet to see a good argument against eating plants based on the desire to avoid their suffering. What's the difference between a plant and an animal? The relevant one in this case is the capacity to feel pain. It is wrong to kill you because we place a value on human life. We see it as important and chose to protect it. Pain is irrelevent to the issue. It's is also wrong to kill a coma patient even though they are incapable of feeling pain.

There are vedgetarians who chose to be so because they think it is healthier than eating meat. I don't think the issue of morality or pain entered into it.

What's the difference between a plant and a zygote? In this context, none. Both lack the capacity to perceive pain, so none of them should be the object of discussions about morality. It does not make sense to apply moral judgements to non-sentient beings. The difference in this context is that the zygote produces a human life on to which we place a value and importance. The plant does not. Pain is irrelevent to the issue.

The zygote is not yet sentient but it produces a human life and that human life has importance and a value.
We place a value on potential money, why is it different with human life?

Why was "I" never a zygote? Obviously, because what makes "me" a person (in the morally interesting sense) is my capacity to feel pain. Yes, the zygote was one of the stages of development of my body. But that's morally irrelevant. For one thing, the cells in my body change continuously, so the only thing that makes me "me" is my mind, an emergent phenomenon of neural interaction. No what makes you a person in the moral sense is the value society places on your life.

At one time it killing a slave was not considered immoral. Some radical beliefs places no value on people who are not a member of thier religion. It is society that determins morals and society that places importance on life.

Your cells change by splitting into newer cells. Older cells die but are replaced when they split. So your neww cells were created from the old cells and they still contain the same genetic sequence that defines you physiologicaly.

The metaphysical "I" exists because that zygote developed differentiated neural cells that became the brain that your metaphysical "I" is derived from.

All your memories and experiances were made possible because that zygote went on to become you physiologicaly to have those experiances and memories.

That is a result of once being a potential human being.

[Fiona]

And here we are again. An acorn is not a tree: that is perfectly obvious and it is a strange person indeed who cannot admit it.

But in fact it does not matter. There is only one question here: who controls your body. If you do not have the right to control of your body you do not have any rights at all. Because you are your body.

There are only two choices: each human being has a right to control of their body: or someone else does.

I fully accept there are a few people who do not believe in the right to abortion under any circumstances: those people do not acknowledge that a woman is fully human, although it is seldom expressed that way. The talk of biological difference, expressed here as:

I'm sorry that biology made the female the gestator. But it's fact of life. Does not the child, who is a human being, due any consideration? Does it's life have any value at all?

and

Again that is not to say that the male is innocent but the fact remains that it is the female who carries the burden of gestation.,

is a just a way of placing women in a different category, and thus justifying the removal of rights to self determination.

It can be argued that there are two types of human being, and that this is biologically based and leads inevitably to differences in the rights which attach to that status. The two types might be men and women: or blacks and whites: or straights and gays. Doesn't matter much. Once you admit of two classes you can grant or withhold any rights you like on any basis you like.

It is true that biology has no respect for our law or our values. But that does not help us because the right to ride the bus; or marry the person of our choice; or take decisions about who can use our body, are none of them biological. We cannot pass a law which gives men the right to bear children in any meaningful way: to that extent biology limits what we can decide to do. But biology does not limit the right to autonomy in the case of abortion any more than it limits the right to marriage for gays: or the right to a seat on the bus for black people. Biology has nothing at all to do with this.

So this is a social and moral question. But the question is not about an opposition between two human beings, one of whom happens to be a foetus, and one a fully grown woman. Even if I grant the idea that a foetus is a person, it is still not competing interests in that sense. It is rather an opposition between two fully grown people (well actually usually between one adult and a different group of adults, but let us keep it simple). What Uruk is arguing is that he has some greater right to determine what is done with my body than I do. I do not see where he gets that right from and I would like him to explain it.

The use of the word "innocent" in the sentence quoted is telling. For those people who are not absolutist there is a need to find some other way of justifying the exemptions they tend to make for case of rape or incest or a threat to the mother's life etc. This cannot be done on a moral basis if the basis is the " right to life". It has already been said that anyone who admits of any exceptions is not founding on the right to life at all. They cannot be because it is not possible to choose between lives if that is the moral principle at stake. Those who do not accept any exceptions are at least consistent, but that is not the majority opinion.

So what do we find? Well usually we find infantilisation. It is expressed here as

But it is quite another issue when the abortion is due to indescretion, or cosmetics, or inconvienace. If the woman or man does not want to concieve a child or is incapable of taking care of the children then they should take measures to prevent conception

and

I think it should be moraly reprehensible to terminate a developing human life simply for the reason of inconvienance or expediancy.

and

Why should the child die simply because the parents do not want to be inconvienenced by the pregnancy or child? It's thier mistake, they should take responsibility for thier mistake.

The repeated use of the work "inconvenience" is specifically intended to imply that this is a decision for the light minded: there is absolutely no evidence that the majority of women who choose abortion take the decision irresponsibly. You may not agree with an individual's reasons (assuming you know them, though usually you don't) but that is quite a different matter. What is smuggled in here is an infantilising notion at best. It is deeply insulting and it is dishonest in the extreme: but it is what I expect from those who take this line because it is a strong thread in our culture that women need to be guided like children, being so weak minded and all. We do not consciously subscribe that view any more: but it was explicit for a long time and it did not die: it went underground, but it still informs our thinking on this and other issues.

The fact is that women are moral agents and they approach moral issues in just the same way as men. There is no justification for removing their right to reach a moral decision in favour of some other body: you can try to persuade but unless you deny full human rights you have no right to impose your moral code on another person's fully informed disagreement where the issue is one of bodily integrity. You do that for children: not for other adults.

The other thing we find is blame. This move in the game is interesting because it seeks to remove the moral agency of women by analogy with the loss of liberty of the criminal. On this reasoning the woman who becomes pregnant and chooses abortion is a murderer, or something like it: and in cases of criminality society of course removes some or all of the freedoms of the individual. So the denial of her human rights is justified by reprehensible actions. That word innocent, is, as I said, telling.

In this part of the argument the victim of rape or incest is exempt because she did not do anything wrong: there was no mens rea and therefore no fault. But do you not think it rather curious that pregnancy and birth should be a punishment ? I think it speaks to an attitude to the whole field of reproduction which is frankly perverted.

And of course this takes no account of failures of contraception. They do happen. I am not clear where Uruk stands on that. People who are against abortion except in limited circumstances sometimes include this as an exemption and sometimes not: I think if you found on infantilism you do exempt women who become pregnant having taken reasonable steps to avoid that: and if you found on blame or right to life you don't. Uruk has brought all three into his argument so I do not know where he will come down.

I have said before that a woman who chooses abortion does not usually wish the foetus ill: she just wants it to be gone. It is not yet possible to remove it to a bottle on someone else's side board and let it develop there: perhaps it never will be. But let us imagine it was possible: and let us assume that this bottle required someone to stay with it for say, 9 months, to tend to it and make sure the power was on and stuff. Let us further say that the legislation was such that the person who had to do this was chosen by lot. Do you think it would be reasonable to impose that on some random person and make them take responsibility for it until it was out of the bottle and then make them make arrangements for its care (even if only by giving it to an adoption agency)? It could be you! If you found on the right to life I can see no objection to this. And that is the problem: the "rights" of the foetus are not comparable to any other human rights. There are no rights unless someone else has a corresponding duty. Nobody has duty to allow another person to use their body against their will. So the foetus cannot have rights: it is incoherent

[uruk]

Except when it doesn't. In other words, a zygote will not always develop into a human being. A human zygote will never develop into a tiger or chinchilla.
Just because an individual zygote does not develop into a human does not mean that other zygotes that will develop into a human cannot be considered human.



A human being will always become a corpse--always. Therefore a human being is a corpse.

Does that make sense? Yes it does. Every human being is a potential corpse. And everybody has to deal with that eventuality. Wills, insurance, funeral plans, etc.

The difference between a human and a corpse is just time. Just as it is for a fertilized ovum and a person. And we have to deal with each eventuality accordingly



So what? Here's your logic: x will (usually) turn into y; therefore x is y.

I will turn into a corpse. (In this case it's absolutely 100% certain, unlike the zygote turning into a human being.) Am I therefore a corpse?
You're confusing "will be" for "is", and then trying to make a moral argument based on that. It's no more legitimate than my asserting that a living human should be treated as a corpse.

There is a difference between a fertilized ovum, a fully developed human and a corpse even though they are essentialy the same thing.

The fertilized ovum is the begining of a human life where the corpse is the end of a human life. There are appropriate times for certain behaiviors. You certainly would not burry a living embryo or living person or nurse a corpse would you?

And you certainly would not want to arbitrarily end a life early in it's development. Not unless there was valid or justifiable reason to do so. Would it not be an innappropriate behaivior for that particular time?

But more than that a life, even though it is still in early development, is still a life.

[Piero]

Fiona, I agree with a great deal of your post. However, I strongly disagree with this: So the foetus cannot have rights: it is incoherent.

Just as it should be obvious that an acorn is not a tree, it should be obvious that a foetus is not merely a part of its mother's body. If you really believe this, then you are commiting the same fallacy Uruk is, namely elevating biological accident to the category of moral imperative.

I submit that both Uruk and you are drastically wrong, as shown by the following mental experiment: I defy Uruk to feel sorrow for the abortion of a zygote which he can't even see without a microscope; and I defy you not to feel sorrow for a dead nine-month foetus in a trash-can. Would you feel sorrow for a kidney or a liver?

[JoeTheJuggler]

A human zygote will never develop into a tiger or chinchilla.
What a completely absurd thing to say. Is there anyone here (or anywhere) arguing that a human zygote will turn into a tiger or a chinchilla?

Of course not.

So why do you keep harping on that issue?


Just because an individual zygote does not develop into a human does not mean that other zygotes that will develop into a human cannot be considered human.
How can you tell which ones are which? I though you were arguing that they should all be considered human?



The difference between a human and a corpse is just time.
This is a false statement.

Just as it is for a fertilized ovum and a person.
So you do believe that if a zygote should be considered a human, then it should also be considered a corpse?


There is a difference between a fertilized ovum, a fully developed human and a corpse even though they are essentialy the same thing.
The difference is that a living human is the only one of the three here that can have desires that might be fulfilled or thwarted.

The fertilized ovum is the begining of a human life where the corpse is the end of a human life. There are appropriate times for certain behaiviors. You certainly would not burry a living embryo or living person or nurse a corpse would you?
I wouldn't, but it sure sounds like you're arguing that we should treat a single cell as if it were a living human. It's no less absurd to treat it as a corpse.

But more than that a life, even though it is still in early development, is still a life.
Yes, and are you know arguing that it's always wrong to end a life? (BTW I'm a vegetarian, so take care how you answer this.)

[Fiona]

Sorry Piero, but you are mixing up a number of things, I think. I am absolutely in favour of the right to abortion up to the time of birth. I know it is an unpopular view but to me it is morally inescapable.

However having said that I will add this: I do not envisage abortion as necessarily entailing destruction. Your emotive use of the trash can is not helpful. It is obvious that at some point a foetus can be removed and can survive. I rather flippantly refer to this as "if it is viable, let it vie". But there is a serious point there. Just as for adoption, such a procedure would probably have adverse emotional consequences in some cases: hey ho. So does abortion for some women (though not as many as the fundies would have you believe). Shame we don't live in an ideal world: but there it is.

This issue is not about whether the foetus is a part of the mother's body. At very early stages it seems to me that it is - just like hair and finger nails and tumours. This has already been mentioned. But later it becomes more like a parasite: it has an independent existence; it feeds off the host; and it is entirely unwanted. If I had a tapeworm I might want it dead or I might not: but I would want it out. If someone else wants it for a pet that is no concern of mine

That is not really wholly apposite to the moral question though: for me it does not matter whether it is a body part or a parasite or a human being: it has no right to use someone else's body without consent. There can never be such a right because there can never be a duty to allow such use. It is as simple as that.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "elevating biological accident to the category of moral imperative": but my own moral position is based on human rights and I do not need to determine the foetus' status to come to a conclusion: I only need to determine the woman's status as adult human being and the rest is up to her

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I am absolutely in favour of the right to abortion up to the time of birth. I know it is an unpopular view but to me it is morally inescapable.

<snip>

What's so special about the time of birth? Infants cannot survive outside the womb for many years after they are born. I.e. they are parasites until they are capable of being productive members of society.

Should we add extermination departments for unwanted children to state-run children's homes?

[Fiona]

Don't be silly Ivor. The infant does not inhabit another person's body against their will. Once outside the womb, and viable, it can be cared for by any of a number of people. A parasite inhabits the host and the analogy ceases to be useful when the entity is physically separated

[Cactus Wren]

By uruk's reasoning, we should automatically award medical degrees & practices to every student who enters medical school, because they are "potential" doctors :rolleyes:

I have a lottery ticket in my hand. Maybe Uruk will buy it from me for its potential value.

[Piero]

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "elevating biological accident to the category of moral imperative": but my own moral position is based on human rights and I do not need to determine the foetus' status to come to a conclusion: I only need to determine the woman's status as adult human being and the rest is up to her
What I meant was this: it seems to me you are arguing that because the foetus resides within a woman's body, that woman has every right to do whatever she likes with it. Thus, you are using a biological fact to morally justify an action.

Concerning emotional manipulation, you are right: the image of a foetus in a trash-can is a bit of a tear-jerker. But how is the image of a foetus as parasite not open to the same criticism?

Let me summarize my take on this. Morals are meaningless unless they are meant to avoid suffering (or thwarted desires, as Joe pointed out). That makes Uruk's position untenable. On the other hand, a foetus is a being capable of suffering independently of its mother. That makes your position untenable.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Don't be silly Ivor. The infant does not inhabit another person's body against their will. Once outside the womb, and viable, it can be cared for by any of a number of people. A parasite inhabits the host and the analogy ceases to be useful when the entity is physically separated

A foetus is "viable" after 24 weeks and can therefore be removed (rather than aborted) and cared for by any number of people.

I don't see how you can reasonably think everybody has moral responsibility to look after an unwanted child except for the individual whose body it temporarily inhabits.

[Fiona]

What I meant was this: it seems to me you are arguing that because the foetus resides within a woman's body, that woman has every right to do whatever she likes with it. Thus, you are using a biological fact to morally justify an action.

I am arguing that it is her own body that she has the right to control. It is absolutely true that this has implications for a foetus, but it is not correct to say that I am using a biological fact to justify an action. I am using the moral principle of bodily autonomy to justify where I place the locus of decision making. That is not quite the same

Concerning emotional manipulation, you are right: the image of a foetus in a trash-can is a bit of a tear-jerker. But how is the image of a foetus as parasite not open to the same criticism?

Fair enough but this was in an attempt to describe the different ways one can analogise the foetus and that particular one is hardly original. As i said i do not think it matters one jot how you characterise it.

Let me summarize my take on this. Morals are meaningless unless they are meant to avoid suffering (or thwarted desires, as Joe pointed out). That makes Uruk's position untenable. On the other hand, a foetus is a being capable of suffering independently of its mother. That makes your position untenable.

Sorry but I do not agree. On this reasoning you are presumably in favour of compulsory redistribution of organs where, for example, a person needs a kidney in order to survive or to be pain free. I do not accept that compulsory donation is moral. It is certainly true that one can make the case that someone "should " give up their kidney: and many do. That is admirable and I do not think it is very different from those women who carry an unwanted foetus to term (there are rather more of them than altruistic kidney donors I suspect).

But would you not agree that if a person refuses to give up a kidney to avoid the death or suffering of another, and in full knowledge that that is the consequence, that they are within their moral rights? Or do you think society should make that decision? I know where I stand

[Fiona]

A foetus is "viable" after 24 weeks and can therefore be removed (rather than aborted) and cared for by any number of people.

Yes and that is a good thing: when we actually do abortion in that way I will be pleased

I don't see how you can reasonably think everybody has moral responsibility to look after an unwanted child except for the individual whose body it temporarily inhabits.

I don't. The problem lies in the ambiguity of your phrasing. I do believe that we as a society have a responsibility to look after all children: but that does not translate to any individual having a moral responsibility to do so. It is a very different matter to accept that society should make provision and therefore pay your tax or apply to be a foster carer than it is to be told that it is your turn to care for the next unwanted child that comes along. The difficult arises because of the use of the word " everybody" in your sentence.

Incidentally, I am sorry for being a bit snappy upthread: I was running behind and had to post in haste. I will be patchy from here on in for the same reason. (I know...excuses, excuses: but I do sincerely apologise )

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes and that is a good thing: when we actually do abortion in that way I will be pleased

I think another adjective (live?) will need to be introduced to clarify the difference between what we consider abortion today and what might be possible in the not too distant future.

I don't. The problem lies in the ambiguity of your phrasing. I do believe that we as a society have a responsibility to look after all children: but that does not translate to any individual having a moral responsibility to do so. It is a very different matter to accept that society should make provision and therefore pay your tax or apply to be a foster carer than it is to be told that it is your turn to care for the next unwanted child that comes along. The difficult arises because of the use of the word " everybody" in your sentence.

Don't we have laws to that effect? If you notice someone is in obvious need of medical assistance and do nothing, isn't that a criminal offence in the UK?

I agree it gets complicated when the responsibility to act is diffused by having many other people who could provide assistance, but this does not seem to be relevant in the case of a pregnant mother carrying a 24-week old foetus.

Just to clarify, in my opinion the right to terminate a foetus after X weeks should be balanced against the opportunity a woman has had up to X weeks to decide if she wishes to give birth to the child. I consider it a social contract, where society gives a woman X weeks to decide if she wants to continue with the pregnancy and after this time period has expired require her to carry the foetus to term, except in the case of unusually high risk of death or serious disability to either party. Personally I see little reason for X to be greater than 16 weeks.

Incidentally, I am sorry for being a bit snappy upthread: I was running behind and had to post in haste. I will be patchy from here on in for the same reason. (I know...excuses, excuses: but I do sincerely apologise )

I've been chatting with Francesca for the last week so I hadn't noticed you were being particularly snappy.:)

[Ladewig]

You do know that the heart starts beating in the womb. So essentially you are making a arbitrary definition of human. Even though that human outside the womb starts it's life in the womb.

Yes, I know. See below

Are you suggesting that "a beating heart" defines human life? And how is that not arbitrary?

That was me and not Uruk. I offered that definition as a specific reason why a single cell cannot be reasonably defined as a human being. I accept that there is some arbitrariness to this definition.


It's is more than just tissue. That "tissue" develops into a fully formed person independent of the mother given time. That differentiates it from lung tissue or brain tissue. There is a significant difference.

I agree that an ovum that begins dividing is very different from other types of tissue, but fact in and of itself is not enough to define it as a person.

[Aerik]

Fiona is correct. Abortion should be allowed up until birth. Why? Well there's the obvious fact that anything less makes women a slave to the fetus (http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/02/18/invasion-of-the-babyists/).

No, I am not moved. As several blamers pointed out yesterday, even if you call the body-snatcher a baby, if it is leeching off my personal internal organs, and if having it there displeases me for any reason whatsoever, and the only way to get it out is to kill it, then kill it I will. When another entity appropriates sovereignty over my person, what am I but a slave? As a human being, I object unconditionally to enslavement, for me or for anyone else.

[Piero]

Aerik and Fiona, your arguments are certainly the weirdest I've ever come across. I hope you are putting them forward as a mere exercise in (faulty) logic.

Your start from two rather outlandish assumptions:
1. You are your body
2. Control of your body is the summum bonum, and it trumps any other moral consideration

Both assumptions are far from unassailable. For example, what exactly constitutes your body is undefined. Do you include clipped toenails? Shed skin cells? Saliva? The air inside your lungs? If you fart in an elevator, should I be able to sue you because you recklessly altered the composition of my body by forcing me to fill my lungs with unwanted content? Can you sue everybody in the world because by their breathing they leave less available oxygen for your body consumption? Are neural networks in your brain considered part of the configuration of your body? Can I sue you for speaking to me, because by that act you changed some of those neural networks? Are microorganisms in your intestine part of your body? When you catch an infectious disease, are those bacteria and viruses part of your body?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we can reach a consensus on what your body is. Why is your body you? When you lose a tooth, are you less you than before? When I go bald, will I stop being me and become somebody else? The cells that constituted my body when I was born are not there anymore; yet I have been "I" since I was born.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we have both reached a consensus on what your body is, and accepted that you are your body. Why should your control over your body be the supreme value? Is it a God-given right? If it is not, what rational justification for it is there? So far you have only stated the principle, without justification, which, as foundations for morality go, is pretty sloppy, and not that different from saying "It's right because God told me so!"

Besides, if control of your body was in fact the summum bonum, what right would you have to abort? Would you not be infringing the foetus right to control its body? Why is your right superior? A woman may get pregnant against her will, and she has every right to abort. She can even have gor pregnant voluntarily, and she still has the right to change her mind. But she has plenty of time to make that decision before what's inside her uterus acquires the capacity to feel pain. After that, there are two persons involved: the mother and the child, and the child has rights too.

[uruk]

What a completely absurd thing to say. Is there anyone here (or anywhere) arguing that a human zygote will turn into a tiger or a chinchilla
?


Of course not.

So why do you keep harping on that issue?
I was not suggesting otherwise. The point I was poorly trying to make that a zygote that does not make it to term does not mean the the zygote was not human when it was viable. A human zygote is a human life in the early stages of it's development.

Look at it this way. Let's picture the entire life span of a person from fertilized ovum to a corpse. I see that person along his/her entire life span from begining to the time they die as being a human life. There is no question as to when the human life ends. I say there is no question for when the human life begins.

What we have done is place arbirtay lines along that timeline at which we say that life is a person, or it is an adult or it is an elderly person.

We have also arbirtarily place lines along that timeline where we withhold rights from the person. You can't enter into contracts, or drink alchohol, or vote, or have the same rights as an adult until a certain age is reached. What that age is is arbitrary. It differs from culture to culture.

Some have said that you should not have a right to life until you are capable of thought. I disagree with that. I feel you should have a right to life as soon as you become a human life which is at the begining of your life span. Is that unreasonable? Why not?

The issue here is that the right to life of a person early in thier life span is in conflict with the individual rights of the mother who has the biological burden of carrying that life untill it can survive outside the womb.

Look if you choose to suspend the right to life of a person early in thier life span in favor of the individual rights of the mother then just do so. Just don't try to justify the decision by depriving that early life in the early stages of it's development the status of being a human life. You would be denying scientific facts.


How can you tell which ones are which? I though you were arguing that they should all be considered human? Sorry that statement should have been written "
Just because an individual zygote does not become a fully developed human does not mean that other zygotes that do become a fully developed human cannot be considered human."

Just a because a zygote dies does not mean that it wasn't a human zygote or a potential human life when it was alive.


This is a false statement. Again that was poorly worded. It was late when I responed to your post. The point I was trying to make was that a person will eventualy become a corpse. It just takes time. A living person is a potential corpse.


So you do believe that if a zygote should be considered a human, then it should also be considered a corpse? When the proper time in it's life span comes, Yes.
You are facetiously craming all points of the life span together with out reguard of the order.

When a life ends there is no need for the coprse to have rights. the definition of life ends there. When life begins it starts to gain those rights. The definition of life begins there.


I am arguing that when a ovum is fertilized a human life is created and it should be trearted as a human life. Just like when the person has completed his/her life span then it should be treated like a corpse. The difference is that a fertilized ovum is the beginning of that life where as the corpse is the result of the end of a human life.

The difference is that a living human is the only one of the three here that can have desires that might be fulfilled or thwarted. Are you defining a human life as the ability to have desires? That totaly ignores the human life when it is at the begining of its life span. Are you arguing you should only have rights when you are aware of them?

A infant has no idea of what it's right are or that it has them but we still give that infant a right to life. Why is it different for the infant when it was developing in his/her mothers womb? Was it less a human life then?

It is not our desires that gives us rights or the sole critera that makes us human. Society bestows rights upon a life. Biology is what determins what is human life.


I wouldn't, but it sure sounds like you're arguing that we should treat a single cell as if it were a living human. It's no less absurd to treat it as a corpse. No, there is a difference. We should treat the fertilized ovum as a human life because it is the begining of a human life. I argue that once that life starts it be given the chance to continue to live.


Yes, and are you know arguing that it's always wrong to end a life? (BTW I'm a vegetarian, so take care how you answer this.)
No I am not. There are ligitamate and justifyable reasons to end a life. Even a human life.

I place a value on human life from begining to end. I do not arbitraritly place a line on the begining and end of that life. Biology defines the begining and end of life.

Society defines what rights that life has and when it has those rights. Society also defines when it is justifiable to terminate that life.

[AWPrime]

Why not? Please explain.

The fertilized ovum is the first cell that you were made from. It was you many years ago. You sprang from that cell. How was it not you? How can you not consider it a being when it is you when you first started?It wasn't me, that was pre-me. I think, therefore I am.

As a full grown person I have my intellect, personality, instincts and will.

As a just born baby I only have my instincts and a basic character. This undeveloped being is less sentient then a gerbil.

As a fertilized ovum, there is no 'I', no will, no instinct, not even a core character/personality.

[Fiona]

I think another adjective (live?) will need to be introduced to clarify the difference between what we consider abortion today and what might be possible in the not too distant future.

If you like. The word as it stands will do for me but I don't much care

Abort: 1. to miscarry. 2Biol.. to become sterile; to be checked in normal development so as to remain rudimentary or to shrink away

Abortion: 1. giving untimely birth to offspring; the procuring of premature delivery so as to destroy offspring 2. Arrest of development of any organ 3. The imperfect offspring of a miscarriage



Don't we have laws to that effect? If you notice someone is in obvious need of medical assistance and do nothing, isn't that a criminal offence in the UK?

Not it isn't, so far as I know. It is the law in France but not in the UK.

I agree it gets complicated when the responsibility to act is diffused by having many other people who could provide assistance, but this does not seem to be relevant in the case of a pregnant mother carrying a 24-week old foetus.

In the first place she is not a mother unless she has other children: though that might just be a slip, it smuggles in a relationship which is directly relevant to the question of criminal omission, so I cannot let it pass I am afraid. But you are correct in using the word foetus so I assume that was not your intent.

For the rest, I do not agree, for reasons which are spelled out in my previous couple of posts. The question hinges on who is in charge of a person's body. It does not revolve around the consequences for the foetus of that absolute right. Under what circumstances would you agree that society should take that right away from you?

Just to clarify, in my opinion the right to terminate a foetus after X weeks should be balanced against the opportunity a woman has had up to X weeks to decide if she wishes to give birth to the child. I consider it a social contract, where society gives a woman X weeks to decide if she wants to continue with the pregnancy and after this time period has expired require her to carry the foetus to term, except in the case of unusually high risk of death or serious disability to either party. Personally I see little reason for X to be greater than 16 weeks.

I ask again: should you be forced to give up one of your organs in order to save another life? Should you be so forced if you are the only practical donor around? If you do not think so can you show me the difference?

[JoeTheJuggler]

The point I was poorly trying to make that a zygote that does not make it to term does not mean the the zygote was not human when it was viable. A human zygote is a human life in the early stages of it's [sic] development.
And again, that's just begging the question. It's not a human being, and it may or may not turn into a human being, so why give it the status of "human being"?

More importantly, it doesn't have the ability to have desires that can be fulfilled or thwarted.


There is no question as to when the human life ends.

You're joking, right?

I say there is no question for when the human life begins.
Of course there is. That's pretty much the topic of this discussion, isn't it?

You can deny there's an issue by saying that your view (which is the minority position and has been since at least the 1970s) is the only one.




Some have said that you should not have a right to life until you are capable of thought.
I don't think anyone has ever argued that position. Several people have used notions of "suffering" or such. I've been using the measure of "capable of having desires". Not the same thing as the ability to think.

I disagree with that. I feel you should have a right to life as soon as you become a human life which is at the begining of your life span. Is that unreasonable? Why not?
It's not reasonable because it is begging the question. (That's an informal logical fallacy where your premise contains the conclusion.) What if someone else said you have the right to life as soon as you become human which is at birth?

Look if you choose to suspend the right to life of a person early in thier life span in favor of the individual rights of the mother then just do so. Just don't try to justify the decision by depriving that early life in the early stages of it's development the status of being a human life. You would be denying scientific facts.
What scientific facts? Science doesn't define when something has "human" status. Science doesn't work via legislation either.

You yourself admitted that the motives of ND in passing this measure are strictly political (I.e. to challenge Roe v. Wade). Surely you don't think this measure comes from a scientific consensus?


Sorry that statement should have been written "
Just because an individual zygote does not become a fully developed human does not mean that other zygotes that do become a fully developed human cannot be considered human."
I'm not sure what you changed, but it still sounds like you're saying not all zygotes can be considered human, only the ones destined to become fully developed humans can. How do you know which are which? Why not just give the status of "human" to humans?



Just a because a zygote dies does not mean that it wasn't a human zygote or a potential human life when it was alive.
But we're not arguing whether something is a potential human being. We're arguing whether the thing is a human being or not. Your argument was based on the statement that if left alone zygotes turn into humans. I pointed out that many of them do not. For that matter, I also pointed out that many other haploid cells, and (with cloning) any cell in the body can similarly be declared a "potential human being". Do you grant all these cells the status of "human being" because they are potential human beings?


The point I was trying to make was that a person will eventualy become a corpse. It just takes time. A living person is a potential corpse.
That sounds like the point I've been making. Here's your argument: a zygote is a human being because it is a potential human being. I just carried it logically further: a human being is a corpse because it is a potential corpse. Since a zygote is a human being, and a human being is a corpse, it follows that a zygote is a corpse.

This is your logic.


When the proper time in it's [sic] life span comes, Yes.
You are facetiously craming all points of the life span together with out reguard of the order.
Not in the least. I'm just using the logical framework you're using to say that a fertilized ovum is a human being. The same logic leads you to conclude that a fertilized ovum is a corpse.

Why not wait to give "human" status until the proper time in its life comes (if it comes)?

When a life ends there is no need for the coprse to have rights. the definition of life ends there. When life begins it starts to gain those rights. The definition of life begins there.
And that's why your logic is absurd. If you want to give human rights to a fertilized egg because it's "human", you must also take those rights away from every human (including fertilized eggs) because they're also corpses. Yes, I agree it's absurd, but you haven't showed how it is different from the logic you've been using.


The difference is that a fertilized ovum is the beginning of that life where as the corpse is the result of the end of a human life.
In other words, there is nothing to distinguish the business of extended the definition backwards from "human being" to zygote and extending it backwards from "corpse" to human beings.


Are you defining a human life as the ability to have desires?
Not at all! Most forms of life never have that ability. It requires some neural substrate.

That totaly ignores the human life when it is at the begining of its life span.
No it doesn't. It just fails to extend the rights of a human being back to a zygote (which is not a human being). You're the one trying to do that.

Are you arguing you should only have rights when you are aware of them?
Nope--not in the least. I never once made awareness a criteria for meriting human rights.

A infant has no idea of what it's [sic] right are or that it has them but we still give that infant a right to life. Why is it different for the infant when it was developing in his/her mothers womb? Was it less a human life then?
I never said you had to have an idea of what your rights are to have them. An infant is in fact almost nothing but a mass of desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled. In the later stages in the womb, it is the same. At the stage of a zygote, it definitely does NOT have that capability. At some point between conception and the later stages of the pregnancy it has gained that capability. We legally draw the line at the end of the first trimester.

[Nursefoxfire]

...

You keep forgeting that people come from zygotes. The zygote is just an early stage of "you". The difference is the perspective of time you are looking at.

...


I haven't read through the 3rd page of this thread but didn't see this addressed so far:

If the zygote is an early stage of "you", then wouldn't it stand to reason to go back a step further in this process and state that the sperm and egg it fertilized are also "early stages of 'you'?" So any sperm that you flush in a hanky means you're killing off half of a potential human?

How far back do you go?

Btw, I've had miscarriages and a child. The miscarriages really hurt, emotionally. But it was because of the potential, the future hopes and dreams I'd placed on that little blob, NOT the death of a person.

I'd hazard a guess and say you've never been pregnant, miscarried or carried a child to term.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is also 100% certain that zygote that comes to term will produce a human being and not a dog.
You're trying hard to set up a straw man where someone is arguing that a human zygote will develop into another species. NO ONE is arguing that.

You're basing your argument that zygotes should be given the status of "human being" on the fact that zygotes will become human beings. I pointed out that many of them will not. (I did not say they will turn into dogs or chinchillas or tigers. They just won't turn into human beings.)

By the way, how do you defend your idea that some of these zygotes aren't humans but are "abominations"? If not aborted, many fertilized eggs resulting from rape or incest will become human beings. Yet you say, I think, that it's OK to abort them because they are "abominations".

Doesn't this show how arbitrary your argument is?

[Third Eye Open]

Uruk,

You keep saying things like,
It was the zygote from which the "I" came from. The cells that make up your brain from which the "I" is derived was once the dividing cells in a zygote.

and
You keep forgeting that people come from zygotes. The zygote is just an early stage of "you". The difference is the perspective of time you are looking at.

and
The fertilized ovum grew into you, therfore you were once a fertilized ovum.

It seems very important to you that the zygote will eventually (if all goes well) become a human. This, in your opinion, makes it equal to a human.

All sperms have the potential of becoming a human, it is their purpose, they have no other point. It is the reason of existence for a sperm that it make it to an egg.

So uruk, assuming you are a male, every time you masturbate, you are ending the potential lives of thousands of humans. That which came out of you has lost its chance to be human for ever, thousands of unique humans will never exist, can never exist, because of you.

You keep saying, 'at one point, you were a zygote, so the zygote is you.' Well, at one point, every zygote was a separate sperm and egg, so that must mean that you think a sperm and egg is equal to a zygote, and thus a human.

But you don't care about the safety of individual sperms, because you know that sperms are less than zygotes, just like a zygote is less than a fetus, and a fetus is less than a human.

[uruk]

QUOTE=Fiona;4456079]And here we are again. An acorn is not a tree: that is perfectly obvious and it is a strange person indeed who cannot admit it.[/quote] An acorn is a potential tree. The biological purpose of an acorn is to develop into a tree. That is what it does, that is what it is. What separates an acorn from a tree is time and the oppurtunity.

But in fact it does not matter. There is only one question here: who controls your body. If you do not have the right to control of your body you do not have any rights at all. Because you are your body. And society determins what those rights are and when you have them. When you are a child you do not have certain rights over your body and (hence yourself by your definition). Your parents are responsible for your actions and the well being of your body.

This is important to the issue. At a certain point in your life your parents are responsible for your life. This responsibilty places certain restrictions on the rights of the parents.

There are only two choices: each human being has a right to control of their body: or someone else does. When and where that happens depends on the situation and conditions. One such example is mentioned above.

I fully accept there are a few people who do not believe in the right to abortion under any circumstances: those people do not acknowledge that a woman is fully human, although it is seldom expressed that way. The talk of biological difference, expressed here I recognise that there are justifiable reasons to perform abortions. I recognise that a woman is fully human and should be accorded all rights that any other human being should be.

But I also recognise that every human being wether fully adult or not also should be accorded those same rights.

is a just a way of placing women in a different category, and thus justifying the removal of rights to self determination. It is a fact that it is the woman who is the gestator. You cannot deny that scientific and biological fact.

This does not place women in a catagory separate from other human beings. It does mean that the woman has an extra set of responsibilities that are placed upon her by biology that have to be recognized and delt with. The woman has certain responsibilities to that human life when it is developing in her womb. (The law recognises these responsibilities and to a certain degree that forming human life. You cannot endager that developing life after a certain arbitray amount of time in the womb. When a pregnant woman is murdered, the law also charges the murderer with the death of the foetus. )

A woman freely accept those responsibilities when the developing life is expected and wanted. Is it right for the woman to abandon those responisibilities simply because the preganacy is unexpected or unwanted? It is the actions of the parents that caused that human life to be created. Does that developing human life have any value in society? Does it derserve any rights that other humans have? Is it at fault for the actions of the parents?

We all have responsibilites that we have to deal with wether we like them or not. Some of those responsibilites are placed upon ourselves willingly or forced upon us by law.

It can be argued that there are two types of human being, and that this is biologically based and leads inevitably to differences in the rights which attach to that status. The two types might be men and women: or blacks and whites: or straights and gays. Doesn't matter much. Once you admit of two classes you can grant or withhold any rights you like on any basis you like. Biology defines male and female. It is the female who has the biological responsibility to gestate a human life. Different responsibilities sometimes forces different restrictions on individual rights upon us.

A soldier has the responsibility to defend our country. That responsibility restricts certain individual rights of that person. That restriction of rights is taken willingly when you join the military. It is forced upon you when you are drafted.

It is true that biology has no respect for our law or our values. But that does not help us because the right to ride the bus; or marry the person of our choice; or take decisions about who can use our body, are none of them biological. We cannot pass a law which gives men the right to bear children in any meaningful way: to that extent biology limits what we can decide to do. But biology does not limit the right to autonomy in the case of abortion any more than it limits the right to marriage for gays: or the right to a seat on the bus for black people. Biology has nothing at all to do with this. Biology places certain responsibilities upon an individual. That resposibilty is to care for and allow that life to develop untill it can survive outside the woman's body. that is part of the procreation process.

In the case of abortion you are giving the mother the right to arbitrarily end a human life early in it's development. That is essentially giving another person the right to end another life or hand over the control of one individual's body to another .

Currently the law has placed the value of the mother's life and rights over the life and the right to life of the developing human life. It is an arbitrary decision that is not based on biology.

So this is a social and moral question. But the question is not about an opposition between two human beings, one of whom happens to be a foetus, and one a fully grown woman. Even if I grant the idea that a foetus is a person, it is still not competing interests in that sense. It is rather an opposition between two fully grown people (well actually usually between one adult and a different group of adults, but let us keep it simple). What Uruk is arguing is that he has some greater right to determine what is done with my body than I do. I do not see where he gets that right from and I would like him to explain it. I do not say that I have a greater right to determine what is done to your body. What I am saying is that biology has given you the responsibility over the life of another individual. That responsibilty carries with it different conditions.

And what I state is that all human life has value regardless of what stage it is in it's development and deserves a right to life. Do you disagree with this statement?

You have rights over to your own body, but what of the life it is gestating? Do you have rights over it's body? You definitly have a biological responsibility to it. It is your actions that determine wether that individual life continues to exist or not.

Aren't some of your rights suspended because of the responsibility of raising a child?
You have a legal responsibility to it? The law says so. You can't negelect your child.

Certain responsibilities require that we forfiet certain rights. Is it unreasonable to temporarily suspend some particular rights while a life is gestating in you for the sake of it's life?


The use of the word "innocent" in the sentence quoted is telling. For those people who are not absolutist there is a need to find some other way of justifying the exemptions they tend to make for case of rape or incest or a threat to the mother's life etc. This cannot be done on a moral basis if the basis is the " right to life". It has already been said that anyone who admits of any exceptions is not founding on the right to life at all. They cannot be because it is not possible to choose between lives if that is the moral principle at stake. Those who do not accept any exceptions are at least consistent, but that is not the majority opinion. It is moral to preserve you own life when it is placed in jeopardy by another. Besides before a certain point in development the foetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb. So it would be pointless to pick the life of the child over the mother's.

I am iffy in the case of rape and incest. The threat is to the mother's psychological well being. Sometime that can lead to suicide which would lead to the death of both the child and the mother. It would be a hard sell in my book but not totaly unjustifiable.

So what do we find? Well usually we find infantilisation. It is expressed here as

The repeated use of the work "inconvenience" is specifically intended to imply that this is a decision for the light minded: there is absolutely no evidence that the majority of women who choose abortion take the decision irresponsibly. You may not agree with an individual's reasons (assuming you know them, though usually you don't) but that is quite a different matter. What is smuggled in here is an infantilising notion at best. It is deeply insulting and it is dishonest in the extreme: but it is what I expect from those who take this line because it is a strong thread in our culture that women need to be guided like children, being so weak minded and all. We do not consciously subscribe that view any more: but it was explicit for a long time and it did not die: it went underground, but it still informs our thinking on this and other issues. That is not what I suggested. The mother does not decide irresponsibly to have an abortion but both the mother and father acted irresponsibly by allowing an unwanted pregnancy to happen. There would be no need for an abortion if the parents had taken precauions to prevent the pregnancy from happening in the first place.

Now do you think it is moral to end the life simply because of an error in judgement or a mistake? Are we not responsible for our actions and our mistakes?

There is a growing trend to think that we can act in anyway we want and not have to deal with the consequences for our actions. it is the cause of a great many problems we bring down upon ourselves.

The fact is that women are moral agents and they approach moral issues in just the same way as men. There is no justification for removing their right to reach a moral decision in favour of some other body: you can try to persuade but unless you deny full human rights you have no right to impose your moral code on another person's fully informed disagreement where the issue is one of bodily integrity. You do that for children: not for other adults. Moral codes are imposed upon us all the time. Both legaly and socialy. Welcome to life.

We remove certain rights from the adult because they have the responsibility of raising, educating and keeping a child safe from harm. That responsibilty begins when the child is in the womb and continues on untill they are legaly an adult.


The other thing we find is blame. This move in the game is interesting because it seeks to remove the moral agency of women by analogy with the loss of liberty of the criminal. On this reasoning the woman who becomes pregnant and chooses abortion is a murderer, or something like it: and in cases of criminality society of course removes some or all of the freedoms of the individual. So the denial of her human rights is justified by reprehensible actions. That word innocent, is, as I said, telling. The truth of the matter is that when a woman has an abortion a life is terminated. That is a biological fact. "Innocence" is irrelevent to that fact.

What makes it murder or not is the legal and social definition. In some cultures it is legal and socialy acceptable to kill a woman if she has shamed the family. You can be justifiably killed if you paint a picture of Mohamad in others. In our society it is not murder to terminate a life that is early in it's development. Legaly it is arbitrary.

In this part of the argument the victim of rape or incest is exempt because she did not do anything wrong: there was no mens rea and therefore no fault. But do you not think it rather curious that pregnancy and birth should be a punishment ? I think it speaks to an attitude to the whole field of reproduction which is frankly perverted. That is why moraly rape and incest can be seen as an exception.

And of course this takes no account of failures of contraception. They do happen. I am not clear where Uruk stands on that. People who are against abortion except in limited circumstances sometimes include this as an exemption and sometimes not: I think if you found on infantilism you do exempt women who become pregnant having taken reasonable steps to avoid that: and if you found on blame or right to life you don't. Uruk has brought all three into his argument so I do not know where he will come down. Again, natural failures in conception has nothing to do with the actions of the mother or father.

I have said before that a woman who chooses abortion does not usually wish the foetus ill: she just wants it to be gone. But does the foetus deserve to die because of that choice? Our actions have consequences. Don't we have a responsibility for those actions? Is it right to ignore those responsibilities?

The woman has rights that is undeniable. But what is also undeniable is that foetus is a human life. Is it right to terminate that life simply because it is unwanted?

It is not yet possible to remove it to a bottle on someone else's side board and let it develop there: perhaps it never will be. But let us imagine it was possible: and let us assume that this bottle required someone to stay with it for say, 9 months, to tend to it and make sure the power was on and stuff. Nothing wrong there. A medical staff in that situation would have the job of watching after it.

Let us further say that the legislation was such that the person who had to do this was chosen by lot. Do you think it would be reasonable to impose that on some random person and make them take responsibility for it until it was out of the bottle and then make them make arrangements for its care (even if only by giving it to an adoption agency)? There was a time when the responsibility for defense of this country was legislated and people chosen by lot and had thier rights temporarily restricted in order to defend this country. Was it right or wrong to do so?

It could be you! If you found on the right to life I can see no objection to this. And that is the problem: the "rights" of the foetus are not comparable to any other human rights. There are no rights unless someone else has a corresponding duty. Nobody has duty to allow another person to use their body against their will. So the foetus cannot have rights: it is incoherent That is a very unusual way of looking at it. So nobody has rights unless there is some body who has the duty to give those rights? is that what you are saying?

How about looking at it this way. Isn't a foetus a human life? It is human by the genetic make up. It is alive by biological defintition. And at the very least it is a potential human life. Does human life have value?

And when you make a mistake or an error in judgement arent you supposed to take responsibility for that action? even you don't want to? Or it's against your will?

[Fiona]

Aerik and Fiona, your arguments are certainly the weirdest I've ever come across.

Perhaps you need to get out more :)

I hope you are putting them forward as a mere exercise in (faulty) logic.

Nope

Your start from two rather outlandish assumptions:
1. You are your body

Yes. I do not know what else I can be. If you do not accept this then what do you think you are?

Now I do accept that language is tricky and that it points to the fact that there is a feeling that we are in some sense dual. There are instances where I can substitute the words "my body" for the word "I" with no loss of meaning and no ambiguity: for example I can say "I have a suntan" and it is not really changed if I say "my body is suntanned". That is not true of "I think the sun will rise"; because "my body thinks the sun will rise" is incoherent.

But if you are arguing that this apparent dualism means there is really something separate from the body then we will have to differ. I do not believe there is a "self" separate from the physical body. I base this on the fact that when the body dies that apparent self also disappears. I conclude it is made of body stuff and not of some other material. What do you think?

2. Control of your body is the summum bonum, and it trumps any other moral consideration

Again, yes. Autonomy is the foundation for all moral action: if I cannot choose then I am no longer a moral being nor do I have any possibility of moral choice. That reduces me to less than human status. Can you show how this is not true?


Both assumptions are far from unassailable. For example, what exactly constitutes your body is undefined. Do you include clipped toenails? Shed skin cells? Saliva? The air inside your lungs? If you fart in an elevator, should I be able to sue you because you recklessly altered the composition of my body by forcing me to fill my lungs with unwanted content? Can you sue everybody in the world because by their breathing they leave less available oxygen for your body consumption? Are neural networks in your brain considered part of the configuration of your body? Can I sue you for speaking to me, because by that act you changed some of those neural networks? Are microorganisms in your intestine part of your body? When you catch an infectious disease, are those bacteria and viruses part of your body?

It is true that for many concepts there are things which definitely fall within the meaning: things that definitely fall outside the meaning; and some things which are hard to place in one category or another. But this is rather trivial, is it not? I am fairly sure you know what your body is and where its limits lie when you are talking about the right to control it. If you really think you have a problem with this then ask yourself if you are in doubt about gross impositions. Do you have a lot of trouble deciding whether someone else's decision to ram a broomstick up your backside is a gross violation of your bodily integrity? Do you think that there is a problem in deciding whether your rights have been breached if you are placed in a cage and fed at the whim of another? Do you believe that a decision which others might find immoral, such as having a glass of wine, is yours to make?

I don't live in such a complicated world: there may be some doubt at the margins but I don't really think there is any doubt that some things definitely fall within the purview of "my body" rather than yours, or his, or some bacteria's.


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we can reach a consensus on what your body is.

Yes lets :)

Why is your body you? When you lose a tooth, are you less you than before? When I go bald, will I stop being me and become somebody else? The cells that constituted my body when I was born are not there anymore; yet I have been "I" since I was born.

See above. The continuity of the self is a very strange phenomenon. But we nearly all share it. If you do not accept that the physical body is all there is (and many don't) do you then say it is no part of your sense of self? I think our body is very important to that concept of self. There are changes which we can accept: often gradual, but in the case of the loss of a tooth they can be quite sudden. But I read that people whose body image is radically altered in an unexpected way have quite a lot of trouble coming to terms with that. I do not really see your small examples make any difference to the main point: but perhaps I am not understanding you

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we have both reached a consensus on what your body is, and accepted that you are your body.

Ok

Why should your control over your body be the supreme value? Is it a God-given right? If it is not, what rational justification for it is there? So far you have only stated the principle, without justification, which, as foundations for morality go, is pretty sloppy, and not that different from saying "It's right because God told me so!"

Fair enough. I think it is the foundation for reasons I have stated: if we are not free to choose, no question of morality arises. If we are free to think but not to translate that thought into action we cannot be moral either: because it is intrinsic to morality that it is expressed in action. And action can only be taken by a body, because even if you are a dualist there is no evidence for psychic powers such as telekinesis.

In every moral code I have come across action is at the heart of what we judge: and the matter of choice is central to how we judge. We do not condemn the actions of those who are forced to do bad things under duress: christians do not admire the morality of angels precisely because they do not have free will: we do not hold children morally responsible because they are neither capable of choice nor do they enjoy the autonomy which allows of choice in many fields.

You clearly disagree with that. Can you tell me why?

Besides, if control of your body was in fact the summum bonum, what right would you have to abort?

I would have the right to abort because it is my body and nobody else's

Would you not be infringing the foetus right to control its body?

A foetus is not, in my opinion, a person: it therefore has no rights. But I have said I am prepared to concede that point just for the purpose of this discussion. I then find that the foetus has just as much right to control its body as I have to control mine. Let it get on with it

Why is your right superior?

My right is not superior. It is exactly the same. Let the foetus do what it likes with its own body.


A woman may get pregnant against her will, and she has every right to abort. She can even have gor pregnant voluntarily, and she still has the right to change her mind.


Thanks :)

But she has plenty of time to make that decision before what's inside her uterus acquires the capacity to feel pain. After that, there are two persons involved: the mother and the child, and the child has rights too.

Again you miss the point completely. It has no right at all to use someone else's body against their will. None. No human being has that right: no parasite has that right: no part of a body has that right. But this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about your right to decide that you will use my body as a means to your own moral satisfaction. We are talking about you determining how far I can exercise my moral judgement and at what point you are going to take over and force me to adopt your view. Since the consequences are not yours this seems amazingly arrogant to me. How do you justify it?

Of course you are free to present your arguments and to try to persuade me to your point of view: but if you fail then why should your view prevail? This is moral question and I am a moral agent just as much as you are. And that is the essence of this matter for me

[uruk]

I submit that both Uruk and you are drastically wrong, as shown by the following mental experiment: I defy Uruk to feel sorrow for the abortion of a zygote which he can't even see without a microscope; and I defy you not to feel sorrow for a dead nine-month foetus in a trash-can. Would you feel sorrow for a kidney or a liver? I do feel sorrow for the loss of the life that could have been. Who would that person have been. What would they have contributed to the lives of others around them if they had lived.

You feel sorrow for the lives of people lost who have no connection to you or you have never seen. Did you feel sorrow for the loss of the 3,000 people who died on 9/11? You never saw them or even met them you knew nothing of thier lives before that day. What is the difference?

[uruk]

This issue is not about whether the foetus is a part of the mother's body. At very early stages it seems to me that it is - just like hair and finger nails and tumours. This has already been mentioned. But later it becomes more like a parasite: it has an independent existence; it feeds off the host; and it is entirely unwanted. If I had a tapeworm I might want it dead or I might not: but I would want it out. If someone else wants it for a pet that is no concern of mine The foetus is an individual life distinct from your own. Half of it's DNA is not yours.

That is not really wholly apposite to the moral question though: for me it does not matter whether it is a body part or a parasite or a human being: it has no right to use someone else's body without consent. There can never be such a right because there can never be a duty to allow such use. It is as simple as that. And how can a foetus ask for consent? It the mother who choses wether it lives or dies. Is that something that everybody show be allowed to excercise arbitrarily?

[uruk]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus
By uruk's reasoning, we should automatically award medical degrees & practices to every student who enters medical school, because they are "potential" doctors

I have a lottery ticket in my hand. Maybe Uruk will buy it from me for its potential value.
Not quite the same thing. While it is true that every doctor was once a zygote, not every zygote becomes a doctor.

All zygotes, if allowed to develop, will become a human being. Not all lotto tickets will pay off unless it has a wining number.

See not quite the same thing.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Not it isn't, so far as I know. It is the law in France but not in the UK.

Ok, I wasn't sure myself.

In the first place she is not a mother unless she has other children: though that might just be a slip, it smuggles in a relationship which is directly relevant to the question of criminal omission, so I cannot let it pass I am afraid. But you are correct in using the word foetus so I assume that was not your intent.

Correct, it was a slip.

For the rest, I do not agree, for reasons which are spelled out in my previous couple of posts. The question hinges on who is in charge of a person's body. It does not revolve around the consequences for the foetus of that absolute right. Under what circumstances would you agree that society should take that right away from you?

When, either through action or inaction, it can reasonably be inferred a woman has signalled she will carry a foetus to term. The signal is not choosing to have an abortion within the time period society has determined is reasonable to be able to make this decision.

I ask again: should you be forced to give up one of your organs in order to save another life?

In general, no.

Should you be so forced if you are the only practical donor around?

In general, no.

If you do not think so can you show me the difference?

The difference is that society has set a reasonable time period to allow a woman to decide if she wishes to continue with a pregnancy or terminate it. The time period allowed is a compromise between allowing a woman total control over her body and the developing foetus inside her, and the right to life of the foetus after a particular stage of development.

Organ donation could use a similar scheme, with donors having a time period in which they could freely change their minds, after which they would be legally required to donate an organ they either passively or actively agreed to donate.

[Third Eye Open]

I do feel sorrow for the loss of the life that could have been. Who would that person have been. What would they have contributed to the lives of others around them if they had lived.


Do you feel sorrow for all the sperms that didn't make it to eggs? Those are people that could have been.

In that case, uruk, it is your moral obligation to have sex at all times with any women you see, because if you don't, that special and unique combination of your sperm and their egg will never come to be a human, that unique life will be lost.

So even if you must rape every woman you see, at least you are saving lives. Right uruk??

[JoeTheJuggler]

An acorn is a potential tree. The biological purpose of an acorn is to develop into a tree. That is what it does, that is what it is. What separates an acorn from a tree is time and the oppurtunity.
And the fact that an acorn is not a tree.

How about we try using your logic some more: an acorn is a potential tree (because some acorns turn into trees), so we say an acorn is a tree. A tree is a potential piece of lumber (because some trees turn into pieces of lumber), so a tree is a piece of lumber. A piece of lumber is a potential chair (because some pieces of lumber turn into chairs), so a piece of lumber is a chair.

Therefore. . . an acorn is a chair.


This is trouble you get into when you use the logic that says since X is a potential Y (because some Xs will turn into Ys) that therefore an X is a Y.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not quite the same thing. While it is true that every doctor was once a zygote, not every zygote becomes a doctor.
It's an analogy. It goes like this:
A first year medical student is to a doctor as a zygote is to a human being.

You're just smooshing it all together to make a non-sense statement.

All zygotes, if allowed to develop, will become a human being.
No. This is factually wrong. Since this has been pointed out to you several times, I have to think you're just lying to support your silly argument.

Not all lotto tickets will pay off unless it has a wining number.
Similarly, not all zygotes will become human beings. It's a valid analogy (except perhaps for the relative proportions).

See not quite the same thing.
You're wrong. It's a valid analogy.

Some, but not all, zygotes become human beings. By your logic, therefore a zygote is a human being.

Some, but not all, first year medical students become doctors. By your logic, therefore, a first year medical student is a doctor.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Uruk, maybe you're genuinely ignorant of the fact that many conceptions end in miscarriage.

Here's an article from the NY Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE0DC1439F934A15754C0A96E948260) about a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that concludes about 31% of all conceptions end in miscarriage.

These are the zygotes that never become human. No one is suggesting they turn into chinchillas.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I was not suggesting otherwise. The point I was poorly trying to make that a zygote that does not make it to term does not mean the the zygote was not human when it was viable.

A human zygote is a human life in the early stages of it's development.

Well, a human zygote is unquestionably human, just as it is unquestionably alive. But your argument requires much more. It requires that the zygote should be a human being, as opposed to just being human; and that it should have a life to lose, as opposed to just being alive.

We say of the deceased he died and we speak of the corpse or the body. But we cannot intelligibly say such things of a zygote that does not come to term. We can, of course, say that it is no longer alive, but we can say as much of an amputated finger— which, while still attached, was alive without having a life and was human without being a human being.

You may try to reach your conclusion by another route, but there is no help for you in our ordinary notions of what constitutes a human being.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The biological purpose of an acorn is to develop into a tree. That is what it does, that is what it is.

Biology does not give anything a "purpose". This is called the pathetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy).

By the way, if the biological purpose of an acorn is to become a tree, what do you make of squirrels and other animals that eat acorns? Is the "intent" of biology that they not eat acorns?

How could ecology be possible if the only outcome of every egg/seed/sperm is reproduction?

You've eaten chicken eggs, I suspect. Surely you're thwarting biology's "purpose" (I think the pathetic fallacy is merely a cover for another idea you might have--something like "God's purpose"). The purpose of a chicken egg is to develop into a chicken.

[uruk]

Uruk,

You keep saying things like,


and


and


It seems very important to you that the zygote will eventually (if all goes well) become a human. This, in your opinion, makes it equal to a human.

All sperms have the potential of becoming a human, it is their purpose, they have no other point. It is the reason of existence for a sperm that it make it to an egg.

So uruk, assuming you are a male, every time you masturbate, you are ending the potential lives of thousands of humans. That which came out of you has lost its chance to be human for ever, thousands of unique humans will never exist, can never exist, because of you.

You keep saying, 'at one point, you were a zygote, so the zygote is you.' Well, at one point, every zygote was a separate sperm and egg, so that must mean that you think a sperm and egg is equal to a zygote, and thus a human.

But you don't care about the safety of individual sperms, because you know that sperms are less than zygotes, just like a zygote is less than a fetus, and a fetus is less than a human. You could argue that particular and that particular ovum that produced the zygote were you. And you would be correct. But I choose to place the line of potential human life after the fertilization process has happened. That is when the DNA from the sperm and egg shuffle into the uniqe DNA arrangment that defines you.

It narrows down the description abit.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

But I choose to place the line of potential human life after the fertilization process has happened.

That is when the DNA from the sperm and egg shuffle into the uniqe DNA arrangment that defines you.

It narrows down the description abit.

What gives you (or me) the right to place the line anywhere?

[JoeTheJuggler]

You could argue that particular and that particular ovum that produced the zygote were you. And you would be correct.
Again, you're just begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). I've already shown how your logic fails.

If the zygote is "you", then it is equally true that "you" are a corpse.

Got anything new to say? You just keep repeating the unsupported assertion that a fertilized egg is a human being.

[rocketdodger]

You could argue that particular and that particular ovum that produced the zygote were you. And you would be correct. But I choose to place the line of potential human life after the fertilization process has happened. That is when the DNA from the sperm and egg shuffle into the uniqe DNA arrangment that defines you.

It narrows down the description abit.

But "potential human life" does not equal "me."

If my parents had named me differently, if they had lived in a different state when I was born, if they sent me to a different school, if someone else had been president, if I didn't go to that one party in college ....

"I" am the synthesis of every event in my life. If you go back and change any of those events, "I" will no longer exist. Someone else, very similar to me, will exist -- but it won't be me.

So you have to choose between what is important.

If "I" am important, then not only abortion but every single action a human takes on Earth is in question because they will all lead to different people in the future. In fact abortion becomes trivial in that context because it is merely lowering the probability that human X exists from infinitessimal to zero. If the girl I took to prom my senior year had said no, she would have killed "me" just as much as abortion would have killed "me."

If "a potential human being" is important, then your argument becomes much less personal and more utilitarian -- we should not terminate entities that have a very high probability of leading to an adult human regardless of what the entity is or who the adult may be. And although that is a fair argument it has much less power than the personal version.

[uruk]

Let me summarize my take on this. Morals are meaningless unless they are meant to avoid suffering (or thwarted desires, as Joe pointed out). That makes Uruk's position untenable. On the other hand, a foetus is a being capable of suffering independently of its mother. That makes your position untenable.

Morals are meaningless unless people give them meaning. Not all sufferning or thwarting of desires is immoral.

Morals and socity are what give life value within that socitety not the ability to feel pain or suffering. If you see life as important or worthy of being protected or preserved than you have to include the beginning of human life also. It is moraqly untenable to ignore one part of a person's life over another.

[uruk]

Yes, I know. See below



That was me and not Uruk. I offered that definition as a specific reason why a single cell cannot be reasonably defined as a human being. I accept that there is some arbitrariness to this definition.[uruk] Sorry if I missunderstood.




I agree that an ovum that begins dividing is very different from other types of tissue, but fact in and of itself is not enough to define it as a person. A person in the metaphysical sense I'll give you that. But it does define a human life.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But it does define a human life.

No it doesn't.

Again, you're just asserting your conclusion over and over.

The only argument I've heard you make is that a zygote is a human being because a zygote is a potential human being (because some zygotes will turn into human beings).

I've shown you what that absurdities that thinking leads to.

Do you have anything else to support the conclusion that a fertilized ovum is a human being?

ETA: I take it back. You made another argument in passing--the idea that it's a human being because biology has somehow given it that purpose. And that's just the pathetic fallacyl

[uruk]

Fiona is correct. Abortion should be allowed up until birth. Why? Well there's the obvious fact that anything less makes women a slave to the fetus (http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/02/18/invasion-of-the-babyists/).That is of course she chooses to become a slave to the foetus. The problem happens when the foetus is wanted or not.

And what about responsibility to life? Especially a life that is dependent.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Morals are meaningless unless people give them meaning. Not all sufferning or thwarting of desires is immoral.

I agree. Causing (in the loosest sense) suffering or thwarting of desires is not sufficient to make an action immoral, but it is necessary.

[uruk]

Do you feel sorrow for all the sperms that didn't make it to eggs? Those are people that could have been. The human life does not exist untill the sperm fertilizes the egg. Before that point the sperm is just a gamete. Only half the genetic material to make a human being.

[quote]In that case, uruk, it is your moral obligation to have sex at all times with any women you see, because if you don't, that special and unique combination of your sperm and their egg will never come to be a human, that unique life will be lost. As appealing as that sounds it is not our obligation to fertilize every single egg but to protect the life after the fertilization process has happened.

even if you must rape every woman you see, at least you are saving lives. Right uruk?? Sarcasm at it best. Can't we all just debate without emotions getting in the way?

[uruk]

And the fact that an acorn is not a tree.

How about we try using your logic some more: an acorn is a potential tree (because some acorns turn into trees), so we say an acorn is a tree. A tree is a potential piece of lumber (because some trees turn into pieces of lumber), so a tree is a piece of lumber. A piece of lumber is a potential chair (because some pieces of lumber turn into chairs), so a piece of lumber is a chair.

Therefore. . . an acorn is a chair.


This is trouble you get into when you use the logic that says since X is a potential Y (because some Xs will turn into Ys) that therefore an X is a Y.

Every wooden chair was once a acorn but not every tree becomes a chair. The process where a tree become a chair is vastly different from the process of an acorn becoming a tree.

And I do know that not every acorn becomes a tree. But that does not remove the potentiality it had before it ceased to be an acorn. Once the acorn is lost so did the potential the acorn could have had to become a tree.

The issue of abortion include specific reasons that the fertilized does not become a human.
Issues of nature are one thing, Issue of deliberate termination are another.

[Third Eye Open]

As appealing as that sounds it is not our obligation to fertilize every single egg but to protect the life after the fertilization process has happened.


What is the difference?

Seriously, what is the difference between these two scenarios:

1. I have sex with my girlfriend. Sperm #123,332,231 enters egg #12 and a zygote is created. A couple days later she takes the pill and the zygote is destroyed, ending the chance of that one specific unique human ever existing.

2. I wear a condom. Sperm #123,332,231 is blocked from reaching egg #12, ending the chance of that one specific unique human ever existing.

[Piero]

Fiona, not only are your arguments the weirdest I've ever come across; you are also the most articulate and clever sophist I've ever come across. You are still wrong, I'm afraid.

I am a construct of my mind. My body is the support system for my mind's substratum. So I am my body to the same extent that Internet is the set of all the hardware that makes it possible. And no, I'm not a dualist.

Your argument concerning the indeterminacy of "body" boils down to "Oh, come on! We all know a body when we see one!" Not good enough, I'm afraid. A moral system that will be used to allow the termination of a life needs a more robust foundation than common sense. As you may or may not know, intuitive concepts have usually proved fatal in mathematics, as was the case with infinitesimals and naïve set theory. Every system built on ill-defined notions lays open to incoherence, contradictions and collapse. I'm not claiming I have a perfect, water-tight system: only that your foundations are shaky.

I agree with your point concerning gross violations of my autonomy. But bear in mind that for the analogy to work, you would have to suppose you hand a broomstick to a mentally retarded person, tell him/her to shove it up your ass, and then complain when he/she does.

Concerning autonomy as the foundation of all moral action, I'm sure you are aware of the self-refuting implications of postulating the existence of free-will. What strikes me, though, is your equivocation on two different meanings of autonomy: autonomy = (free will) and autonomy = (right not to have your body tampered with). They are different things, and none can be derived from the other. Your sophistry is impressive, but still far from perfect, I'm afraid.

Concerning the foetus's use of your body, I fully agree: the foetus has no right to use it against your will. In fact, it has no rights at all. Neither has it any duties. That's because it is not a moral agent, since its very existence depends on someone else's body, so it has no free will to speak of. This, together with its capacity to feel pain, makes it compulsory on you, as a conscious moral agent, to prevent within your capabilities any harm that might threaten it.

No, I'm not arrogating the right to control your body. You can do whatever you like with it, as long as you don't harm another suffering-capable body. If you decide to keep the foetus within you for longer than it takes for the its neural capacity to feel to develop, then you have to admit responsibility for the consequences.

[uruk]

It's an analogy. It goes like this:
A first year medical student is to a doctor as a zygote is to a human being.

You're just smooshing it all together to make a non-sense statement. The relation ship between a zygote and a person is not the same as the relationship between a first year medical student and a doctor. A doctor is one of many professions a person can be. A zygote will only develop into a human being. You are comparing a specificity with a generalization.

The analogy does not apply. Do you see why?

I do know that in reality all zygotes never makes it to fully formed human. I argue that in the time before the zygote becomes non-viable it should be protected and have it's chance at life. Just like the first year medical student should be given every chance to become a doctor untill the point he fails.
Does it make sense to give up on the student before he finally fails or actively prevent him from becoming a doctor?

No. This is factually wrong. Since this has been pointed out to you several times, I have to think you're just lying to support your silly argument. Sorry, I should have made the clarification that all things being equal a human zygote will not develop into anything else other than a human being. Barring anything that will impead it's development.

The issue is what is preventing the zygotes that do not become human beings. Is it for natual cause that have nothing to do with human intervention or action or is there human intervention involved?


Similarly, not all zygotes will become human beings. It's a valid analogy (except perhaps for the relative proportions).


You're wrong. It's a valid analogy.

Some, but not all, zygotes become human beings. By your logic, therefore a zygote is a human being. A zygote has the necessary attributes (number combinations) to develop into a human being. In essence the zygote will payout (produce a human) if allowed to complete it's cycle unimpeaded by human intervention or natural causes.

A lotto ticket has randomly selected numbers only one particular number combination will pay out. DNA has many viable number combination. A lotto ticket only has one.

If it is a vaild analogy, it is only just barely.



Some, but not all, first year medical students become doctors. By your logic, therefore, a first year medical student is a doctor. So may be my inital statent lacked clarity.
But a doctor was at one time a first year medical student. He was given the chance to become one. Nothing was successful in impeading his course to become one. A human being was at one time a zygote. Nothing impeaded it's progress into becoming a human being.

I argue that every zygote implanted in a mother womb should be allowed that chance. And that chance should be protected. In persuit of that chance the zygote should be viewed as a potential human being. That is untill something prevents it from becoming a human being.

Human intervention should not be allowed except under specific circumstances.

[Cactus Wren]

Not quite the same thing. While it is true that every doctor was once a zygote, not every zygote becomes a doctor.

All zygotes, if allowed to develop, will become a human being. Not all lotto tickets will pay off unless it has a wining number.

See not quite the same thing.

False. Less than half of zygotes will become human beings. At least half will become menstrual periods, not even implanting in the uterine wall. Another substantial fraction will become early miscarriages. A smaller fraction will become hydatidiform moles, and of these a subset will become neoplasias -- so there is a small but measurable chance that a zygote, "if allowed to develop", will become not a human being but a cancer.

At what point may a woman be allowed to interfere in its development?

[uruk]

Uruk, maybe you're genuinely ignorant of the fact that many conceptions end in miscarriage.

Here's an article from the NY Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE0DC1439F934A15754C0A96E948260) about a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that concludes about 31% of all conceptions end in miscarriage. No I am not. I do know that not all conceptions are successful. I am arguing that the pregnancy should be given every possible chance, safe from human intervention to prevent it from continuing once fertilization has taken place.
Miscarriage due to natural causes is niether immoral or illegal. It's just biology. But an abortion is something different. I feel that certain reasons for the abortion can be immoral.

These are the zygotes that never become human. No one is suggesting they turn into chinchillas. I know the chinchilla remark was facetiou, sorry. But I am not concerned with those zygotes. I am concerned with zygotes that were prevented from coming to full term by reason of human intervention.

[Fiona]

An acorn is a potential tree. The biological purpose of an acorn is to develop into a tree. That is what it does, that is what it is. What separates an acorn from a tree is time and the oppurtunity.

I do not think acorns have purposes, biological or otherwise.

And society determins what those rights are and when you have them. When you are a child you do not have certain rights over your body and (hence yourself by your definition). Your parents are responsible for your actions and the well being of your body.

This is important to the issue. At a certain point in your life your parents are responsible for your life. This responsibilty places certain restrictions on the rights of the parents.

When and where that happens depends on the situation and conditions. One such example is mentioned above.

Yes

I recognise that there are justifiable reasons to perform abortions. I recognise that a woman is fully human and should be accorded all rights that any other human being should be.

But I also recognise that every human being wether fully adult or not also should be accorded those same rights.

Well in fact this is inherently contradictory. There is an irreducible conflict of interest you see. That you do not recognise it demonstrates that you do not in fact accord women all the same rights as other human beings

It is a fact that it is the woman who is the gestator. You cannot deny that scientific and biological fact.

Of course I do not deny it: I stated it explicitly

This does not place women in a catagory separate from other human beings.

Correct

It does mean that the woman has an extra set of responsibilities that are placed upon her by biology that have to be recognized and delt with.

No. Biology does not impose responsiblities. Biology does not know anything about morality or responsibility


The woman has certain responsibilities to that human life when it is developing in her womb. (The law recognises these responsibilities and to a certain degree that forming human life. You cannot endager that developing life after a certain arbitray amount of time in the womb.

No. The law imposes responsibilities, it does not recognise them. See above


When a pregnant woman is murdered, the law also charges the murderer with the death of the foetus. )

You said this before. It is not true in this country so far as I know. Can you show the statute?

A woman freely accept those responsibilities when the developing life is expected and wanted. Is it right for the woman to abandon those responisibilities simply because the preganacy is unexpected or unwanted?


A woman makes a choice, yes. Whether that choice is moral or not depends on your own moral viewpoint. Many would say she is immoral if she conceives a child she cannot support and carries it to term. Others would not agree. You are smuggling a moral conclusion in here when it is an open moral question. Each of us will have our own calculus in reaching a conclusion: but the question does not provide the answer, though you seem to think it does

It is the actions of the parents that caused that human life
foetus to be created.

I do wish you would stop assuming that which is under dispute: Others are dealing very effectively with that point. However no-one is denying that two parents have caused conception

Does that developing human life foetus have any value in society?

It might. What kind of value do you envisage?

Does it derserve any rights that other humans have?

Which rights? It has no right to use another person's body without consent: nobody and nothing has that right

Is it at fault for the actions of the parents?

Are you asking me if I think a foetus is a moral agent? If that is the question I think it is daft

We all have responsibilites that we have to deal with wether we like them or not. Some of those responsibilites are placed upon ourselves willingly or forced upon us by law.

Yes. However that says nothing as to whether those decisions we take or those laws we are subject to are right or wrong.

Biology defines male and female.

Yes.

It is the female who has the biological responsibility to gestate a human life.

There is no morality in biology and so once again this is nonsense


Different responsibilities sometimes forces different restrictions on individual rights upon us.

Since no responsibility has been demonstrated this is irrelevant

A soldier has the responsibility to defend our country. That responsibility restricts certain individual rights of that person. That restriction of rights is taken willingly when you join the military. It is forced upon you when you are drafted.

Again this says nothing at all about whether this is right or wrong.

Biology places certain responsibilities upon an individual.

No it doesn't

That resposibilty is to care for and allow that life to develop untill it can survive outside the woman's body. that is part of the procreation process.

If you want to procreate it is probably as well to carry your pregnancy to term if you can: if you don't want to procreate this is completely irrelevant.

In the case of abortion you are giving the mother the right to arbitrarily end a human life early in it's development.make her own moral decisions and control her own body

Fixed that for you

That is essentially giving another person the right to end another life or hand over the control of one individual's body to another .

Nope. It is recognising the right of an adult to make their own moral decisions, rather than allowing someone else to do it. The foetus is not in the case since it cannot make moral decisions

Currently the law has placed the value of the mother's life and rights over the life and the right to life of the developing human life. It is an arbitrary decision that is not based on biology.

Of course it is not based on biology. Is is not a biological question. We already established that

I do not say that I have a greater right to determine what is done to your body. What I am saying is that biology has given you the responsibility over the life of another individual. That responsibilty carries with it different conditions.

Er....that is not correct. I say again: biology does not give a toss about the life of ANY individual. It would be helpful if you could grasp this fact. It is fairly commonly understood.

What you are actually doing is arrogating to yourself the right to control my body in face of my own moral disagreement: and you are trying to justify that by an appeal to some kind of reification of biology. This is nothing to do with biology, as you said earlier. First there is the bit where he says it; then there is the bit where he takes it back; and then there is the bit where he says it again :rolleyes:


And what I state is that all human life has value regardless of what stage it is in it's development and deserves a right to life. Do you disagree with this statement?

Of course I do. That is a moral judgement. It is not my own conclusion and it is not self evident

You have rights over to your own body,

That is good

but what of the life it is gestating? Do you have rights over it's body?

By default I must have

You definitly have a biological responsibility to it.

No, I don't.

It is your actions that determine wether that individual life continues to exist or not.

Yes. If we can get to a stage when it is out of my body and not dead that will be fine. It has no right to use my body without my consent.

Aren't some of your rights suspended because of the responsibility of raising a child?
You have a legal responsibility to it? The law says so. You can't negelect your child.

That is correct

Certain responsibilities require that we forfiet certain rights.

Yes. That is a choice we make

Is it unreasonable to temporarily suspend some particular rights while a life is gestating in you for the sake of it's life?

Yes it is wholly unreasonable to deprive me of this choice as an adult human being with a fully developed moral capacity just cos it suits your fancy. Is it unreasonable to suspend your right to take over my body because you imagine you have some moral superiority?

It is moral to preserve you own life when it is placed in jeopardy by another. Besides before a certain point in development the foetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb. So it would be pointless to pick the life of the child over the mother's.

I am iffy in the case of rape and incest. The threat is to the mother's psychological well being. Sometime that can lead to suicide which would lead to the death of both the child and the mother. It would be a hard sell in my book but not totaly unjustifiable.

We all struggle with moral questions so that is not surprising. But it still does not demonstrate that you have such a superior grasp on these issues that you should be able to take control of my body in the name of the few certainties you think you have

That is not what I suggested. The mother does not decide irresponsibly to have an abortion but both the mother and father acted irresponsibly by allowing an unwanted pregnancy to happen. There would be no need for an abortion if the parents had taken precauions to prevent the pregnancy from happening in the first place.

Now do you think it is moral to end the life simply because of an error in judgement or a mistake? Are we not responsible for our actions and our mistakes?

I think it is for the person most concerned to decide what to do. Why do you think it is for you to make that judgement?

There is a growing trend to think that we can act in anyway we want and not have to deal with the consequences for our actions. it is the cause of a great many problems we bring down upon ourselves.

World's going to the dogs, I hear

Moral codes are imposed upon us all the time. Both legaly and socialy. Welcome to life.

Yep. Still has nothing to say about whether any given code is right or wrong.

You have a very curious way of sliding between science, ethics and pragmatism. I am getting the impression that your justifications are post hoc: and I am fascinated by what underlies them. I suppose I will never know

We remove certain rights from the adult because they have the responsibility of raising, educating and keeping a child safe from harm. That responsibilty begins when the child is in the womb and continues on untill they are legaly an adult.

Still has nothing to say about whether that is right or wrong


The truth of the matter is that when a woman has an abortion a life is terminated. That is a biological fact.

I do not think it is a fact. Many others have explained why it is not more eloquently than I can. If you choose to persist with mere assertion there is not a lot I can do for you. Nothing important hangs on it anyway

"Innocence" is irrelevent to that fact.

What makes it murder or not is the legal and social definition. In some cultures it is legal and socialy acceptable to kill a woman if she has shamed the family. You can be justifiably killed if you paint a picture of Mohamad in others. In our society it is not murder to terminate a life that is early in it's development. Legaly it is arbitrary.

Not quite. Our legal system reflects the values in our society, though imperfectly That different societies do not agree is not a surprise because values differ. One thing that feeds into that is our moral conclusions: and that is why this kind of issue matters. The legal system is not arbitrary: for myself I would hesitate to remove moral discourse from that realm because some very nasty things are both easier and cheaper. Why do we bother with a trial - the red queen's approach would do the job just as well if we have no concern for the rule of law: which is a moral value in itself, I think

That is why moraly rape and incest can be seen as an exception.

Again, natural failures in conception has nothing to do with the actions of the mother or father.


So those exceptions should be made because the woman has not done anything wrong and, in all other cases pregnancy and birth are indeed to be used as punishment for people having sex? Why you sweet old fashioned thing you. :) It is nice to know there are still people who never have sex except for the purpose of procreation. Because I am sure that a moral person like you would never put anyone at risk of punishment they could not themselves suffer, though equally culpable. The only problem with this is you want to impose your moral code on me and you still haven't shown any reason whatsoever why you should have the right to do so


But does the foetus deserve to die because of that choice?

There you go again: back into legality. Since you already said legal systems are arbitrary, why not? Of course i don't happen to agree, but then I don't think it is desserts tested.


Our actions have consequences. Don't we have a responsibility for those actions? Is it right to ignore those responsibilities?

No it is not right. I certainly think that women who want an abortion should go and get one: it is a consequence of an unwanted pregnancy and for myself I would take that responsibility very seriously.

The woman has rights that is undeniable.

Well it is deniable, but thanks for the thought

But what is also undeniable is that foetus is a human life.

Are you reading this thread????? It has been denied all over the shop. Here is a thing Uruk: moral views differ. They really do. It is one of the reasons I do not think you should be allowed to impose yours.

Is it right to terminate that life simply because it is unwanted?

Need to tease that out a bit again. You see that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is whether you should have the right to take control of my body because you think the answer to that question is "no".

Nothing wrong there. A medical staff in that situation would have the job of watching after it.

There was a time when the responsibility for defense of this country was legislated and people chosen by lot and had thier rights temporarily restricted in order to defend this country. Was it right or wrong to do so?

Well again views differ: seems to me there were a lot of people burning draft cards and going to Canada when that situation arose over Vietnam. Perhaps you think they were wrong to do so. They disagreed for a variety of reasons. Legally they were in the wrong and they were presumably punished for their decision. Morally? Not so clear cut.

That is a very unusual way of looking at it. So nobody has rights unless there is some body who has the duty to give those rights? is that what you are saying?

Yes that is what I am saying. Unless you go in for mere wishing that is inescapably true so far as I can see.

How about looking at it this way.

ok

Isn't a foetus a human life?

Not in my view, no. But again, for the sake of this discussion I am letting you have that point


It is human by the genetic make up.

Ok that one too

It is alive by biological defintition.

And that

And at the very least it is a potential human life.

You are going to get very wet under that acorn, but ok


Does human life have value?

Intrinsically? I do not think that is demonstrable

Biologically? No individual life has value in biology: biology goes in for bums on seats but it doesn't much care which bums

Socially? Well society quite clearly values some lives more than others: otherwise we wouldn't let folk starve while we have plenty of food. So I would say that we do not seem to act as if it does: or at least not always and everywhere.

Morally? More difficult. You see I think a fully human life does have value: and a fully human life requires choice and moral agency. The life of a slave? If his own life did not have value to him there would be no slaves: but then I wonder if this is due to the existence of hope and also of companionship and song and a lot of other things which go towards mitigating circumstance. If hope dies does the human being wish to live? Depends on how strong the survival instinct is maybe: I don't know.

What I do know is that these are complex questions and I do not see anything here which gives you the right to take control of my body: and that is still what you want, so far as I can tell

If you wish to make your case and persuade me to your point of view I have no quarrel with that: I quite enjoy it. If you want to base a law on your moral stance and thus impose that on me then I think you are beyond what is acceptable. But enough people do not agree that human choice and agency is the foundation, and so it is likely we will continue to deny human status to women who become pregnant. It is sad but I can only continue to challenge your legitimacy when you do it: and to call things by their name as far as I can

And when you make a mistake or an error in judgement arent you supposed to take responsibility for that action? even you don't want to? Or it's against your will?

Why do you think that having an abortion is not taking responsibility for an action?

[uruk]

Well, a human zygote is unquestionably human, just as it is unquestionably alive. But your argument requires much more. It requires that the zygote should be a human being, as opposed to just being human; and that it should have a life to lose, as opposed to just being alive. Giving the zygote the attribute of being a human being has to be done by society. I know it is basicaly arguing potentialities. It is what weight you give those potentialities. Is the zygote is a potential human being? Does the zygote have a potential life?

There is a legal precedent to giving weight to a potential life. You can sue for the earnings a recently deceased person could potentialy have made had they remained alive. The court recognises the potential life the person could have had. When a murderer kills a pregnant woman the murderer is also convicted of taking the potential life of the potential human being in the victims womb.
The court recognises both the potential human being and the potential life it could have had.

I am asking that people extend that line of reasoning to the zygote. If a potential life and potential human being are given legal and sociological wieght in those cases why not the zygote?

We say of the deceased he died and we speak of the corpse or the body. But we cannot intelligibly say such things of a zygote that does not come to term. We can, of course, say that it is no longer alive, but we can say as much of an amputated finger— which, while still attached, was alive without having a life and was human without being a human being. I think you can talk of the life of the zygote that may have lived the same way you talk of a deceased person. Obviously you cannot talk of the personality or experiances that have transpired. But we do sometimes talk about what could have been. Haven't you ever talked to a friend about what kind of things a person could have done if they had not passed away?
How would your life have been if the baby was born, What would you have named it, etc..
In some ways a misscarriage can change the life of the would be parents almost with the same effect if it had been born. Marylin Monroe's constant misscarriages affected her deeply.
I have a friend who feels deep guilt for having an abortion and often talks to me about how her life would have been different if she had not had the abortion.

You may try to reach your conclusion by another route, but there is no help for you in our ordinary notions of what constitutes a human being. Well that because there is no clear cut definition. it usually comes down to "You know it when you see it."
So everbody has to draw that arbitrary line.

[Third Eye Open]

Well that because there is no clear cut definition. it usually comes down to "You know it when you see it."
So everbody has to draw that arbitrary line.

Exactly. And we shouldn't make laws based on such arbitrary lines.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The relation ship between a zygote and a person is not the same as the relationship between a first year medical student and a doctor. A doctor is one of many professions a person can be. A zygote will only develop into a human being. You are comparing a specificity with a generalization.
That's completely irrelevant. The analogy was not of "a person" to "a doctor". It was "medical student" to a "doctor".

The analogy is just fine. Some zygotes become human beings just as some medical students become doctors. It makes no more sense to call a zygote "a human being" than it does to call a medical student "a doctor".

Also, I've shown a similar use of your logic to zygotes, human beings and corpses. Also acorns, trees, lumber and chairs.

I do know that in reality all zygotes never makes it to fully formed human.
I'm glad we've got that cleared up! Now that we're in the realm of reality (where were you before), we can stop talking about zygotes developing into other species.


I argue that in the time before the zygote becomes non-viable it should be protected and have it's[sic] chance at life.
No--you haven't made that argument, you've just asserted it. Why should a zygote be "protected"?

Just like the first year medical student should be given every chance to become a doctor untill the point he fails.
Ah--so you understand that the analogy is valid. Should the first year medical student be considered a doctor? Should he have the right to prescribe medicine or do surgery or whatever?

Does it make sense to give up on the student before he finally fails or actively prevent him from becoming a doctor?
"Giving up on" the student is not analogous. You're saying we should consider a zygote a human being. By that reasoning, we should consider a first year med student a doctor.


Sorry, I should have made the clarification that all things being equal a human zygote will not develop into anything else other than a human being.
You're back to this nonsense again. No one here is claiming a human zygote will become a cat or a chinchilla. Knock it off. That's a straw man argument of the worst kind.

Barring anything that will impead [sic] it's [sic] development.
This statement is factually wrong (assuming the sentence to be that if nothing impedes its development, every zygote will turn into a human being. In fact, if a zygote fails to implant, it won't become a human being. (And that's just one of many scenarios.)

The issue is what is preventing the zygotes that do not become human beings. Is it for natual cause that have nothing to do with human intervention or action or is there human intervention involved?
What possible difference could that make? If the medical student flunks out because he's incompetent or drops out because of a family emergency makes no difference. The fact is not all medical students become doctors so it's not right to consider them doctors. Similarly, not all zygotes become human beings. It's not right to call them human beings. Not all acorns turn into trees, so it's wrong to call them trees.


A zygote has the necessary attributes (number combinations) to develop into a human being.
And that's also completely wrong. A zygote can't develop into a human being all on its own. Those embryos freeze dried in the fertility clinics can't become humans on their own.


But a doctor was at one time a first year medical student. He was given the chance to become one. Nothing was successful in impeading [sic] his course to become one. A human being was at one time a zygote. Nothing impeaded [sic] it's [sic] progress into becoming a human being.
But a first year medical student is NOT a doctor, and a zygote is NOT a human being. You've yet to make a case for your assertion.

Many zygotes fail to become human beings even though NOTHING has impeded their development. Many medical students fail to become doctors even though NOTHING has impeded their chance to become one.


I argue that every zygote implanted in a mother womb should be allowed that chance.
Oh well--I'm glad to see you've just abandoned your position that a fertilized ovum is a human being.

Now we can begin to talk about why an implanted zygote is not a human being. Mostly because it lacks the capacity to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. (A necessary, but not sufficient, characteristic of a human being.)

And that chance should be protected.
Why?

In persuit [sic] of that chance the zygote should be viewed as a potential human being.
A zygote doesn't "pursue" anything. (Pathetic fallacy again, I'm afraid.) Even if it did, then isn't it analogous to saying that because a medical student is in pursuit of a medical degree (becoming a doctor) that we should consider all first year med students to be doctors?

Human intervention should not be allowed except under specific circumstances.
Why not? And what are the exceptions? (If the zygote is a human being, how could there be exceptions?)

[uruk]

Biology does not give anything a "purpose". This is called the pathetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy).You missunderstand. I do not mean to give the acorn any human like attirbutes. An acorn is a seed. Trees come from seeds. Biologicaly an acorn is the part of the tree that will produce a full grown tree, barring any impediments. That is what I meant by "biological purpose". I guess I should have been clearer and said "that is it's biological function"

[quote]By the way, if the biological purpose of an acorn is to become a tree, what do you make of squirrels and other animals that eat acorns? Is the "intent" of biology that they not eat acorns? Who said that? I guess I should have said "primary biological function" Squirrels find nurishment in the acorn. That is separate from it's primary biological function which is to turn into a tree. The squirle represents a natural impediment to the reproductive cycle of a tree.

How could ecology be possible if the only outcome of every egg/seed/sperm is reproduction? I am not interested in the egg/sperm/seed that are not viable due to natural impediments menaing not intentionaly impeded by humans.

You've eaten chicken eggs, I suspect. Surely you're thwarting biology's "purpose" (I think the pathetic fallacy is merely a cover for another idea you might have--something like "God's purpose"). The purpose of a chicken egg is to develop into a chicken.

I've eaten many an egg and many a chicken. My eating them is separate from thier primary biological function.

[uruk]

What gives you (or me) the right to place the line anywhere?
Society. Rights are derived notion that is only supported by the consent of others. Same with morality. Same with laws.

Right now society and the law says that a zygote is not a human life. What gives them the right to draw that line there? see above

I dont' necessarily agree with every point they make. But then that's my right to disagree.

[uruk]

Again, you're just begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). I've already shown how your logic fails.

If the zygote is "you", then it is equally true that "you" are a corpse. Again I conceed that my argument may not be clear. The zygote that produced you was you, just at a different point in time. Why is that? Because you are here, alive and you came from that zygote all those years ago.

It is a case of hindsight. Because at the time of the fertilization of the egg that produced you no one had a clue that you would be the result or even if you would have survived gestation.

But here we now. are you are alive now because that egg got fertilized and the zygote was not aborted by any means natural or otherwise.

Just like in the future (hopefully very, very far in the future) when somebody is looking at your corpse they could say that corpse was once you.

I can make that statement if I can see your life in it's entirety from beginning to end.
This is probably the only condition I can say that the zygote was you.

Got anything new to say? You just keep repeating the unsupported assertion that a fertilized egg is a human being.

I will clarify and restate that a fertilized egg is a potential human being. I support that assertion with the fact that some fertilized eggs do become human beings.

What importance you give to a potential human being is up to you.

[uruk]

But "potential human life" does not equal "me." Biological or metaphysical? You have a particular arrangment of DNA. That is one thing amoung many that separates you from other people.
At one time the fertilized egg that contained your particular arraingment of DNA was a potential life. And of course a long string of events then came into play that produce the individual that you are now. But at one time, long ago, you were just a fertilized egg that no one knew if you were going make it to term or not. Certainly it is not all that you are now but it was what you were back then.

Remember if there was no fertilized egg with your DNA in it. There never would have been a you now as you resently are.

If my parents had named me differently, if they had lived in a different state when I was born, if they sent me to a different school, if someone else had been president, if I didn't go to that one party in college ....[quote] None of that would have altered your DNA make up.

[quote]"I" am the synthesis of every event in my life. If you go back and change any of those events, "I" will no longer exist. Someone else, very similar to me, will exist -- but it won't be me. DNA is what you are biologicaly. Your experiances and memories make who you are metaphysicaly. And all that does not change the fact that you came from a fertilized egg.

So you have to choose between what is important.

If "I" am important, then not only abortion but every single action a human takes on Earth is in question because they will all lead to different people in the future. In fact abortion becomes trivial in that context because it is merely lowering the probability that human X exists from infinitessimal to zero. If the girl I took to prom my senior year had said no, she would have killed "me" just as much as abortion would have killed "me." All this would have determined who you are as a personality, not what you are biologicaly. That is determined in the reproduction process. And without that biological life and biological body you would not have those experiances. There would be nothing in which a personality can develop and grow. There would be nothing that could be "killed" by the refusal of a girl. there would have been nothing to have asked that girl to prom in the first place.

All that became possible because that one egg became fertilized by that one sperm and that zygote grew into the person that you are now.

If "a potential human being" is important, then your argument becomes much less personal and more utilitarian -- we should not terminate entities that have a very high probability of leading to an adult human regardless of what the entity is or who the adult may be. And although that is a fair argument it has much less power than the personal version. It maybe so. But I feel that every potential human being that has a high probability of leading to an adult human, as you put it, should have the chance to develop into a person that fears being reject by a pretty girl on prom night.

Is there something wrong with that line of thinking?

[AWPrime]

Again I conceed that my argument may not be clear. The zygote that produced you was you, just at a different point in time. Why is that? Because you are here, alive and you came from that zygote all those years ago.I can also say you to a virus, but that doesn't make it a person.

Rights are linked to ones person-hood (yes I know horrible word). A lump of cells doesn't have any degree of being a person, it has no sentience.
The person-hood shows far later in the pregnancy, when the brain starts to function, and even then its highly limited.
And as we are born we have only basic instincts, most adult pets have more sentience then that. And as babies humans have very limited rights.
We don't gather real rights until we mature and become full persons.

[Ivor the Engineer]

We don't gather real rights until we mature and become full persons.

I'm pretty sure most civilised societies recognise an infant's real right to life.

[uruk]

No it doesn't.

Again, you're just asserting your conclusion over and over. So then what defines a life? What defines a biological life? What defines a human life?

The only argument I've heard you make is that a zygote is a human being because a zygote is a potential human being (because some zygotes will turn into human beings). A zygote is a potential human being because the zygote is the first stage of human development.

It is potential because "First stage" implies that later stages will come. So the later stages including the end result can be said to potentialy exist because they have not happened yet but the possibility exists that the following stages and end result will occur at a future time.

One definition of potential is having the capability of being or becoming. I feel the above statement falls under this definition of potential.

The zygote is human because it contains all the biological material and information that the physiological human being will be made from. The zygote is derived from material from human parents and it is from the zygote that the eventual individual human being emerges from.

Because of this I argue that a zygote is the equivilent of a human being, when taken out of context of it life cycle, because given time and the human based biological processes involved the zygote will become a human being. In essence the zygote is a human being in the early stages of it's development.

i hope thatis clearer.

I've shown you what that absurdities that thinking leads to. Well you've certainly pushed my arguments to thier limits. It was fun.

Do you have anything else to support the conclusion that a fertilized ovum is a human being? See above. Nothing new but tried to clear it up a bit.

ETA: I take it back. You made another argument in passing--the idea that it's a human being because biology has somehow given it that purpose. And that's just the pathetic fallacyl You missinterpreted or ai was not clear enough. The zygote's biological function is to develop into a human being.

[uruk]

What is the difference?

Seriously, what is the difference between these two scenarios:

1. I have sex with my girlfriend. Sperm #123,332,231 enters egg #12 and a zygote is created. A couple days later she takes the pill and the zygote is destroyed, ending the chance of that one specific unique human ever existing.

2. I wear a condom. Sperm #123,332,231 is blocked from reaching egg #12, ending the chance of that one specific unique human ever existing.
Seriously, probably no difference at all. To me it is a matter of practicality.

You have to draw a line somewhere and I chose a particular point in the reproductive cycle that happens to be the moment right after fertilization rather than before becaue it gets narrowed down to one particular sperm and one particular ovum that have done the deed, so to speak.

[uruk]

Exactly. And we shouldn't make laws based on such arbitrary lines.
We have no choice but to do so when the parameters are not so clear.

The problem is drawing a razor sharp line where a fuzzy boarder exists.

[Fiona]

Fiona, not only are your arguments the weirdest I've ever come across; you are also the most articulate and clever sophist I've ever come across. You are still wrong, I'm afraid.

How kind of you to patronise me: how clever of me to notice ;). I am particularly pleased by an insulting label, because I always think that is the very best and most usual lead in to an honest exchange of ideas.

I am a construct of my mind.

Well that is not a meaningful sentence to me, so we are off to a bad start, really. You seem to be saying that your mind is making you up. What is this thing it is making up if that is the case? And how can it be your mind if it made you up? Looks like a circle to me. Perhaps you would like to put it a different way because it really makes no sense at all, as it stands.

My body is the support system for my mind's substratum.

What is a "mind's substratum"? Some might say the brain but that cannot be what you mean because the brain is part of the body so the body cannot be a support system for it. So again, can you rephrase, please.

So I am my body to the same extent that Internet is the set of all the hardware that makes it possible. And no, I'm not a dualist.

I don't know what this means either. Explain please.

At this point I would like to say that I do not usually have such trouble getting meaning out of posts. But you have wholly lost me here and I have no idea at all what you are talking about


Your argument concerning the indeterminacy of "body" boils down to "Oh, come on! We all know a body when we see one!"

Yes, it does

Not good enough, I'm afraid. A moral system that will be used to allow the termination of a life needs a more robust foundation than common sense.

It might, but you will have to make your case. There is certainly a need for more sophisticated concepts where ordinary ones fail: but this one hasn't failed yet :). It is not enough to say that ordinary language and ordinary understanding is inadequate: you have to show why they are.

As you may or may not know, intuitive concepts have usually proved fatal in mathematics, as was the case with infinitesimals and naïve set theory.

As you may or may not know, intuitive concepts have proved very useful in cooking and in inventing the steam engine and in a whole host of very valuable instances of human progress. If you have a specific reason for saying that the concept of "my body" needs something more complicated I suggest you show why. I am not impressed by jargon for its own sake

Every system built on ill-defined notions lays open to incoherence, contradictions and collapse. I'm not claiming I have a perfect, water-tight system: only that your foundations are shaky.

Well you better show me how then, hadn't you? Incidentally you just busted my irony meter when you mentioned ill defined notions in the same post as "I am a construct of my mind". Well done :)

I agree with your point concerning gross violations of my autonomy anatomy.

Fixed that for you


But bear in mind that for the analogy to work, you would have to suppose you hand a broomstick to a mentally retarded person, tell him/her to shove it up your ass, and then complain when he/she does.

Don't think so really. Perhaps you have a point but I don't see it. I was talking about where your body ends and someone else's begins: that is not affected at all by who violates it or how or why.

Concerning autonomy as the foundation of all moral action, I'm sure you are aware of the self-refuting implications of postulating the existence of free-will.

I did not mention free will except that the lack of it is a defining characteristic of angels in the Christian canon, so far as I know. I can accept this particular example may have misled you, since I can see that the use of it could be taken to imply that the contrast was between angels with no free will and humans who have it. However that is not what I meant: I have no position on the question of free will as an abstract. I do believe that people have choice, however and that choice is essential to any conception of morality.

What strikes me, though, is your equivocation on two different meanings of autonomy: autonomy = (free will) and autonomy = (right not to have your body tampered with). They are different things, and none can be derived from the other. Your sophistry is impressive, but still far from perfect, I'm afraid.

Autonomy does not mean free will and neither did I say anywhere that it does. Again, I cannot see how any conception of morality can exist without the possibility of choice: if you deny the possibility of choice then your objection to any action cannot be based on a moral judgement. If you do not deny it then you have to make the case which justifies removing it from another adult human. That is all. Your attribution is impressive, but still far from perfect, I am afraid. :)

Concerning the foetus's use of your body, I fully agree: the foetus has no right to use it against your will. In fact, it has no rights at all. Neither has it any duties. That's because it is not a moral agent, since its very existence depends on someone else's body, so it has no free will to speak of.

So far so good. Though I would substitute choice for free will :)


This, together with its capacity to feel pain, makes it compulsory on you, as a conscious moral agent, to prevent within your capabilities any harm that might threaten it.

No, it doesn't. That is a possible moral conclusion and it is indeed the one most people come to: the incidence of late abortion is very, very small and in almost all cases there are either foetal defects or maternal risk: or there is some problem with gaining early access to abortion. But the fact that that is what most people prefer does not demonstrate that late abortion is always wrong: it most certainly does not shift the right to make the decision from the woman concerned to anybody else

No, I'm not arrogating the right to control your body. You can do whatever you like with it, as long as you don't harm another suffering-capable body. If you decide to keep the foetus within you for longer than it takes for the its neural capacity to feel to develop, then you have to admit responsibility for the consequences.

Again you deny exactly what you are doing. It is not your decision to make

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Giving the zygote the attribute of being a human being has to be done by society.


I'm pretty sure you don't mean that this can be settled by counting heads, but your way of putting it certainly gives that impression.

The law is one thing; the rights and wrongs are another. It's clear from the rest of your posts that you understand the difference.

I know it is basicaly arguing potentialities. It is what weight you give those potentialities. Is the zygote is a potential human being? Does the zygote have a potential life?


The zygote is indeed a potential human being ( it may become one) and has a potential life ( it may get one). But that does not mean that it is a human being or that it has a life. Potential human beings are not a sort of human beings, and potential lives are not a sort of lives. Generally, talk of potential thingummies is talk of what is possible, not talk of thingummies.


There is a legal precedent to giving weight to a potential life. You can sue for the earnings a recently deceased person could potentialy have made had they remained alive. The court recognises the potential life the person could have had. When a murderer kills a pregnant woman the murderer is also convicted of taking the potential life of the potential human being in the victims womb.
The court recognises both the potential human being and the potential life it could have had.

I am asking that people extend that line of reasoning to the zygote. If a potential life and potential human being are given legal and sociological wieght in those cases why not the zygote?


I shall take your word for the legal cases ( although it would be good to know your references). However, your last two sentences seem to undermine the point you are trying to make. If the line of reasoning has to be extended, then presumably it isn't there yet.



I think you can talk of the life of the zygote that may have lived the same way you talk of a deceased person. Obviously you cannot talk of the personality or experiances that have transpired. But we do sometimes talk about what could have been.


I prefer might to may in your first sentence — but that may be a quibble.
On the main point: there are, as you seem to acknowledge, no experiences to talk about in the life of a potential person. Persons have experiences. Might-have-been persons only have might-have-been experiences.

Well that because there is no clear cut definition. it usually comes down to "You know it when you see it."



I'm not sure that answers my point. Even if there is no clear-cut definition, we can still spot differences between human being and zygote that forbid us from inferring from the second to the first. As I said, other arguments are needed.

[Piero]

Fiona, I did not intend to patronise you. What I said is true: you are clever, and you are a sophist.

Concerning the meaning of "I am a construct of my mind" it is shorthand for "The capability of the mind to reflect upon itself gives rise to a recursive process which generates consciousness". More details in Dennett's Consciousness Explained. If you have a better explanation for the origin of consciousness, I and a few thousand cognitive scientists would love to hear it.

The analogy between the Internet and my body is plain enough. I think you are being disingenuous. Similarly, it is obvious that the mind's substratum is the nervous system, including the brain, and the rest of the body, which keeps the brain and the nervous system functioning. Finally, "I'm not a dualist" means that I'm not a dualist.

Your intuitive concept of body (whatever that may be) has indeed failed, since it has made you reach the wrong conclusions. I cannot think of a more spectacular failure than that.

Rephrasing "free will" as "having choice" won't do away with its metaphysical content. How is a choice arrived at? What causes it? Is it an uncaused phenomenon? If it has a cause, is it material? If it is material, what is it? I'm not expecting an answer, just trying to show that your position assumes the validity of certain metaphysical concepts which are, to say the least, problematic.

As you rightly point out, to deny the possibility of choice is to deny morality. That's why we assume we can choose, so that we can morally judge actions. However, given this shaky foundation, we cannot justifiably go beyond a pragmatic approach to ethics and morals. Instead, you propose a fundamentalist and unwarranted approach, based on dubious assumptions. You keep asserting that only you have the right to control your body, yet you fail to provide a reasoned foundation. Why exactly is it wrong for someone to stick things up my ass without my consent?

Obviously, I as an individual have no right to make decisions concerning your body, but society as a whole has a right to make decisions concerning your body when those decisions affect somebody else's body. Otherwise, you should start a campaign to free all imprisoned murderers, because the right of their bodies to be in some particular place is being trampled upon.

As for my example of asking a retarded person to shove a broomstick up my ass, the analogy I was trying to make is this:
A 9-month old foetus parasitising your body is there because you asked him to. There are several ways you could have avoided its parasitical presence: abstinence, contraception, an early abortion. If you failed to do any or all of these, it can safely be assumed that the foetus is there because of your actions, and hence you can be held accountable for that foetus's welfare.

[uruk]

For Fiona and Lord Muck o Gentry:
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/453/context/archive
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/07/woman-charged-w.html
http://crime.about.com/b/2006/09/25/woman-charged-in-murder-of-mother-fetus.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003813963_mother31.html
http://www.missingangelsbill.org/news/20040402.html
http://www.santaclara-da.org/portal/site/da/agencyarticle?path=%252Fv7%252FDistrict%2520Attorn ey%252C%2520Office%2520of%2520the%2520%2528DEP%252 9&contentId=8907273aa5635010VgnVCMP2200049dc4a92____
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286560,00.html

It appears that the law places some value on a foetus. Enough to take the rights away from an individual.

[MattusMaximus]

Hey, I've just become a scholar! :D

And, according to uruk's twisted logic, you were a scholar even before you hit your 50th post! ;)

[uruk]

I can also say you to a virus, but that doesn't make it a person.

Rights are linked to ones person-hood (yes I know horrible word). A lump of cells doesn't have any degree of being a person, it has no sentience.
The person-hood shows far later in the pregnancy, when the brain starts to function, and even then its highly limited.
And as we are born we have only basic instincts, most adult pets have more sentience then that. And as babies humans have very limited rights.
We don't gather real rights until we mature and become full persons.

I know rights are given and taken for arbitray reason. A line is drawn and rights are handed out accordingly.

It seems to me to be hypocritcal to place no value on what is essentialy a person in early development. There would be no person with out that early stage in human development so why the reluctance to protect that?

It also seems hypocritical to me to not

[uruk]

I'm pretty sure you don't mean that this can be settled by counting heads, but your way of putting it certainly gives that impression.

The law is one thing; the rights and wrongs are another. It's clear from the rest of your posts that you understand the difference. Isn't it society that decides what is moral, what right, what is wrong, and what it defines legaly? Isn't that what right-to-lifers are doing? Trying to set a definition that suits thier agenda?




The zygote is indeed a potential human being ( it may become one) and has a potential life ( it may get one). But that does not mean that it is a human being or that it has a life. Potential human beings are not a sort of human beings, and potential lives are not a sort of lives. Generally, talk of potential thingummies is talk of what is possible, not talk of thingummies. Does the Zygote meet the definition of being alive biologicaly? Will its termination prevent it from developing into a person? Should that termination be performed arbitrarily?
Isn't procreation important to a society? Isn't that zygote an important part of the procreation cycle?

Answer those questions honestly and ask yourself if that zygote shouldn't have at least some basic value in society. Ask yourself if the zygote shouldn't be afforded some basic protection.






I shall take your word for the legal cases ( although it would be good to know your references). However, your last two sentences seem to undermine the point you are trying to make. If the line of reasoning has to be extended, then presumably it isn't there yet. I posted the some articles pertaining to some cases in another post.






I prefer might to may in your first sentence — but that may be a quibble.
On the main point: there are, as you seem to acknowledge, no experiences to talk about in the life of a potential person. Persons have experiences. Might-have-been persons only have might-have-been experiences.





I'm not sure that answers my point. Even if there is no clear-cut definition, we can still spot differences between human being and zygote that forbid us from inferring from the second to the first. As I said, other arguments are needed.[/QUOTE]

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No I am not. I do know that not all conceptions are successful. I am arguing that the pregnancy should be given every possible chance, safe from human intervention to prevent it from continuing once fertilization has taken place.
Don't forget to pass all the ancillary laws against a woman doing things that might rob her zygote of its chance. I'd make it open-ended, since we don't even know what all those things are.

A woman shall do no thing that might rob her zygote of its chance at successful development.

That should do it.

~~ Paul

[Piero]

And, according to uruk's twisted logic, you were a scholar even before you hit your 50th post! ;)
I could not bash him for that... He's an illuminator at over 4,000 posts, and I am a measly scholar...:(

[JoeTheJuggler]

Every wooden chair was once a acorn but not every tree becomes a chair.
Every human being was once a zygote, but not every zygote becomes a human being.

An acorn is not a tree. A zygote is not a human being.

[Steelmage]

I hope not. Sperm is not a person. You need the other part.

I know that, I was being a little facisous.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It seems to me to be hypocritcal to place no value on what is essentialy a person in early development.
It's not hypocritical if you don't believe that the zygote or fetus is "essentially a person".

And it's not, despite the number of times you've asserted that it is, or the efforts of the North Dakota legislature.

By the way, who says we're placing no value on very important stem cells!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't procreation important to a society?


This seems completely tangential to the topic of this thread, but I'll be happy to debate family planning with you. World population is now at 6.7 billion!

Procreation is important, but I don't think the way you mean it. I think fertility treatments are unconscionable! I think abstinence-only sex ed (gag orders on condoms and condom use, or--even worse--the spread of disinformation about condoms) is also immoral. STDs, including HIV and unwanted pregnancies are huge problems along with population pressures on the world economy.

One place where pro-life and pro-choice people could come together is on efforts to reduce the number of abortions, but the problem is that many (not all) pro-lifers hold their opinions based on religious beliefs and reject the science.

[uruk]

Sorry guys. I can see where I went horribly, horribly wrong with my Zygote = person argument.
Thanks to all for correcting me.

I conceed that particular point and will drop that faulty argument.
I do not now consider a zygote to be the equivilent of a person.

I still will argue, however, that the zygote has value in a society in reguards to reproduction and that our society does value potentialities and therefore should value a potential human life.

[MattusMaximus]

Eventually I shall retire and start collecting my pension (if it still exists :) ), but I don't want to wait that long. So because I shall be potentially retired at some point in the future, I think that society should value me as a retiree now and therefore allow me to draw upon that retirement starting tomorrow.

[uruk]

Don't forget to pass all the ancillary laws against a woman doing things that might rob her zygote of its chance. I'd make it open-ended, since we don't even know what all those things are.

A woman shall do no thing that might rob her zygote of its chance at successful development.

That should do it.

~~ PaulI know the my statement is a bit vague. A woman who is willingly pregnant is already doing everything humanly possible to protect the zygote within her womb and give that life a chance. I just think that the devloping foetus of a unwanted pregnancy should be afforded the same chance. I don't see the justifcation in terminating that pregnacy.


There are some laws in some states that are concerned with protecting the foetus. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa042401a.htm

The state does place some value on the foetus and accords it some protection.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry guys. I can see where I went horribly, horribly wrong with my Zygote = person argument.
Thanks to all for correcting me.

I conceed that particular point and will drop that faulty argument.
I do not now consider a zygote to be the equivilent [sic] of a person.
If this is sincere, I applaud you.

I still will argue, however, that the zygote has value in a society in reguards to reproduction and that our society does value potentialities and therefore should value a potential human life.
Do you have any evidence that we don't value human zygotes?

Also, do you value personal liberty less than you value "potentialities"?

It seems to me that the decision whether or not to have a baby should be the woman's. Anything else and you've got all sorts of human rights problems.

[MattusMaximus]

There are some laws in some states that are concerned with protecting the foetus. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa042401a.htm

Key phrase there.

The state Some states does place some value on the foetus and accords it some protection.

Fixed that for you.

And, btw, in Louisiana it is now acceptable for math teachers to, presumably, teach kids that 2+2=5 in accordance with "academic freedom". That doesn't mean it's a good law.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Speaking of potential humans. . . I've heard the pro-life argument that we might be aborting a future Mozart or Einstein. They neglect that we also might be aborting a future Hitler, Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer or Son of Sam.

At any rate, stifling the rights of women could cost us any number of geniuses (of the female type) by forcing motherhood on them.

At any rate, this whole approach is only arguing from the consequences and not addressing the moral question of abortion or status of fertilized eggs.

[MattusMaximus]

Also, do you value personal liberty less than you value "potentialities"?


I wonder how uruk would react to his own personal liberties being limited now (let's say, him being locked up for life) because of something that could potentially take place in the future (maybe he could go nuts and kill a busload of kids with a machine gun)?

I say we don't take the chance. We need to respect the rights of those kids in the future to live and therefore cannot ignore the potentiality that uruk won't become a sociopathic murderer in the future, despite the fact that he hasn't done anything... yet.

Do you agree, uruk?

[uruk]

Why do you think that having an abortion is not taking responsibility for an action? It is avoiding responsibility for mistakenly starting the reproductive process.
You get pregnant you start the whole process of building a human being. It seems like a dishonest convienence to assuage guilt by stopping the whole process before it can finish. After all you destroy the zygote or foetus even if you don't consider it be alive or a potential human.

And society does place a value on potentialty.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE6DE1E39F93BA35756C0A964958260
http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article3389


But It it does not matter what I think.

If you don't think the temporary supension of certain rights is justfiable under certain conditions than more power to you. I personlly see nothing wrong with that if the benefit is greater than the temporary loss of rights. And those rights are returned.

It happens all the time.

[Fiona]

Fiona, I did not intend to patronise you. What I said is true: you are clever, and you are a sophist.

Concerning the meaning of "I am a construct of my mind" it is shorthand for "The capability of the mind to reflect upon itself gives rise to a recursive process which generates consciousness". More details in Dennett's Consciousness Explained. If you have a better explanation for the origin of consciousness, I and a few thousand cognitive scientists would love to hear it.

The analogy between the Internet and my body is plain enough. I think you are being disingenuous. Similarly, it is obvious that the mind's substratum is the nervous system, including the brain, and the rest of the body, which keeps the brain and the nervous system functioning. Finally, "I'm not a dualist" means that I'm not a dualist.

Your intuitive concept of body (whatever that may be) has indeed failed, since it has made you reach the wrong conclusions. I cannot think of a more spectacular failure than that.

Rephrasing "free will" as "having choice" won't do away with its metaphysical content. How is a choice arrived at? What causes it? Is it an uncaused phenomenon? If it has a cause, is it material? If it is material, what is it? I'm not expecting an answer, just trying to show that your position assumes the validity of certain metaphysical concepts which are, to say the least, problematic.

As you rightly point out, to deny the possibility of choice is to deny morality. That's why we assume we can choose, so that we can morally judge actions. However, given this shaky foundation, we cannot justifiably go beyond a pragmatic approach to ethics and morals. Instead, you propose a fundamentalist and unwarranted approach, based on dubious assumptions. You keep asserting that only you have the right to control your body, yet you fail to provide a reasoned foundation. Why exactly is it wrong for someone to stick things up my ass without my consent?

Obviously, I as an individual have no right to make decisions concerning your body, but society as a whole has a right to make decisions concerning your body when those decisions affect somebody else's body. Otherwise, you should start a campaign to free all imprisoned murderers, because the right of their bodies to be in some particular place is being trampled upon.

As for my example of asking a retarded person to shove a broomstick up my ass, the analogy I was trying to make is this:
A 9-month old foetus parasitising your body is there because you asked him to. There are several ways you could have avoided its parasitical presence: abstinence, contraception, an early abortion. If you failed to do any or all of these, it can safely be assumed that the foetus is there because of your actions, and hence you can be held accountable for that foetus's welfare.

Maybe I am a sophist: I wouldn't know. But if I thought you were a blowhard I would not charge you for the knowledge.

So how about you actually show your working now? It is not enough to say my conclusions are wrong. You have to show how. Remember? I see no reason at all to believe you unless you do.

So can you answer some of my questions please ? For example can you show me why my understanding of the body is not sophisticated enough for our purpose. In particular, can you show what more complex conception of the limits of my body gives rise to a difference which makes a difference in the context we are discussing?

You have sought to show that my position is untenable because it is absolutist. That is interesting. You argue that we assume choice because that is necessary to morality, and further, that the existence of choice cannot be proved. Quite true. But I do not think either you or I are prepared to abstain from all moral judgement because it is built on a "shaky foundation".

If we are to address the subject at all it follows we must make some core assumptions. This is true in many fields: there are base premises because we cannot do without them: they are irreducible and yet not provable. It is not unusual I think, and I do not see much wrong with it so long as we are aware they are there and that that is their nature. But we must stand on something as a foundation. Or so I think, anyway.

Now what might those core assumptions be? I contend that we have agreed on one: that is the centrality of choice. There is no moral agency without it.

I would also place humanity at the centre, since I do not think any other species has a developed capacity for moral choice. Obviously work in ethology or other fields may challenge that in the future: but, despite some studies which seem to show certain behaviours in other animals which we might characterise as moral, i have not yet seen anything which proves that the capacity exists in a meaningful sense in other species. For me it is part of the definition of a human being that they have this capacity: that is not to say that there are no humans who do not have it: clearly there are damaged or disabled people who do not: there are immature human beings who do not@ and you can think of other examples. But it is big part of what we are and I would include respect for that moral sense in any list of human rights

The third thing which I assume is that morality inheres in the individual and not in the group. It is perhaps at this point we part company, I do not know. But I do not count as moral those things which are related to it but yet are group functions: law and social norms and those kinds of things may be informed by our moral sense, but they are not themselves a moral code. I do not mean to say that we do not learn much of our moral code from the group: we are a social species and we cannot find everything out from scratch. We are taught from the beginning and a great deal is never questioned. But some things are and we do develop an individual view on at least some issues through learning.

As I have already said, the other thing which I think is at the core is the ability to act. I need not elaborate on that again

Those core foundations are the essential things, so far as I have thought about this. They are the framework on which we hang the content of a moral code, and that content is secondary. And so for morality to exist we need to have an individual human being with choice and the ability to take action.

For me these are a very big part of what it means to be human and I would include them in any list of fundamental human rights. Take any or all of those away from a person and you have reduced their status below full humanity.

I am, as I said, my body. You disagree, and you think that you are something more or different: we will not agree about that. But it does not matter I think. Whether you believe the core of yourself to be your mind or anything else. only the body can take action. So our moral being is at least partly dependent on the integrity of the body.

I do not believe you do not know the limits of your body, despite what you say, though I await your argument as to why this crude and common sense notion is inadequate in this context. At present I take the view that if you do not know why it is wrong for someone to stick something up your backside without your consent then you are a sorry figure indeed. I don't actually believe that either. If you do think it is wrong then your question is a waste of our time: if you don't then there is no help for you, I fear

You accept that you as an individual have no right to take control of my body: so it appears you agree that this is an immoral act. The point about criminals is irrelevant: law and social norms are not moral codes. It is perfectly true that either or both can conspire to imprison me or to take control of me: that is force and I cannot do much about it: it doesn't make it right.

You take your stand on the rights of a foetus and because it is not a moral agent it is your contention I have a duty of care for it after the time it can feel pain. Uruk reckons I have a duty of care for it the moment a fertilised egg is implanted in the womb. I think that that neither of you have any more moral sense than I have: all you have is opinion based on your consideration of what you happen to think is relevant: me too. But if it comes to it the only final arbiter is the person who is directly involved: it is not a contest between me and a foetus: the content of my decision might be anything: but it is my decision insofar as it is moral and you have no moral right to impose yours on me any more than you have a right to make me go to church on sunday.

And we can both try to influence what the law says though that is an entirely different matter. My case is harder to make because it is less usual: that doesn't make it wrong either

And now Piero I have laid out some of my thoughts. But it is not actually for me to justify myself to you: so if we are to continue then you will surely lay out yours.

[Piero]

Fiona, I certainly don't have any more moral sense than you. I'm only human.
Anyway, let's stop beating about the bush: will you marry me?

[uruk]

If this is sincere, I applaud you.


[quote]Do you have any evidence that we don't value human zygotes? I don't know. Do you value the zygote in refrence to reproduction or what it represents? (Not including harvesting stem cells)
If you mean society in general. It places less value on it than the individual rights of the woman it resides in. It creats zygotes by the thousand and freezes them for what ever purpose.

Also, do you value personal liberty less than you value "potentialities"? I guess it would depend on what personal liberties and what potentialities. Can you give examples?

It seems to me that the decision whether or not to have a baby should be the woman's. Anything else and you've got all sorts of human rights problems.
Since it's the woman who has to gestate, I agree. Same with the human right isssue.

It seems a shame to just arbitrarly end a pregnancy though.

[uruk]

Speaking of potential humans. . . I've heard the pro-life argument that we might be aborting a future Mozart or Einstein. They neglect that we also might be aborting a future Hitler, Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer or Son of Sam. Ya takes your chances

At any rate, stifling the rights of women could cost us any number of geniuses (of the female type) by forcing motherhood on them. I thought motherhood was no longer an impediment to a successful woman? Doesn't seem to be slowing Angelina Jolie any. Having said that I do know that pregnancies prevent Eliva Einstien from getting her masters in mathematics.

At any rate, this whole approach is only arguing from the consequences and not addressing the moral question of abortion or status of fertilized eggs.
Morality and status is determined by whatever the prevailing winds of society are. It'll change based on whatever that is.

[Fiona]

It is avoiding responsibility for mistakenly starting the reproductive process.

Nope. It is fixing that in a sensible way. That is perfectly responsible


You get pregnant you start the whole process of building a human being. It seems like a dishonest convienence to assuage guilt by stopping the whole process before it can finish. After all you destroy the zygote or foetus even if you don't consider it be alive or a potential human.

Guilt? What guilt? You said upthread you had a friend who regretted an abortion: now you tell me that having an abortion is to get out from under regret: you are all over the place uruk



And society does place a value on potentialty.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE6DE1E39F93BA35756C0A964958260
http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article3389
But It it does not matter what I think.


Correct. I don't care if the whole world and 50 million flies think abortion is wrong: it is nothing at all to do with them unless they are pregnant. of course in practical terms they have no hesitation in taking control of women if that is how the culture is working at any given time. Doesn't make it right.
.

If you don't think the temporary supension of certain rights is justfiable under certain conditions than more power to you. I personlly see nothing wrong with that if the benefit is greater than the temporary loss of rights. And those rights are returned.

You are really great at missing the point Uruk :). Whose rights and for whose benefit: unless the answer is mine and mine you don't have a case


It happens all the time.

Doesn't make it right

[JoeTheJuggler]

I thought motherhood was no longer an impediment to a successful woman? Doesn't seem to be slowing Angelina Jolie any. Having said that I do know that pregnancies prevent Eliva Einstien from getting her masters in mathematics.

And were either of these women forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes?

[MattusMaximus]

Fiona, I certainly don't have any more moral sense than you. I'm only human.
Anyway, let's stop beating about the bush: will you marry me?

Whoa, slow down you two! We've already got more JREF Forum romances - one actually leading to marriage... seriously - than we can handle.

Of course, if you're into it, proceed :D

Back to your regularly scheduled thread...

[Piero]

Fiona, I'm not a blowhard. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I don't claim to have all the answers (though I could claim to have most of the questions, which is no bad thing either).

I didn't say your understanding of the body is not sophisticated enough. Rather, I'd say our (as in everybody's) understanding of the body is not clear enough, and so it would be risky to adopt a moral stance where a clear definition of what constitutes your body plays a major role.

Our bodies are constituted by millions of things, many of which we don't perceive. Bodies are dynamic, changing structures. I believe that path is hence far too difficult, and that's why I favour an approach based on "suffering" rather than "body". Why should that make any difference? Because, as Stanislaw Lem put it, "a sufferer is one who behaves like a sufferer": we all know what suffering means, and can easily tell when someone else is suffering.

I agree with you on the need for assumptions as a starting point. And I also agree it is reasonable to assume we have choice, or free will. However, you confer upon choice an unwarranted moral status. The "right to choose" is not a right at all: it is an oxymoron. You choose whether you like it or not: speaking of the right to choose is like speaking of the right to understand. What you really mean by "right to choose" is "right to abort" or rather, "right not to be punished for having chosen to abort". So the morally interesting point is what choices you make, and here we go back to the idea of suffering: if, faced with several alternatives, you don't choose the one less likely to do harm, then your choice is immoral. Of course, the question now is: how do we evaluate the amount of harm we ascribe to any particular choice? I have no definitive answer... yet.

Concerning my arse (which has come up a little too frequently for my taste), I obviously think no-one has any right to mess with it without my consent. Why? Because it would cause me pain, both physical and psychological.

As I said, I wish I had everything neatly and clearly sorted out, so that I could lay out my thoughts profitably. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I can say, however, that I found "Is God a taoist?" by Raymond Smullyan to be remarkably lucid. It's a short dialogue, and you can find it online, if you are interested. And JoeTheJuggler pointed me to a very interesting blog (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com) which I intend to visit assiduosly and learn what I can from.

[Piero]

Whoa, slow down you two! We've already got more JREF Forum romances - one actually leading to marriage... seriously - than we can handle.

Of course, if you're into it, proceed :D
Unfortunately, it seems it's only me who has to slow down... my heart is broken. :(

[Sun Countess]

Isn't procreation important to a society? Isn't that zygote an important part of the procreation cycle?Procreation is still going on at a pretty solid clip in societies everywhere. Women and men will continue to want to procreate, even if certain pregnancies never come to term, whether by accident or intent. Is it important to me how many children another woman chooses to have, or by whom, or how often? No, it's simply none of my business. I was allowed to make my choices and every other woman should be allowed to make hers.

Keep in mind that abortions happening early in a woman's life have often allowed other lives to happen. If my husband's ex hadn't had an abortion way back when, there's no doubt that my two children wouldn't be here. Of course, it's possible that I would have had two different children, just not the two I know and love. Women who take responsibility for an unintended pregnancy by terminating it (and yes, it's a responsible way to respond to the situation) generally go on to have other children in the future.

Answer those questions honestly and ask yourself if that zygote shouldn't have at least some basic value in society. Ask yourself if the zygote shouldn't be afforded some basic protection.Honestly, a zygote has no value in society and shouldn't be afforded any basic protection. The parents of zygotes currently being kept in freezers may feel some responsibility to their own zygotes, but I don't think society has any stake in their existence. If we look at the issue of stem cell research, I certainly don't think any society should compel people to create zygotes anymore than it should compel any woman to gestate a zygote to viability.

[Cactus Wren]

Speaking of potential humans. . . I've heard the pro-life argument that we might be aborting a future Mozart or Einstein. They neglect that we also might be aborting a future Hitler, Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer or Son of Sam.

I once pointed this out to a pro-life acquaintance in an online discussion. She replied with an unsourced assertion that a woman with Down Syndrome was born in the same town as Hitler and in the same year, and she grew up happy and beloved by everyone in her village and took care of her parents in their old age. Exactly what the point of this anecdote was my interlocutrix never made clear.

[Fiona]

I didn't say your understanding of the body is not sophisticated enough. Rather, I'd say our (as in everybody's) understanding of the body is not clear enough, and so it would be risky to adopt a moral stance where a clear definition of what constitutes your body plays a major role.

Ok, I accept that is what you think. Why? What is it about the ordinary phrase "my body" that you do not understand.?

Our bodies are constituted by millions of things, many of which we don't perceive. Bodies are dynamic, changing structures. I believe that path is hence far too difficult,

They are dynamic and they do change and we are not aware of much that goes on so long as it goes on. None of that makes it even slightly difficult to say what is my body and what is yours. The fact that you can ask questions is not a good reason for asking daft ones. Do you pretend you cannot identify a car because you do not understand its internal workings? Once again I do not believe you.

What is it you find difficult about determining which is your body and which is someone else's body and what is not a body at all? How often does this happen to you? Did someone mention sophist?


and that's why I favour an approach based on "suffering" rather than "body".

How does that help? Only individuals suffer. That means only bodies suffer (or in your case I presume bodies and minds: but that doesn't matter for this purpose). If you cannot identify the body then you cannot identify suffering. You won't know where to look for it.


Why should that make any difference? Because, as Stanislaw Lem put it, "a sufferer is one who behaves like a sufferer": we all know what suffering means, and can easily tell when someone else is suffering.

That is not correct. I definitely know what a body is for all practical purposes: and I know what a person is far more precisely than I can tell when someone else is suffering. If they are in a coma I cannot tell if they are suffering for sure: but I can tell they have a body. If your contention is that it is hard to say what a body is with certainty, then you are in much deeper water if you wish to say when someone else is suffering: it is quite easy for them to lie to you and thus mislead you into thinking there is no suffering: hiding their body is a far more difficult task.

I agree with you on the need for assumptions as a starting point. And I also agree it is reasonable to assume we have choice, or free will.

No: it is not "reasonable" to assume we have a choice: it cannot be shown by reason. It is, however, necessary, if we wish to adopt the concept of morality


However, you confer upon choice an unwarranted moral status. The "right to choose" is not a right at all: it is an oxymoron. You choose whether you like it or not: speaking of the right to choose is like speaking of the right to understand.

That is not wholly correct either. I can certainly be placed in a position where all choice is removed. If I am paralysed and cannot do anything at all then I have no choice if those who care for me do not choose to give me one. That is the extreme case but it serves, I think.

What you really mean by "right to choose" is "right to abort" or rather, "right not to be punished for having chosen to abort".

Nope. I would find it quite helpful if you refrained from telling me what I really mean if you are going to get it as wrong as this. The necessity of choice is the fundamental prerequisite for the existence of morality: the content of that morality is entirely separate.


So the morally interesting point is what choices you make,

Not quite. For me the morally interesting point is the choices you take it upon yourself to make for me

and here we go back to the idea of suffering: if, faced with several alternatives, you don't choose the one less likely to do harm, then your choice is immoral.

Of course, the question now is: how do we evaluate the amount of harm we ascribe to any particular choice? I have no definitive answer... yet.


Says you. This is a utilitarian approach which I do not find much use. So I do not agree with your stance.

In any case, as your last sentence notes, you will have to spell that out: because it is not at all self evident that we can determine which choice actually meets that criterion. I was kidding when I used the words moral calculus. I do not think what you propose is possible in many cases: and that is not a hypothetical for the sake of it, as many of yours appear to be. it is often a real problem. In this case you think it is obvious that taking control of my body is a lesser evil than the abortion which you seek to prevent. I do not agree. Prove your case or get off my lawn

Concerning my arse (which has come up a little too frequently for my taste), I obviously think no-one has any right to mess with it without my consent. Why? Because it would cause me pain, both physical and psychological.

To adopt your tactic, why should that matter if the other person is getting a great deal of pleasure out of it? A stupid question, n'est ce pas? But relevant because you still have not demonstrated that another person's suffering is self evidently a sound basis. I would contend that even if you were unconscious and could feel no pain until all tissue damage were healed: even if you never knew about it: it would still be wrong to do this to you. It follows that moral question inheres in the actor and not in the acted upon. YMMV

For someone who demands answers to daft questions you are not very good at laying out answers to sensible ones, so far as I can see

[Ivor the Engineer]

Fiona,

Your argument appears to boil down to:

"It's my body and anything I choose to do to it is moral if I say it is, even if it results in the death of a foetus".

What you seem to ignore is that a foetus at some stage is much closer to a sentient being than a bundle of cells.

Should one Siamese twin be allowed to kill the other because the other is totally dependent on her body for life?

[uruk]

I wonder how uruk would react to his own personal liberties being limited now (let's say, him being locked up for life) because of something that could potentially take place in the future (maybe he could go nuts and kill a busload of kids with a machine gun)?

I say we don't take the chance. We need to respect the rights of those kids in the future to live and therefore cannot ignore the potentiality that uruk won't become a sociopathic murderer in the future, despite the fact that he hasn't done anything... yet.

Do you agree, uruk?

I can be arrested for killing a "potential human life" See the links I posted
I can be sued for causing the loss of potential earnings. See links
I can be arrested for being a potential threat
I can be arrested for a potential murder. Just planning a murder, not even carring it out.

And if the conditions existed for me to potentialy "cut loose and school children" then yes. definitely lock me up.

A potential exists where the conditions exists for something to come in to being. If the conditions do not exist then the potential does not exist.

[uruk]

And were either of these women forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes? No, but if a woman who is willingly pregnant can achieve success, than so can a woman who is forced to carry a preganacy to term.

The state of willingness or unwillingness has no bearing on wether that woman can function while pregnant. Though you could make the argument for her emontional state.

[uruk]

Nope. It is fixing that in a sensible way. That is perfectly responsible "Sensible" is a value judgement. What you see as sensible may not be what others see as sensible. But everybody is entiteld to thier opinion.




Guilt? What guilt? You said upthread you had a friend who regretted an abortion: now you tell me that having an abortion is to get out from under regret: you are all over the place uruk I have no control over how my friend feels about her abortion. She tells me that she feels depressed about it, I take it at her word.

And by assuage guilt, I mean by breaking down the pregnancy into periods where you moraly justify the termination by saying "at this point it is not human but this point it is so If I terminated it before that point then it's ok, I'm not killing a human, just flushing cells."

It is avoiding looking at the pregnancy as a whole for what it is, the creating of a human being. If you look at it from this perspective the abortion takes on a different moral direction.


Correct. I don't care if the whole world and 50 million flies think abortion is wrong: it is nothing at all to do with them unless they are pregnant. of course in practical terms they have no hesitation in taking control of women if that is how the culture is working at any given time. Doesn't make it right. The old "if it happend to them they wouldn't think this way argument" It may have some merit in some cases, But not when the opinion is held by people who have had that thing happen to them.

The issue is not about taking control over the woman, it is about placing value on human life and respecting the proccese of creating that human life. At least that the issue to me.


You are really great at missing the point Uruk :). Whose rights and for whose benefit: unless the answer is mine and mine you don't have a case
So I guess it's all about "me, me, me." Selfishness reigns supreme.
I say it about respecting and valueing human life. If you do both then you must value and respect the process that creats that life



Doesn't make it right
Right and wrong are relative. Especially when it is our own interests involved.

[shadron]

Whoa, slow down you two! We've already got more JREF Forum romances - one actually leading to marriage... seriously - than we can handle.

Of course, if you're into it, proceed :D

Back to your regularly scheduled thread...

Killjoy Matt. It's the first on the new server - surely that counts for something?

[uruk]

Procreation is still going on at a pretty solid clip in societies everywhere. Women and men will continue to want to procreate, even if certain pregnancies never come to term, whether by accident or intent. Is it important to me how many children another woman chooses to have, or by whom, or how often? No, it's simply none of my business. I was allowed to make my choices and every other woman should be allowed to make hers. My argument is not concerned with pregnancies that are terminated by natural means or accident. I don't feel the number of pregancies that successfully make it to term lessens the moral effects of aborting the unwanted pregnancy.

It' odd that some find it less moral to interfere with the rights of a mother when it they feel she is having too many children as opposed to interfereing with the rights of a woman aborting pregnancies. I do see that you do not want to interfere with the rights of the woman in either case. But China does.

Human life is affected by economies of scales. The more there are the less they are worth.
True in most societies, but i thought our society held a different moral compass concerning the value of life.

Keep in mind that abortions happening early in a woman's life have often allowed other lives to happen. If my husband's ex hadn't had an abortion way back when, there's no doubt that my two children wouldn't be here. Of course, it's possible that I would have had two different children, just not the two I know and love. Women who take responsibility for an unintended pregnancy by terminating it (and yes, it's a responsible way to respond to the situation) generally go on to have other children in the future. If I am wrong for arguing potentialites then why should you be right for arguing potentialities. You are talking about a potential life that could have existed for your husband and his ex had she not aborrted her pregnancies. By what I've been told those potential are meaningless because they never existed.

If the potential life of a human being that exists in a zygote does not matter, or hold any importance, or is meaningless, then niether should that potential life of your husband with his ex or those potential children you are refering to.

You can't have it both ways.

And I do not see terminating a pregnancy as being responsible to the action creating an unwanted pregnancy because of the value I place on human life in general.

Honestly, a zygote has no value in society and shouldn't be afforded any basic protection. The parents of zygotes currently being kept in freezers may feel some responsibility to their own zygotes, but I don't think society has any stake in their existence. If we look at the issue of stem cell research, I certainly don't think any society should compel people to create zygotes anymore than it should compel any woman to gestate a zygote to viability. I disagree, the zygote is a part of the precreation process which in the end produces a human being. If the human being has a value and importance and protection, then so should the processes that creates that human being.

The life cycle from begining to end is all part of the human experiance, It is part of being human. It seems arbitrary to me to simply ignore one part when ever it suits you.


And to Fiona. I am for contraception, and for responsibility in preventing an unwanted pregnancy. I am not for the termination of an unwanted pregnancy. If that means the temporary suspention of personal rights, than so be it. Temporary suspention of personal rights and freedms happens all the time for various reasons. You may not agree with it but under certain circumstances it is necessary. You can always argue what is deemed necessary

And sometimes it is necessary for the functionng of a society. Existing in a society often means that we have to suspend some of our personal rights and freedoms. It sucks and may not seem right to you but that is reality.

That concept seems to have been lost on the "ME" generation.

[Sun Countess]

If I am wrong for arguing potentialites then why should you be right for arguing potentialities. You are talking about a potential life that could have existed for your husband and his ex had she not aborrted her pregnancies. By what I've been told those potential are meaningless because they never existed.

If the potential life of a human being that exists in a zygote does not matter, or hold any importance, or is meaningless, then niether should that potential life of your husband with his ex or those potential children you are refering to.

You can't have it both ways.
I actually don't want it both ways, and I'm not really arguing for potentialities. I'm just pointing out that there's no sense, IMO, for getting worked up about all those poor human lives that have not come to pass, when their very existence would have kept other potential lives from coming to pass. Really, it's just not my business which or how many children are being born to any individual woman. Just as I would never go up to a strange woman and say to her, "Hmmm, you seem like a good sort. I think you should have four children." I would never tell any woman how many actual pregnancies she was obligated to carry to term. Those decisions belong to her, not to me, and not to society at large.

There aren't women evilly running around creating and terminating pregnancies on whims, and there are very few who use abortion as their primary means of birth control. Every woman I know who's had an abortion has done so with some degree of personal sorrow, but every single one has gone on to have other children. Most of them have even completed their educations. ;) I don't know about you, but I'm much happier that all those children were born to older, more educated mostly-married women, than were born to uneducated teenagers and their teenage boyfriends.

And I do not see terminating a pregnancy as being responsible to the action creating an unwanted pregnancy because of the value I place on human life in general.Then I guess those women will have to suffer the humiliation of you thinking them irresponsible. Other people - like me - think it is a responsible action to take. Nobody I know has undertaken it eagerly or easily.

I disagree, the zygote is a part of the precreation process which in the end produces a human being. If the human being has a value and importance and protection, then so should the processes that creates that human being.Are you now arguing to place value on the actual sex act? Or on individual sperm and eggs? They're all part of the processes that create a human being as well.

Would you agree that not everybody has the same value system as you, and that we should allow people to make decisions for themselves that they feel comfortable with? You've already stated that you wouldn't necessarily force a rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term, so I know that the value you're placing on this human life isn't absolute. Other people draw those arbitrary lines at other places. The zygote or a developing fetus that is not yet sentient, that doesn't feel any pain, cannot have its "wishes" (if they can be called such, since I don't ever remember what it was that I was wishing for when I was a non-sentient fetus) elevated past the wishes of the woman whose body it's dependent upon for its very existence.

Like Fiona, I carry the less-popular opinion that a woman should be afforded the right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason at whatever time. In some cases, where the fetus is past the point of viability, I believe in mitigating the harm by inducing an early delivery. The main point is to "get it out" and if that can be done in a way that allows say an 8-months gestated fetus to be born alive, then go for it. I don't know too many women who would argue that point (i.e. "I want it dead.") The only reason I could personally think of for terminating a pregnancy at that late stage would be because it was somehow so badly deformed that it wasn't really viable anyway.

And yes, while most women can still "function" while pregnant, whether the pregnancy is wanted or unwanted, it's not just "oh well, whatever, I'm pregnant, no biggie." It is a biggie! It's a biggie when the pregnancy is intended and joyful, and it's something I could never imagine going through if the pregnancy is unintended and a point of misery.

I remember one of my anti-choice friends talking to me after my son was born, saying, "Now do you see why I'm pro-life?" And I said, "No, now I'm more pro-choice than I ever was. I would never put another woman through that if it was against her will in any way." Somehow we're still friends. :)

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sun Countess,

Given your views, perhaps you would like to answer the following question:

Should one Siamese twin be allowed to kill the other because the other is totally dependent on her body for life?

[MattusMaximus]

A potential exists where the conditions exists for something to come in to being. If the conditions do not exist then the potential does not exist.

You misunderstand. I should have phrased the question better...

Should you be locked up now because you could potentially be a killer in the future, in the context that you cannot prove to us now that you won't be a killer then?

Because, you know, we all have the potential to become cold-blooded killers - even you.

Your turn.

[MattusMaximus]

Sun Countess,

Given your views, perhaps you would like to answer the following question:

Should one Siamese twin be allowed to kill the other because the other is totally dependent on her body for life?

Strawman. What is the neurological state of the two twins? What if one is in a vegetative state? What if one never developed their own brain but shares all other organs?

Not so cut and dry as you'd like to present it.

[MattusMaximus]

And sometimes it is necessary for the functionng of a society. Existing in a society often means that we have to suspend some of our personal rights and freedoms. It sucks and may not seem right to you but that is reality.

That concept seems to have been lost on the "ME" generation.

Uhhh, you do know that intentional abortions existed long before the "me" generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#History_of_abortion), right? :rolleyes:

[Sun Countess]

The situation with conjoined, or siamese, twins is not usually a case where one is completely dependent on the other for survival. Certainly there have been such cases, and I remember one from a few years ago (in England?), where the choice was really between: separate the dependent twin and allow the stronger only to survive; or do nothing and let them both live for a very short period of time, as the stronger twin wasn't strong enough to sustain the two lives. In that case, I would not hesitate to separate the twins and allow the stronger one to live a fuller life. I don't remember what the parents ultimately decided in that case.

If both twins are born alive, are sentient, and can feel pain, I would have a much harder time deciding whether to separate them if I knew for certain that one wouldn't survive the separation, if the other option was to let them both live full lives in a conjoined state. If there were a risk to either or both lives with separation surgery, I think it should be up to the parents to decide whether they wanted to proceed. Some parents may proceed if the risk of death is as low as 15%, but others may not proceed with a risk as low as 5%.

Are you familiar with other situations which are 100% parasitic in nature, where one conjoined twin is essentially completely dependent on the other? Certainly, I think any such cases should be decided at the earliest possible moment (and speaking only for myself, I would terminate conjoined twins during the pregnancy), and I don't have a problem with parents making that call in their children's infancy.

It's more common that conjoined twins share some vital organs or systems (whether through the brain or the heart), which makes separation difficult, and which would force someone to choose which one should live over the other if it came down to it. In that case, they're both dependent on the other for their continued survival, and there's nothing parasitic about the relationship.

[Fiona]

Fiona,

Your argument appears to boil down to:

"It's my body and anything I choose to do to it is moral if I say it is, even if it results in the death of a foetus".

What you seem to ignore is that a foetus at some stage is much closer to a sentient being than a bundle of cells.

Should one Siamese twin be allowed to kill the other because the other is totally dependent on her body for life?

Not at all. My argument is that we are all moral agents. I have my own views about what is moral. which I try to live up to. And that is the full extent of my moral rights and responsibilities. It is also the full extent of your moral rights and responsibilities. I do not have the right to make your moral decisions for you and you do not have the right to make mine for me.

When you make a moral judgement I might agree or I might disagree with it. That is in the nature of morality: there is no certain and agreed answer in any truly morally vexed question. Honest people come to different views and this has been amply demonstrated on this board

So the question I am asking is this: what gives you the right to elevate your conclusion over mine, on any moral issue at all?

[uruk]

I actually don't want it both ways, and I'm not really arguing for potentialities. I'm just pointing out that there's no sense, IMO, for getting worked up about all those poor human lives that have not come to pass, when their very existence would have kept other potential lives from coming to pass. Really, it's just not my business which or how many children are being born to any individual woman. Just as I would never go up to a strange woman and say to her, "Hmmm, you seem like a good sort. I think you should have four children." I would never tell any woman how many actual pregnancies she was obligated to carry to term. Those decisions belong to her, not to me, and not to society at large. I am refering to unwanted pregnancies that were initiated by the lack of use of contraceptives. This I am refering to when I say "irresponsible behaivior". I do not care what the person's sexual habits are. What I do care is if they would exercise some responisibilty over thier body and actions by using contraceptives to prevent an unwanted pregnancies.

I feel that it is far better moraly and for the rights of the woman that the unwanted pregnancy to have never happened at all. No need for a debate about womans rights and foetus rights.

See, I would preffer that there be no need for any sort of legislation at all. But we do not live in a perfect world. And people are what they are.

There aren't women evilly running around creating and terminating pregnancies on whims, and there are very few who use abortion as their primary means of birth control. Every woman I know who's had an abortion has done so with some degree of personal sorrow, but every single one has gone on to have other children. Most of them have even completed their educations. ;) I don't know about you, but I'm much happier that all those children were born to older, more educated mostly-married women, than were born to uneducated teenagers and their teenage boyfriends. I am not suggesting that they are. The unwanted preganacy is usually caused by not using contraceptives. And the desire to have the abortion is to "make the problem go away."

And I agree it is better for the teenagers to not have to deal with raising the child. It ruins both lives in most cases. But that solution of abortion ruins one life. The life of the child who would have been the product of the pregnancy.

I know it has been hammered into me that a zygote or foetus is not the same as a human being and that a potential life is not a real life because it does not exist yet

But I hope that people here would agree that a pregnancy is the process of creating a human being. The quibble is looking at the pregancy as a whole or breaking it down to define when the developing child or foetus or whatever, is considered human or not.

I choose to look at the pregnancy as a whole and the abortion terminates that process on which I place a value on because that is how human beings are created.

I feel the better solution is allow the pregnancy to come to term and give the child up for adoption. At that point the teenager if free of the burnden of raising the child. And the experiance may well server to reminder her of the consequences of not using contracptive.

Some see that as trite and a form of punsihment, but sometimes we only learn by experiancing the the consequences of our actions. The quick fix of abortion negates that.
And I do know that the abortion proceedure is not a easy or painless by any stretch of the imagination. But I do know women who fail to use contraceptive even after the abortion and just continue on not learning to be responsible for her body.

I feel from a moral stand point it's the best solution becaue the teenager gets thier life back, a bit wiser for the wear and the prenancy is not wasted and a new human life can begin. You are free to disagree of course, it is just my opinion.

Then I guess those women will have to suffer the humiliation of you thinking them irresponsible. Other people - like me - think it is a responsible action to take. Nobody I know has undertaken it eagerly or easily. I'm sorry, I meant to say that I do not think that aborting the pregnancy is the samething as taking responsibilty for the action of not preventing an unwanted pregnancy. I'm not sure if I am just saying the same thing differently but I see the difference.

I see the abortion as avoiding the consequences of the irresponsible act of not preventing the unwanted pregnancy. The consequences of an unwanted preganacy is having to carry the baby to term and raisng a child. That is if you value human life.

I am willing to accept the adoption solution rather than the abortion solution because the new life that is created gets to continue and the woman is not placed with the burden of raising a child she is not prepared to raise.

Are you now arguing to place value on the actual sex act? Or on individual sperm and eggs? They're all part of the processes that create a human being as well. No I draw the line at fertilization. It is after fertilization where the process of cell division to fully formed infant begins. Abitrary? Yes, But so is drawing the line of when along that processe that a group of cells becomes as a human being.


Would you agree that not everybody has the same value system as you, and that we should allow people to make decisions for themselves that they feel comfortable with? You've already stated that you wouldn't necessarily force a rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term, so I know that the value you're placing on this human life isn't absolute. Other people draw those arbitrary lines at other places. The zygote or a developing fetus that is not yet sentient, that doesn't feel any pain, cannot have its "wishes" (if they can be called such, since I don't ever remember what it was that I was wishing for when I was a non-sentient fetus) elevated past the wishes of the woman whose body it's dependent upon for its very existence. Of course. I am just expressing my opinion on the subject. I do not want Rowe vs. Wade recinded nor do I think any less of a woman who has had an unwanted pregnancy aborted. It is her body, her choice and the law agrees.

I am just arguing the moral implications if a certain value was place on life and if that value was equaly place on the process by which a human being is created. If you do then, you can be moraly justified in curtailing some human rights in favor of a desierd outcome or moral value system. It happens all the time in society. There are always limitations and negation and value judgements on our individual rights. It's part of existing in a society.


Like Fiona, I carry the less-popular opinion that a woman should be afforded the right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason at whatever time. In some cases, where the fetus is past the point of viability, I believe in mitigating the harm by inducing an early delivery. The main point is to "get it out" and if that can be done in a way that allows say an 8-months gestated fetus to be born alive, then go for it. I don't know too many women who would argue that point (i.e. "I want it dead.") The only reason I could personally think of for terminating a pregnancy at that late stage would be because it was somehow so badly deformed that it wasn't really viable anyway. I don't think any woman wants the foetus dead so much as wanting to not deal with the pregnancy. Hopefully science will come to the resuce where the zygote or foetus can be removed and be allowed to come to term outside the womb or transplanted into a mother who wants it.
Then no moral dilema.


And yes, while most women can still "function" while pregnant, whether the pregnancy is wanted or unwanted, it's not just "oh well, whatever, I'm pregnant, no biggie." It is a biggie! It's a biggie when the pregnancy is intended and joyful, and it's something I could never imagine going through if the pregnancy is unintended and a point of misery. I did say I knew of the issue of emotional state. Most people are not in a good emotional state when they are forced to deal with consequences of thier actions against thier will.

It's a good thing the law allows you to avoid all that.

I remember one of my anti-choice friends talking to me after my son was born, saying, "Now do you see why I'm pro-life?" And I said, "No, now I'm more pro-choice than I ever was. I would never put another woman through that if it was against her will in any way." Somehow we're still friends. :)
People can agree to disagree.

[Piero]

For someone who demands answers to daft questions you are not very good at laying out answers to sensible ones, so far as I can see
I'll take that as a yes.

If you are sitting on a bus, and next to you sits a very fat guy, do you have a right to throw him out of the window because he is constricting your body against your will? Obviously not because:
1. When you decide to ride a bus you know there is a risk of that happening
2. The fat guy is not purposely constricting you.
3. You could change seats.

If you wait too long to change seats, there may be none available. That's tough.

[Third Eye Open]

Uhhh, you do know that intentional abortions existed long before the "me" generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#History_of_abortion), right? :rolleyes:

As well as infanticide. If someone has a baby they can't or don't want to take care of, they are not going to take care of it. No law is going to change that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, but if a woman who is willingly pregnant can achieve success, than so can a woman who is forced to carry a preganacy [sic] to term.
Not always true in all circumstances.

The state of willingness or unwillingness has no bearing on wether [sic] that woman can function while pregnant. Though you could make the argument for her emontional state.
The question isn't whether the woman can "function". If that's the case, why not just enslave everyone? Slaves can "function".
Of course the state of willingness or unwillingness matters. It's called liberty. . .or freedom. Yes, indeed taking away women's freedom limits their opportunities.

[Sun Countess]

I am refering to unwanted pregnancies that were initiated by the lack of use of contraceptives. This I am refering to when I say "irresponsible behaivior". I do not care what the person's sexual habits are. What I do care is if they would exercise some responisibilty over thier body and actions by using contraceptives to prevent an unwanted pregnancies.

I feel that it is far better moraly and for the rights of the woman that the unwanted pregnancy to have never happened at all. No need for a debate about womans rights and foetus rights.
I think everyone would agree that the world would be a much better place if all pregnancies were planned, or at least wanted, and with no health implications for either mother or fetus. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't make me gleeful at the thought of abortions happening.

Two problems with the argument of "irresponsible behavior." First, many pregnancies occur even when contraception is used properly and consistently. No contraception is 100% effective. Also, there are many in the "pro-life" camp who would like to prohibit the use of hormonal birth control methods and IUDs because they don't necessarily prevent conception, just a pregnancy (most hormonal birth control methods prevent ovulation, but on the off-chance that it happens, there's a backup to prevent implantation). And isn't it better that a woman take a morning-after pill when a condom breaks? But if a conception has occured, that zygote may not reach its potential.

How can there be more responsible use of contraceptives if only barrier methods are deemed legal?

I feel the better solution is allow the pregnancy to come to term and give the child up for adoption. At that point the teenager if free of the burnden of raising the child. And the experiance may well server to reminder her of the consequences of not using contracptive.Adoption is one choice, but that solution isn't what's best for everyone. I think that most teenagers are able to learn from the experience of an unintended pregnancy, whether it ends in abortion or adoption. Speaking only from my own experience, everyone I know "learned a lesson" after the first unplanned pregnancy.

Some see that as trite and a form of punsihment, but sometimes we only learn by experiancing the the consequences of our actions. The quick fix of abortion negates that.
Again, abortion may be considered a "quick fix" but it's not an easy or painless procedure, and I would classify it as a very unpleasant consequence and learning experience for any teenager.

I feel from a moral stand point it's the best solution becaue the teenager gets thier life back, a bit wiser for the wear and the prenancy is not wasted and a new human life can begin. You are free to disagree of course, it is just my opinion. Adoption is a real solution for many teenagers, but it shouldn't be the only solution available to them, or to adult women. As I said before, pregnancy is a big deal. It's not just a little discomfort for nine months.

I see the abortion as avoiding the consequences of the irresponsible act of not preventing the unwanted pregnancy. The consequences of an unwanted preganacy is having to carry the baby to term and raisng a child. That is if you value human life.
Repeating that pregnancies happen even when people act responsibly, and that pregnancy shouldn't be seen as a consequence or punishment for acting irresponsibly. I value the life of the teenage girl or grown woman more than I value the potential life of a non-sentient grouping of cells. Your life path is considerably altered when and after undergoing a pregnancy and delivery. Where also are the consequences for the young men who act irresponsibly?

No I draw the line at fertilization. It is after fertilization where the process of cell division to fully formed infant begins. Abitrary? Yes, But so is drawing the line of when along that processe that a group of cells becomes as a human being.
Does that line not preclude the use of many hormonal methods of birth control, along with morning-after pills, and IUDs? How then are people supposed to act more responsibly by preventing pregnancies? I draw the line for "human being" at the point of viability and non-dependence on the woman's body.

Of course. I am just expressing my opinion on the subject. I do not want Rowe vs. Wade recinded nor do I think any less of a woman who has had an unwanted pregnancy aborted. It is her body, her choice and the law agrees. On this we absolutely agree.
I don't think any woman wants the foetus dead so much as wanting to not deal with the pregnancy. Hopefully science will come to the resuce where the zygote or foetus can be removed and be allowed to come to term outside the womb or transplanted into a mother who wants it.
Then no moral dilema. I don't really want to open a completely new can of worms, but I can think of circumstances where I'd want the fetus "dead" and not just removed from my body. Certainly, I shouldn't ever be forced to share my DNA with a rapist, even if I didn't have to carry the pregnancy. I could go on, but I'll leave it at that.

I did say I knew of the issue of emotional state. Most people are not in a good emotional state when they are forced to deal with consequences of thier actions against thier will. I'd say that most people wouldn't be in a good emotional state when they are only given one option for dealing with the consequences of their actions.

[Fiona]

I am refering to unwanted pregnancies that were initiated by the lack of use of contraceptives. This I am refering to when I say "irresponsible behaivior". I do not care what the person's sexual habits are. What I do care is if they would exercise some responisibilty over thier body and actions by using contraceptives to prevent an unwanted pregnancies.

I feel that it is far better moraly and for the rights of the woman that the unwanted pregnancy to have never happened at all. No need for a debate about womans rights and foetus rights.

See, I would preffer that there be no need for any sort of legislation at all. But we do not live in a perfect world. And people are what they are.

I am not suggesting that they are. The unwanted preganacy is usually caused by not using contraceptives. And the desire to have the abortion is to "make the problem go away."

And I agree it is better for the teenagers to not have to deal with raising the child. It ruins both lives in most cases. But that solution of abortion ruins one life. The life of the child who would have been the product of the pregnancy.

I know it has been hammered into me that a zygote or foetus is not the same as a human being and that a potential life is not a real life because it does not exist yet

But I hope that people here would agree that a pregnancy is the process of creating a human being. The quibble is looking at the pregancy as a whole or breaking it down to define when the developing child or foetus or whatever, is considered human or not.

I choose to look at the pregnancy as a whole and the abortion terminates that process on which I place a value on because that is how human beings are created.

I understand that that is what you think

I feel the better solution is allow the pregnancy to come to term and give the child up for adoption.

That is fine and in keeping with your moral stance. So I recommend that you don't ever have an abortion if you find yourself in that situation. Carry the foetus to term and give it up for adoption. You are in no moral danger at all because you can make that choice: that is as it should be


At that point the teenager if free of the burnden of raising the child. And the experiance may well server to reminder her of the consequences of not using contracptive.

Aye: you said that before. Your irresponsible attitude renders me pretty much speechless on that point. Effectively you are prepared to use what you believe to be a human being as an educational tool. That is frankly sickening.


Some see that as trite and a form of punsihment, but sometimes we only learn by experiancing the the consequences of our actions. The quick fix of abortion negates that.

Not sure about trite though it is in fact a form of punishment: it is a good thing you never make mistakes, but your breath taking self righteousness is not so good. Now would you like to evidence a number of things:

1. Adopted people never experience any adverse consequences from the fact of their adoption

2. There is no serious opportunity cost for a person who is forced to carry a foetus to term in their teenage years

3. Teenagers who become pregnant and carry the foetus to term always choose to give the child up for adoption: or perhaps you will take that choice away from them as well? We have seen the effects of that in many parts of the world and they are not an unmitigated good.

4. There is no cost to society arising from teenage pregnancy .

5. In every case the person who becomes pregnant cannot "learn their lesson" from the experience of abortion or in any other way.


Frankly I do not see your honest educational intent here: I just see a simplistic and arrogant will to impose your own stance on other people who do not happen to weigh the issues in just the way you do

And I do know that the abortion proceedure is not a easy or painless by any stretch of the imagination.

Awesome

But I do know women who fail to use contraceptive even after the abortion and just continue on not learning to be responsible for her body.

I know men like that too: so what ?

I feel from a moral stand point it's the best solution becaue the teenager gets thier life back, a bit wiser for the wear and the prenancy is not wasted and a new human life can begin. You are free to disagree of course, it is just my opinion.

Yes it is just your moral judgement, or opinion, if you like. But if I wished to take moral advice on this or any other issue I am afraid I would not be turning to someone with as little understanding of the complexity of even the pragmatic elements as you have displayed here.

I'm sorry, I meant to say that I do not think that aborting the pregnancy is the samething as taking responsibilty for the action of not preventing an unwanted pregnancy. I'm not sure if I am just saying the same thing differently but I see the difference.

I am sure you do see a difference.

I see the abortion as avoiding the consequences of the irresponsible act of not preventing the unwanted pregnancy. The consequences of an unwanted preganacy is having to carry the baby to term and raisng a child.

Yes I understand that that is how you would like things to be. I have absolutely no quarrel with you making this decision for yourself.

That is if you value human life.

Everybody values human life, Uruk. They just don't value it in precisely the same way as you do. Is it cold up there on the moral high ground? I expect your satisfaction that your contraception never failed keeps you warm, does it?

I am willing to accept the adoption solution rather than the abortion solution because the new life that is created gets to continue and the woman is not placed with the burden of raising a child she is not prepared to raise.

Ok so you will put your child up for adoption if it suits you: I have no quarrel with that; it is your decision to make after you have carried it to term.

<snip>


Of course. I am just expressing my opinion on the subject. I do not want Rowe vs. Wade recinded nor do I think any less of a woman who has had an unwanted pregnancy aborted. It is her body, her choice and the law agrees.

Now that I can agree with: if we have no difference of opinion on the locus of decision making then I am very happy for you to come to any moral conclusion you wish: so long as I can do that too we have no problem

I am just arguing the moral implications if a certain value was place on life and if that value was equaly place on the process by which a human being is created. If you do then, you can be moraly justified in curtailing some human rights in favor of a desierd outcome or moral value system. It happens all the time in society. There are always limitations and negation and value judgements on our individual rights. It's part of existing in a society.

And again there is the bit where he says it and the bit where he takes it back. Do you not see the contradiction between this and your previous paragraph?

[uruk]

You misunderstand. I should have phrased the question better...

Should you be locked up now because you could potentially be a killer in the future, in the context that you cannot prove to us now that you won't be a killer then?

Because, you know, we all have the potential to become cold-blooded killers - even you.

Your turn.

Academicaly speaking, we all have the potential to be anything with in reason. Meaning I do not have the potential to be a basketball. Even though I appear to be as round as one.

But this argument is not the same as the potential human life argument.

I should not be locked up for the potentiality of me being a cold-blooded killer because the conditions for me becoming a cold blooded murder do not yet exist. That is why we don't lock everybody up for being potential criminals.

If you say that just simply being a person and being alive is enough to be a potential criminal then you are making the mistake of being too general. And facetious I might add.

I have argued that those lifeless, inhuman cells that have already been fertilized and are in the process of dividing are a potential human being because the conditions for them to become a human being exists.

If those cells become non-viable for some reason then no human being is produce. No big woop. (Except for the mother).

But niether you nor I know wether those cells in those conditions will become a human being or will not become a human being. No one knows.

And I am not talking about zygotes in a freezer, or sperm in a testicle, or ovum in an ovary. I'm talking about a fertilized egg or zygote that is in the womb. where the conditions for the development of a human being.

I say give it a chance because that is the process of creating a human being. And because there is a value on human life and that processes may produce a human life.

Don't you count on your pay check coming in? It comes in every month or week. You may even float a checks or two. Why? Because you have a job. The conditions exist for you to recieve a check.

But you never know. You may loose your job or there make be a screwup at payroll. You don't know right? But you still behaive as if that pay check will come every week like clock work even though it may not come on time or not at all.

[Paul W]

A human being, much like a cake, goes through several stages of creation and formation. I get the bowl, I combine and manipulate ingredients, I put the dough in the oven, I retrieve it from the oven. During this process, the contents that will eventually be known as a 'cake', as said, go through many stages, from 'separate ingredients' to 'dough' to 'unbaked cake' to 'partly baked cake' to 'cake'. When exactly the ingredients can be called a cake is up for debate, but what these nitwits are essentially saying is that the instant I mix sugar and butter in a bowl, I have, for all intents and purposes, a Mississippi Mudpie.

Utterly and completely ridiculous.

This does add an entertaining new dimension to the [British] expression of "a bun in the oven" - a phrase which rather confused a US manufacturer of part baked bread in the 1970s, and led to much hilarity.

[AWPrime]

I'm pretty sure most civilised societies recognise an infant's real right to life.What you present here is a false dilemma, one of 'all' or 'nothing'.
So let me ask you this: Does the infant have a right to vote?


It seems to me to be hypocritcal to place no value on what is essentialy a person in early development. There would be no person with out that early stage in human development so why the reluctance to protect that?It because we give rights to persons and the level of these rights depends on their sentience. When its just a blob of cells its doesn't have any sentience, therefore we can't grant it rights. That is just my basic position.


I still will argue, however, that the zygote has value in a society in reguards to reproduction and that our society does value potentialities and therefore should value a potential human life.It can also have potential harm.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Don't you count on your pay check coming in? It comes in every month or week. You may even float a checks or two. Why? Because you have a job. The conditions exist for you to recieve a check.

But you never know. You may loose [sic] your job or there make be a screwup at payroll. You don't know right? But you still behaive [sic] as if that pay check will come every week like clock work even though it may not come on time or not at all.

Have you never heard the very appropriate aphorism, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch"?

The point is that some eggs will become chickens, but some will not. It is foolish and wrong to consider an egg (even fertilized) to be a chicken.

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, that 31% miscarriage rate I cited earlier might be only part of the story. According to this article (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/10905138/1998/00000019/00000006/art00026) (which I'm afraid may be a subscriber-only access), only 42% of fertilized eggs survive to the 12th day of pregnancy. (I suppose that early, these aren't generally considered miscarriages.)

[Piero]

.Fiona and Sun Countess:
I and everybody I know are repelled by the mere thought of a 9-month foetus being aborted. I hope you are too. When I try to pinpoint why I am repelled, I find it ultimately boils down to empathy ( I wouldn’t like that done to me, and the “thing” that used to be inside the uterus looks too much like me for comfort), vicariousness (I feel part of that creature’s suffering) and plain old compassion (perceiving someone else suffering is painful).
Given this instinctive and almost universal repugnance for death and pain, I’ve tried to adopt a system of morals that takes it into account, and discourages actions that would lead to suffering. In the process, I’ve come to realize that any attempt to base our morals on a universal golden rule is bound to fail. There are no golden rules. The most you can get out of an all-encompassing principle is a fundamentalist and callous conviction, like the one that is presently parasitising your brains.
O, yes, you are clever and articulate, and debating you has been excellent mental gymnastics. But I’m still waiting for a justification of your fundamentalist fetish, namely the sacred right to control your body even if it means destroying somebody else’s body. As you are aware, your view is unpopular, and I hope it stays unpopular, as much as I hope the view that we have no right to criticize Islam stays unpopular. They are both unwarranted, unjustified dogmas.
I believe what you said about an unwanted pregnancy. But I can see no plausible scenario that would force a woman to let the zygote develop into a foetus before terminating it. Should such a scenario be possible, then we could open a new discussion, but as things stand, you seem to be arguing that a woman should be free to choose to wait until the ninth month, just for the hell of it, and then abort. That’s nonsensical and abhorrent, and no amount of clever reasoning will make it ethically justified.
You believe that, as moral agents, you are wholly autonomous, and no-one can impose any system of morals on you. Well, that could be true if you never interacted with other moral agents, but it’s certainly not the case in a society composed of multiple moral agents that have to agree on some shared moral guidelines in order to make coexistence at all possible. Of course, you are free to move to a deserted island, a move which would have the distinct advantage of preventing unwanted pregnancies, unless you inseminate yourselves before leaving just to prove your point.

[uruk]

Not always true in all circumstances. True, But there is no reason assume that it is not possible.

The question isn't whether the woman can "function". If that's the case, why not just enslave everyone? Slaves can "function".
Of course the state of willingness or unwillingness matters. It's called liberty. . .or freedom. Yes, indeed taking away women's freedom limits their opportunities.
I said willingness or unwillingness has no bearing on wether the woman can function while pregnant. Not that it does not matter.

Slavery? How is doing something unwillingly automatically slavery? We are forced to unwillingly do things everyday of our lives.
We pay taxes, we are not even given a choice. It's do it or else!
You have to go to primary school. How many children are unwillingly forced to do that? During times of draft, young men were forced (and I am certain for many, unwillingly) to go to war. And that is far worse than being forced to carry a pregnancy to term!

Does that autmatically make us slaves? Or is it a suspension of individual right (mostly temporary) for some percieved benefit. And most of those are potential benefits I might add.

The use of the term "slavery" in this case is simply inflamatory.

[uruk]

Have you never heard the very appropriate aphorism, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch"? I'll see you chickens and raise you one; "It is reasonable to assume."

The point is that some eggs will become chickens, but some will not. It is foolish and wrong to consider an egg (even fertilized) to be a chicken. I am not. I am saying that under the right conditions it is "reasonable to assume" that that egg will produce a chicken.

[uruk]

By the way, that 31% miscarriage rate I cited earlier might be only part of the story. According to this article (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/10905138/1998/00000019/00000006/art00026) (which I'm afraid may be a subscriber-only access), only 42% of fertilized eggs survive to the 12th day of pregnancy. (I suppose that early, these aren't generally considered miscarriages.)

Fact remains that some do make it. Otherwise there would be no "us". And seeing as there are a heck of alot of us even that small percentage counts for alot.

[MattusMaximus]

Uruk, I think you are really reaching on these potentiality arguments; it is painfully obvious that you're willing to engage in all manner of silliness to justify your point.

For example, to extend your argument, you could just say that because the zygote is a potential child, which is a potential adult, then why not just give zygotes (or children for that matter) the right to vote? Along the same lines, why not require zygotes & children to sign up with selective service in case of a military draft?

[uruk]

It because we give rights to persons and the level of these rights depends on their sentience. When its just a blob of cells its doesn't have any sentience, therefore we can't grant it rights. That is just my basic position.[quote] It's not that you can't It's that you choose not to. Rights are given not inherent. Choosing the level of rights based on sentience is arbitrary. You choose to use that critera and disseminate rights accordingly.

There is no reason to not assign a value to the process of gestating a human being other than society chooses not to.

When ever we disseminate rights to one group there is always some curtailing of rights to others. Right or wrong doesn't figure into it. It's just the way the world works.

[quote]It can also have potential harm. Nothing is without some potential harm.

[Fiona]

We pay taxes, we are not even given a choice. It's do it or else!

The tax payer gets direct benefits from paying taxes, if taxation is done right. If they do not then the justification for the imposition of tax fails

You have to go to primary school. How many children are unwillingly forced to do that?

The child gets direct benefits from going to school. If they do not then the justification for compulsory education fails

During times of draft, young men were forced (and I am certain for many, unwillingly) to go to war.

The young men get direct benefits from fighting the war: if they do not the justification for the war fails


Do you see the difference?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Not at all. My argument is that we are all moral agents. I have my own views about what is moral. which I try to live up to. And that is the full extent of my moral rights and responsibilities. It is also the full extent of your moral rights and responsibilities. I do not have the right to make your moral decisions for you and you do not have the right to make mine for me.

Society does not (and would not) work that way. For an individual to be able to reason about the morality of a particular act requires her to consider the preferences of others who are affected by the act.

A foetus past a certain stage of development appears to display preferences. Homeostasis may be considered a preference for survival.

When you make a moral judgment I might agree or I might disagree with it. That is in the nature of morality: there is no certain and agreed answer in any truly morally vexed question. Honest people come to different views and this has been amply demonstrated on this board

So the question I am asking is this: what gives you the right to elevate your conclusion over mine, on any moral issue at all?

The concept of rights is a human invention. There is no way to come to a judgement of whose behaviour is right and whose is wrong in a moral sense unless some criteria are defined on which the morality of behaviour can be judged.

Clearly society would collapse if each of us as individuals were allowed to choose the criteria we use judge others' and our own behaviour by. So for morality to be any use at all requires all agents who interact to share a common subset of values.

The golden rule in both its forms appears to be applicable and useful in the the case of a woman wishing to abort a foetus which is capable of suffering and has a high probability of becoming sentient.

[erlando]

I would also like to stress that I am not for making abortion illegal. What I would preferr is that the issue be sociological rather than legislative. As I've said before if we would just exercise personal responsibilty there would be no need to pass a law to make abortion legal. There would just be no need for abortion except for medical reasons.

But reality is what it is and making abortion illegal is worse than keeping it legal.

Would those medical reasons include abortion due to scans or other tests showing high risks of Downs syndrome or other debilitating illnesses in the foetus?

My fiancee is just entering the 12th week. We are absolutely prepared to abort the pregnancy should the upcoming scans show a high risk of Downs syndrome. I have no moral problems with that.

[uruk]

I think everyone would agree that the world would be a much better place if all pregnancies were planned, or at least wanted, and with no health implications for either mother or fetus. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't make me gleeful at the thought of abortions happening. Agreed.

Two problems with the argument of "irresponsible behavior." First, many pregnancies occur even when contraception is used properly and consistently. No contraception is 100% effective. Also, there are many in the "pro-life" camp who would like to prohibit the use of hormonal birth control methods and IUDs because they don't necessarily prevent conception, just a pregnancy (most hormonal birth control methods prevent ovulation, but on the off-chance that it happens, there's a backup to prevent implantation). And isn't it better that a woman take a morning-after pill when a condom breaks? But if a conception has occured, that zygote may not reach its potential. I am well aware of unwanted pregnancies due to failed contraceptives. Not every solution is perfect. I guess it would have te be delt with on an individual basis.

How can there be more responsible use of contraceptives if only barrier methods are deemed legal? I see nothing wrong with preventing the viability of the zygote after the initial stage of fertilization as a form of contraception. It is just one step beyond preventing fertilization. Technically the whole development process starts with fertilization but the conditions for viability don't exist untill implantation in the uterine wall. Preventing implantation is more or less the same as preventing fertilization.

And before anybody shouts contradiction. Remember I have been forced to conceed that a single cell is not the equivelent of a human being, And that a zygote outside of the conditions favorable for viability has no possibility for being a potential human being. So I am left with the argument that only when the conditions are favorable for the viability of the devlopment process to continue does the possibility exist for a "potential" human being".

Adoption is one choice, but that solution isn't what's best for everyone. I think that most teenagers are able to learn from the experience of an unintended pregnancy, whether it ends in abortion or adoption. Speaking only from my own experience, everyone I know "learned a lesson" after the first unplanned pregnancy. No solution is. I just feel that the adoption solution has maximum benefit to humanity as a whole because a child is allowed to be born.


Again, abortion may be considered a "quick fix" but it's not an easy or painless procedure, and I would classify it as a very unpleasant consequence and learning experience for any teenager. I never said that an abortion was a pleseant experiance by any means. It just has the attribute of ending the pregnacy and any possibility for a child to be born if it was going to come to term.

Adoption is a real solution for many teenagers, but it shouldn't be the only solution available to them, or to adult women. As I said before, pregnancy is a big deal. It's not just a little discomfort for nine months. Hopefully science will give us other options where the zygote or foetus does not have to be terminated.


Repeating that pregnancies happen even when people act responsibly, and that pregnancy shouldn't be seen as a consequence or punishment for acting irresponsibly. Why not? the consequnecs part, not the failed contraceptives part.

I value the life of the teenage girl or grown woman more than I value the potential life of a non-sentient grouping of cells. Your life path is considerably altered when and after undergoing a pregnancy and delivery. We all value things differently. The path in our lives is constantly being altered. Some are justy more drastic than others.

Where also are the consequences for the young men who act irresponsibly? What would you like the consequences to be? I agree. Both parties are responsible and both should deal with the consequences either way. Keep or abort. As you said even abortion is a painful, emotional experiance.


Does that line not preclude the use of many hormonal methods of birth control, along with morning-after pills, and IUDs? How then are people supposed to act more responsibly by preventing pregnancies? I draw the line for "human being" at the point of viability and non-dependence on the woman's body. I am for contraceptives that prevent viability. And about that line, do you mean the difference between a human being and not a human being is wether the the infant is outside or inside the womb?

[Lithrael]

(...)you seem to be arguing that a woman should be free to choose to wait until the ninth month, just for the hell of it, and then abort. That’s nonsensical and abhorrent, and no amount of clever reasoning will make it ethically justified.

I don't think she is saying it's unreasonable to believe that such a course of action is abhorrent. She's only saying that it is not right for anyone other than the woman in question to make that kind of choice for herself.

[Piero]

I don't think she is saying it's unreasonable to believe that such a course of action is abhorrent. She's only saying that it is not right for anyone other than the woman in question to make that kind of choice for herself.
I know. I'm arguing that a moral system that allows a moral agent to act abhorrently is a non-starter.

[AWPrime]

It because we give rights to persons and the level of these rights depends on their sentience. When its just a blob of cells its doesn't have any sentience, therefore we can't grant it rights. That is just my basic position. It's not that you can't It's that you choose not to. Rights are given not inherent. Choosing the level of rights based on sentience is arbitrary. You choose to use that critera and disseminate rights accordingly.Actually no it isn't arbitrary. It is the balance between rights and duties.

There is no reason to not assign a value to the process of gestating a human being other than society chooses not to.It isn't a person. Therefore any value that is placed upon it is given by others and not of its own existence.
This makes the values you wish to place arbitrary.

Nothing is without some potential harm.That is why you can't assume potential good and use it as an argument.

[uruk]

[quote]Aye: you said that before. Your irresponsible attitude renders me pretty much speechless on that point. Effectively you are prepared to use what you believe to be a human being as an educational tool. That is frankly sickening. Note to self: Should remember to never add a little bit of pragmatisim to the debate. It seems to make some people sick.

Not sure about trite though it is in fact a form of punishment: it is a good thing you never make mistakes, but your breath taking self righteousness is not so good. Now would you like to evidence a number of things: I don't mean to be self-righteous, I am just arguing a specific view point.

1. Adopted people never experience any adverse consequences from the fact of their adoption Never said they didn't. But they are alive to experiance those consequences.

2. There is no serious opportunity cost for a person who is forced to carry a foetus to term in their teenage years I did say there were consequences.

3. Teenagers who become pregnant and carry the foetus to term always choose to give the child up for adoption: or perhaps you will take that choice away from them as well? We have seen the effects of that in many parts of the world and they are not an unmitigated good. I never said they couldn't choose to keep the child. In most cases it would probably be inavisable. But there exceptions to every rule.

4. There is no cost to society arising from teenage pregnancy. Of course there are. That's why it's best to prevent the teenage pregnancy in the first place.

5. In every case the person who becomes pregnant cannot "learn their lesson" from the experience of abortion or in any other way. Did not say every case or any other way. The abortion has the attribute of terminating the preganacy that may or may not have produced a child. We don't know for sure but the possibility that existed before the termination is definitly no longer there anymore.


Frankly I do not see your honest educational intent here: I just see a simplistic and arrogant will to impose your own stance on other people who do not happen to weigh the issues in just the way you do The educational part was a pragmatic consequence.
Moralities and views and soforth are always being imposed on us by people who do not share our personal view. So what's new?


I know men like that too: so what ? Some people never learn, So just let them go about thier merry way and to hell with thier effect on society?


Yes it is just your moral judgement, or opinion, if you like. But if I wished to take moral advice on this or any other issue I am afraid I would not be turning to someone with as little understanding of the complexity of even the pragmatic elements as you have displayed here. Nobody said you had to. Everything must be cut and dry for you. This is alive this is not. These values are right, These values are wrong.
Are you sure you fully understand the complexities? I never said I did.

Everybody values human life, Uruk. They just don't value it in precisely the same way as you do. Is it cold up there on the moral high ground? You should know. I suppose you think your moral view is superior to mine? I don't think my values are any more or less superior than yours. I just think they are different.

I expect your satisfaction that your contraception never failed keeps you warm, does it? Nope, My contraceptives have the same failure rate as anybody elses.


Now that I can agree with: if we have no difference of opinion on the locus of decision making then I am very happy for you to come to any moral conclusion you wish: so long as I can do that too we have no problem



And again there is the bit where he says it and the bit where he takes it back. Do you not see the contradiction between this and your previous paragraph?
No. I don't see the contradiction. We all have rights, we all have freedom to choose but all within the confines and the restrictions and sacrifices that we have make inorder to function as a society. We all have to suspend some right temporary or otherwise for some greater good or for the benefit to society as a whole. Nothing is every simple or black and white or cut and dry.

[Lithrael]

I know. I'm arguing that a moral system that allows a moral agent to act abhorrently is a non-starter.

Then it's just down to a shouting match over which is more abhorrent: the right of a person to choose abortion at will, or the right of a group of people to dictate how much control another person is allowed over his or her own body.

ETA: I mean, it's trivially easy to present either one as a hell of a slippery-slope argument.

[uruk]

Uruk, I think you are really reaching on these potentiality arguments; it is painfully obvious that you're willing to engage in all manner of silliness to justify your point.

For example, to extend your argument, you could just say that because the zygote is a potential child, which is a potential adult, then why not just give zygotes (or children for that matter) the right to vote? Along the same lines, why not require zygotes & children to sign up with selective service in case of a military draft? You seem to be really good at facetiousness.

Just because I argue that a zygote under the right conditions is a potential child does not mean that it is also an argument for automatically give them the right to vote or sign up for selective sevrvices.

Who is making the silly argument here?

You do realise that we all deal with potentialities in our daily lives right?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Sorry guys. I can see where I went horribly, horribly wrong with my Zygote = person argument.
Thanks to all for correcting me.

I conceed that particular point and will drop that faulty argument.
I do not now consider a zygote to be the equivilent of a person.


I may be a little late in saying this. But that was handsomely done.

[Piero]

Outlandish scenario n°1

Female writer wants to write a novel about a woman who is forced to abort by her family. In order to confer more realism to her writing, she decides to experience an abortion herself. So she gets an artificial insemination and gets pregnant. For the sake of drama and intensity, she does not abort right away, but waits until the ninth month.

Has society got the right to prevent such an abhorrent scenario? Not according to Fiona and Sun Countess.

Outlandish scenario n°2

A couple decide to have a child. She changes her mind on the ninth month of gestation and decides to abort. The man wants her to give birth through induction or caesarean section, and pledges to take care of the child by himself. She refuses, because she does not want to be a mother after all. So she aborts.

Has society got the right to prevent such an abhorrent scenario? Not according to Fiona and Sun Countess.

[uruk]

The tax payer gets direct benefits from paying taxes, if taxation is done right. If they do not then the justification for the imposition of tax fails The benefit is at the sacrifice of being able to have the money for other uses when needed rather than tied up in a federal bank. People on social security welfare etc. Benefit at the sacrifice of the taxpayers.
Justification of the taxation is irrelevent. It is imposed on us against our will justified or not.



The child gets direct benefits from going to school. If they do not then the justification for compulsory education fails That education is at the sacrifce of parents who have to pay for it via property tax. The effort they have put into struggling with getting the child to go to school, and do thier homework.

Justification is irrelevent. The government still forces the child to go to school wether he/she fail or not in the end.

The young men get direct benefits from fighting the war: if they do not the justification for the war fails The soldier get any benefit if they survive the war after having gone through the war. Some have to sacrifice thier lives so that others may benefit. And the tax payers have to sacrifice thier money inorder to pay for those benefits.
And war is only justified if the intented out come is achieved (meaning winning the war).

At any rate win or lose, justified or not. The drafted soldier is still forced to go to war against his will for those benefits.

Do you see the difference?

And if the pregnancy is allowed and able to come to full term then the child gets the benefit of a life at the scarifice of the mother rights for those nine months

[uruk]

I may be a little late in saying this. But that was handsomely done.
Thank you. When you've had your head handed to you on a platter there's no sense in denying it.

[uruk]

Would those medical reasons include abortion due to scans or other tests showing high risks of Downs syndrome or other debilitating illnesses in the foetus? I would tend to believe that it does. But You could make an argument about the severity of the illnes. Which would be very difficult to judge at such an early stage.

My fiancee is just entering the 12th week. We are absolutely prepared to abort the pregnancy should the upcoming scans show a high risk of Downs syndrome. I have no moral problems with that. Niether would I.

P.S. Oh. and congradulations! I hope it will be a healthy child!

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

And if the pregnancy is allowed to come to full term then the child gets the benefit of a life at the scarifice of the mother rights for those nine months

What is being weighed up is high risk of death or permanent disability of the aborted foetus vs. the temporary discomfort and dissatisfaction of the woman.

I find it hard to comprehend how anyone could rationally argue temporary discomfort and dissatisfaction are more significant than a high risk of death or permanent disability.

[jimmygun]

First, the woman who loses fertilized eggs due to a failure to implant in the uterus is not a murderer, God is the murderer! Second, if the fertilized egg is considered a human being and the woman allows the "human" to be flushed away, she is at the very least causing an indignity to a human body, something that is criminal in most juristictions.

Lock em up and throw away the key I say!

[uruk]

Actually no it isn't arbitrary. It is the balance between rights and duties. How so? Please explain.

It isn't a person. Therefore any value that is placed upon it is given by others and not of its own existence.
This makes the values you wish to place arbitrary. But the end product of gestation is a person. If the person has a value due to it existance why does the process that produces that human have no value of itself?

If that process is not protected could it be vunerable t subvertion or abused? Such as mass producing foetuses for harvesting materials from those foetuses.

That is why you can't assume potential good and use it as an argument.

Well if you can't assume potential good then why play the stock market, or the lottery, or gamble, or engage in a war, enter into a relationship, or start a business, or etc...

Potential good is used as an argument to enter into these endevours.

[Lithrael]

Outlandish scenario n°1

Female writer wants to write a novel about a woman who is forced to abort by her family. In order to confer more realism to her writing, she decides to experience an abortion herself. So she gets an artificial insemination and gets pregnant. For the sake of drama and intensity, she does not abort right away, but waits until the ninth month.

Has society got the right to prevent such an abhorrent scenario? Not according to Fiona and Sun Countess.

For me, society's ideal place would be to express its disapproval and dismay over such a course of action, in much the way many bits of it are currently expressing disapproval and dismay over Octomom's choices.

Outlandish scenario n°2

A couple decide to have a child. She changes her mind on the ninth month of gestation and decides to abort. The man wants her to give birth through induction or caesarean section, and pledges to take care of the child by himself. She refuses, because she does not want to be a mother after all. So she aborts.

Has society got the right to prevent such an abhorrent scenario? Not according to Fiona and Sun Countess.

That does not actually look like it's consistent with what Fiona has been saying at all. The right to control one's own body only goes as far as getting a fetus out of it. She has consistently said, if it is viable, let it vie.

[MattusMaximus]

You seem to be really good at facetiousness.

Just because I argue that a zygote under the right conditions is a potential child does not mean that it is also an argument for automatically give them the right to vote or sign up for selective sevrvices.

And why isn't that? Ask yourself that question. If you really believe that a zygote should be considered for having the rights of life as a person, then you need to consider these other rights & responsibilities as well. That is, since we're dealing with nothing but potentialities here. Now if we were dealing with realities, in the here and now, as opposed to nothing but vague & arbitrary potentialities, then that would be a different matter.

Who is making the silly argument here?

That was kind of my point - it's called sarcasm. Thanks for joining the conversation.

You do realise that we all deal with potentialities in our daily lives right?

Thank you so much for enlightening me. I never realized... :rolleyes:

[Lithrael]

Well if you can't assume potential good then why play the stock market, or the lottery, or gamble, or engage in a war, enter into a relationship, or start a business, or etc...

Potential good is used as an argument to enter into these endevours.

But not as a justification for forcing anyone into these endeavors.

[Sun Countess]

Should such a scenario be possible, then we could open a new discussion, but as things stand, you seem to be arguing that a woman should be free to choose to wait until the ninth month, just for the hell of it, and then abort.
I can't speak for Fiona, but I never said that. I don't know of any women who would have an abortion during the ninth month "on a whim." If the fetus is viable, sometime around 24-28 weeks, I think that labor should be induced and the fetus born alive. That would be my personal choice, and because I can't think of every eventuality, I will continue to hold the unpopular opinion that a woman ultimately determines whether or not she stays pregnant. If the fetus can be born safely alive, why would a woman decide otherwise? The one circumstance I could imagine aborting (and causing death) in the third trimester would be upon finding that the fetus was not in fact viable. There's no sense, IMO, in trying to live deliver an anencephalic baby, for instance.

I am for contraceptives that prevent viability. And about that line, do you mean the difference between a human being and not a human being is wether the the infant is outside or inside the womb? I draw the line at viability, when the fetus is able to live independently outside the womb. In a "normal" pregnancy, this is somewhere between 24-28 weeks, and in other pregnancies, the fetus is never actually viable outside the womb.

I don't think she is saying it's unreasonable to believe that such a course of action is abhorrent. She's only saying that it is not right for anyone other than the woman in question to make that kind of choice for herself.
Agreed. I would personally find it abhorrent in either of the circumstances that Piero posited later on for a woman to la-di-da bide her time till the ninth month to have an abortion. But is that my choice to make? It is not.

For me personally, as a woman and a mother, I would only make a choice for a late-term abortion if the fetus were unviable or if my life were endangered (and then I'd hope that it was at a point where the fetus could be born alive - certainly in the ninth month it should be). But those decisions are the ones that would be right for me, and not necessarily right for someone else. Uruk may choose to give up his children for adoption, and would be his right, were he to ever find himself a pregnant woman.

[MattusMaximus]

My fiancee is just entering the 12th week. We are absolutely prepared to abort the pregnancy should the upcoming scans show a high risk of Downs syndrome. I have no moral problems with that.


Niether would I.


What?! Uruk, now you just aren't making any damn sense at all.

First, you argue that zygotes are people. Then you move the goalposts and start arguing that because they are potential people we should treat them with the right-to-life of actual people. And then this?

So, are you saying that actual people who have Downs syndrome are not worthy of the right-to-life? I see no other way to make your own arguments internally consistent.

:boggled:

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

That does not actually look like it's consistent with what Fiona has been saying at all. The right to control one's own body only goes as far as getting a fetus out of it. She has consistently said, if it is viable, let it vie.

And the marginal reduction in distress and discomfort of the woman by aborting the foetus at 25+ weeks, rather than going to term outweighs the marginal increased risk of death or permanent disability of the foetus?

[Lithrael]

And the marginal reduction in distress and discomfort of the woman by aborting the foetus at 25+ weeks, rather than going to term outweighs the marginal increased risk of death or permanent disability of the foetus?

Hell yes it does. 'Marginal' my butt.

[soylent]

Two human beings of opposite sex have the potential to become many more human beings, ergo murder is genocide and should be tried under the Geneva convention.

If that process is not protected could it be vunerable t subvertion or abused? Such as mass producing foetuses for harvesting materials from those foetuses.

I don't see what's abusive about that. There are fewer moral implications of doing so than swatting a fruit fly. We're talking about an undifferentiated blob of cells here.

[Fiona]

Society does not (and would not) work that way. For an individual to be able to reason about the morality of a particular act requires her to consider the preferences of others who are affected by the act.

I do not accept that moral judgement is a group activity, so there we will just have to differ. For me it is independent of social rules and norms, and I think this is amply demonstrated by the fact that we can admire a moral man while we execute him for breaking societal rules. As I have already stated, a moral judgement can, in my opinion, only be made by an individual human being with an ability to choose and a capacity for action. There are other things such a laws an social contracts etc: but they are not in themselves a code of morality, though they may be informed by moral judgements.

A foetus past a certain stage of development appears to display preferences. Homeostasis may be considered a preference for survival.

Perhaps. I do not think this is demonstrable as fact. It is quite a stretch to define homeostasis as a "preference": funny use of language, IMO. But even if you are correct (and I am interested in how you arrive at this conclusion btw) I do not think you can argue that in making a moral judgement one must take account of every preference of every living entity: nor even of every human entity, however you choose to define that. That is almost the antithesis of a moral code of behaviour if what you mean is that the other's preference must always determine my action. That is called people pleasing and it is not widely admired

The concept of rights is a human invention. There is no way to come to a judgement of whose behaviour is right and whose is wrong in a moral sense unless some criteria are defined on which the morality of behaviour can be judged.

There is no way to do it honestly at all, so far as I can see. We must just each do our best to come to moral precepts which take account of all we think of as relevant facts and opinions and which, if adhered to, make us more nearly the person we want to be.

Clearly society would collapse if each of us as individuals were allowed to choose the criteria we use judge others and out own behaviour by. So for morality to be any use at all requires all agents who interact to share a common subset of values.

I do not see that at all. We actually do all adopt our own version of morality, informed to a greater or lesser extent by our experience and our learning and all the other things we happen to think relevant. Yet I do not notice that society has collapsed. Uruk's MMV :).

It seems to be true that most people come to some common core conclusions based on some variation of the golden rule in many cases. That is not so surprising, however, and it is not necessary to impose it: and of course it is helped along by cultural transmission. because we do not have time to examine every question from scratch: we only really think about those things which come to our attention for some reason; and we take a lot else for granted without much thought because we learned it before we had speech and a fully formed capacity for abstract thought; and it works for us.

The golden rule in both its forms appears to be applicable and useful in the the case of a woman wishing to abort a foetus which is capable of suffering and has a high probability of becoming sentient.

Trouble is you have not addressed my question. In fact you have missed a step, the way I see it. Let me try to convey my position again, since either I am not communicating it well or there is a fundamental difference of opinion which takes account of what I see as important. Not sure which applies

We appear to be agreed that there is no factual basis for deciding which moral decision is right and which is wrong. If that is true then the default position is not to interfere with another person's moral decision making because you have no legitimate reason to assume that your own conclusion is right and theirs is wrong. So far so good.

It is also true that there are some forms of behaviour which are regulated by groups of people, and this is justified in various ways. The group may decide to make that regulation conform, to some extent, to whatever consensus they can reach about moral values: or they may not. It is perfectly possible for a group to be organised as a dictatorship, and for the only moral input to be the preference of the dictator on any given day: it is also possible to set up as an oligarchy and have the regulation based on the consensus of a small group regardless of the preferences of everybody else. It seems to follow that the rule of law or any other principle of social organisation is separable from any issue of morality.

What we then have to think about is what kinds of thing justify regulation of individual behaviour by a group, since this now not a question of morality, but rather of law or politics or something like that.

You have argued that rights are man made and I agree. That means that we have to consider what rights we wish to confer and on whom. It is perfectly possible not to confer any at all (as in a dictatorship): it might be possible to make them wholly arbitrary (though I am not convinced it is, because I think our species probably puts some constraints on us): but most of us would, I think, reject both of those as good outcomes.


If the limits of allowable behaviour are totally based on societal norms, then the group can insist on any possible code of behaviour and there is no basis for challenge to that. That is, for me. a very uncomfortable place to be. In such a situation, if the group decides that we must all wear blue hats on pain of death, then blue hats we must wear. I consider that an unwarranted interference with my freedom. But why is it? Well, I think it is not legitimate because I value the individual above the group. That is a luxurious position and came late to our society: but it features strongly in my moral universe. And it is the foundation for tempering group norms with human rights. The minority is actually the most important part of a society and the defence of their moral autonomy is one way of coming to a notion of rights for all.

Since the regulation of behaviour depends ultimately on force there is a need to define the limits of group imposition strongly in the political and legal system, if any rights are to be meaningful. It seems to me we have a terrible tendency to the "50,000 flies cannot be wrong" fallacy. We are apt to decide that if most people are agreed about something then it is ok to impose it on the minority without further reflection. But when we do reflect we do not actually think that is right. At least I don't.

Because I place the individual above the group, any abridgement of an individual's rights requires very, very strong justification indeed. Since that abridgement is backed by threat we need to show one of two things:

1. That the regulation is of direct benefit to the person so constrained.

It is not enough to say that it will "benefit society". Some people might make a moral judgement that it is right to sacrifice their own interests for the group: but that is their choice to make, and if they do not judge in that way we cannot demand their altruism. That way lies stoicism in the face of other people's misfortunes; and there is no floor under that.

2. That a failure to regulate will definitely cause serious harm to other individuals and that harm will be greater than the harm of regulation in itself.

It is clear that in the case of abortion those who would impose regulation cannot meet the first criterion. So it must be founded on the second. You have sought to show that abortion (or rather late abortion in your argument) satisfies the second criterion. To do this you adduce the golden rule. I am sure you are aware of the standard criticisms of that yet you do not show why they are not relevant to this case.

I contend that in trying to reduce this to a question of competing rights between a woman and a foetus you have to ignore a lot of relevant facts.

The first is that the golden rule requires reciprocity. Since the foetus is not a moral agent it cannot enter into a reciprocal ethic: so the rule does not apply to that relationship: it cannot.

It does, however, apply between you, the person making the regulation, and the woman. And immediately fails. You cannot act according to the golden rule and also make the regulation.

Another thing which you ignore is the fact that you cannot know what the foetus wants - this is because it cannot be shown to want anything. You assume it wants to live, but as I noted you are driven to use language in a very odd way to make this case.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't think you understand how I was using the word marginal (I've been hanging around the economics forum too long:)). I used the word marginal because the woman is going to have to tolerate distress and dissatisfaction whether she aborts at 25+ weeks or does not and goes to term.

Similarly the foetus has a risk of death or permanent disability even if it goes to term, so it makes sense to consider only the marginal risk of death or permanent disability to it by aborting the pregnancy early.

[AWPrime]

How so? Please explain.In a just social system ones duties are equal to ones rights.

But the end product of gestation is a person.No, that is too simplistic. Not every fetus will be a baby and babies aren't fully developed persons. That takes a lot of time and investment with sporadic results.

If the person has a value due to it existance why does the process that produces that human have no value of itself?Why should it? Supernova's produce gold and other expensive elements, but we don't place a value on them.
Also can you give me one reason why a process must have value? Excluding wishful thinking.

If that process is not protected could it be vunerable t subvertion or abused? Such as mass producing foetuses for harvesting materials from those foetuses.So? If I sell a kidney, do I violate that organs rights? That organ is as sentient as a clump of cells.

Well if you can't assume potential good then why play the stock market, or the lottery, or gamble, or engage in a war, enter into a relationship, or start a business, or etc...
Potential good is used as an argument to enter into these endevours.Sure you can assume it but it can't be an argument in itself. Feeling lucky isn't an argument.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Isn't it society that decides what is moral, what right, what is wrong, and what it defines legaly?

This may be a peripheral issue, but, as I see it, there are three questions here:

1. What does the law say about abortion?

This is a question of fact. The answer will vary from one jurisdiction to another.


2. What are the moral rights and wrongs of abortion? Is it always, sometimes or never morally wrong?

This is a moral question, and it cannot be settled by referring to the state of the law.


3. If abortion is morally wrong ( always or sometimes), ought we to forbid it by law?

This too is a moral question. We cannot settle it by reference to the state of the law, whatever that happens to be. And we cannot assume that the law is there to enforce all moral proscriptions: even if abortion were wicked beyond any argument, we might prefer to permit it on grounds of liberty— let everyone find his own way to hell!

There is no difficulty here for me. I see nothing immoral in abortion: the only complaint I have about the UK law is that it falls far short of choice for women. But even if I took a different moral tack, I should still want persuading that the legal right to abortion ought to be curtailed or eliminated.




I'm not sure you draw a sharp distinction between questions 2 and 3. For example, you said in reply to SC:
I just feel that the adoption solution has maximum benefit to humanity as a whole because a child is allowed to be born.

Is that intended as a reason for saying that abortion is wrong? Or for saying that it ought not to be permitted? If it's the latter, then I should want to ask why the benefit ( whatever it may be) to humanity should override the woman's wishes, and why the law should be made to put its thumb on the scale.

[uruk]

And why isn't that? Ask yourself that question.O.K. If a zygote under the right conditions is a potential human being then why shouldn't a child be giving the right to vote or sign up for the selective services. Let me see. Oh yes because the law states that you have to be a certain age to attain that right and be capable of serving. It assumes at those ages you are capable making an informed decision and capable of serving in the armed forces. The law makes the same basic argument about when you should recieve the right to life.

If you really believe that a zygote should be considered for having the rights of life as a person, then you need to consider these other rights & responsibilities as well. That is, since we're dealing with nothing but potentialities here. Now if we were dealing with realities, in the here and now, as opposed to nothing but vague & arbitrary potentialities, then that would be a different matter. I am not asking for the full rights of an adult individual to be given to the zygote. I never have. And you know that.

Children do not have the full rights of an adult individual and I am not making the argument that they should be either.

What I am saying to give the zygote that is in the right conditions, where it has a reasonable chance to come to term, to be given a single basic right to continue to exist to what ever end it may come too. This will unfortunately mean that the unwilling mother will suffer in pain, loss of dignity, and the temporary suspension of some of her rights.

I argue that particular potentiality is worth the sacrifice because of what can be gained.
I argue that the life that may be produced is justification for what is lost.

We often make sacrifices for potentialities. Why is this different?




Thank you so much for enlightening me. I never realized... :rolleyes:

Then what's the problem? Is it unreasonable to take a chance on a potentiality?

[uruk]

But not as a justification for forcing anyone into these endeavors. Stock markets and so forth no.

How about war? A country enters into a war not knowing the outcome. They force the soldier into battle hoping for a good outcome.

They suspend the rights of the solder and put him in a situation where he may well lose his life based on an assessment of a potential good.

If the battel is won the sacrifce is justified. If the battle is lost, well, there's still more soldiers and the war isn't lost yet.

And when we loose enough soldiers, We may have to "encourage" the women folk to produce more soldiers.

[uruk]

What?! Uruk, now you just aren't making any damn sense at all. Maybe it's not my fault. I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm not making sense.

First, you argue that zygotes are people. You need to read some of my posts. I have already conceeded that a zygote is not the equivilent of a person. I admitted that my argument was faulty and abandoned it.

Then you move the goalposts and start arguing that because they are potential people we should treat them with the right-to-life of actual people. And then this? No I did not. I did not say that a potential person should have the same right to life as an actual person. I said that a zygote should be given the chance to continue to exist if there is a reasonable possibility for it to come to term.
It is the process of gestation that I wish to protect because of what the end result is.
The method by which our species continues to exist is important to our species and should have a value within society and be protected.


So, are you saying that actual people who have Downs syndrome are not worthy of the right-to-life? I see no other way to make your own arguments internally consistent.

:boggled: No. I believe for the benefit of society a zygote or fetus that has severe illnesses or severe catastrophic disabilities should probably not be allowed to continue. If the Downs syndrome child has already become a person, by your criteria, then they should be invested with the all rights that are due.

[Third Eye Open]

Let's say you are building a house. You have cleared the land and laid the foundation, and suddenly you realize for some reason you can no longer afford the house. So you cancel the project and make plans to do it later.

Is this the same as demolishing a house? Is there any reason to keep building the house when you know you would not be able to keep it and would have to end up selling it at a loss?

[uruk]

Two human beings of opposite sex have the potential to become many more human beings, ergo murder is genocide and should be tried under the Geneva convention. By your avatar I see that you would have no problem dealing with the "product" of genocide.



I don't see what's abusive about that. There are fewer moral implications of doing so than swatting a fruit fly. We're talking about an undifferentiated blob of cells here.

A foetus is a bit more structured than a undifferentiated blob of cells seeing as it has most of it's organs well on the way to being formed.

Can you imagine a possibility where a pregnant woman who is in dire need of money decides to abort a foetus for cash?

Isn't it similar in moral magnitude to the practice in some countries where they abort a female foetus in favor of a male foetus? We see that as being immoral yet there's not problem with a mother aborting a foetus for cash?

Do you see the possibility for abuse now? Not to mention the "terminate female in favor of the male foetus" situation?

[uruk]

In a just social system ones duties are equal to ones rights. And what rights does an infant have in refrence to it's duties. Does an infant have a duties? (It has doodie, but that's not the same thing.) The infant has a basic right to exist does it not? That does not have a social duty tied to it, does it?

No, that is too simplistic. Not every fetus will be a baby and babies aren't fully developed persons. That takes a lot of time and investment with sporadic results.
But gestation, in general, does produce babies. That is the foetuses that do survive gestation. I don't see the sporodic nature as being relevent, in general. Should it be relevent? Why?

And again the baby does have a basic right to exist. Does it not? If not why do we put so much time and invenstment into them?

Why should it? Supernova's produce gold and other expensive elements, but we don't place a value on them. Because we no way of getting to them. That is not the same with the product of gestation.
Also can you give me one reason why a process must have value? Excluding wishful thinking. Some process of creation, such as manufacturing process are protect by patents and copywrite law. Why is the process so protected and guarded? Because the end product of the manufacturing process has value to the company that owns them. Therefore the process has value.

Shouldn't it be the same for something we hold so important as human life?

So? If I sell a kidney, do I violate that organs rights? That organ is as sentient as a clump of cells. Not quite the same. The organ does not have the capability of ever becoming sentient under any circumstances that I know of. The clump of cells in a human zygote does have the capability of becoming sentient under the right circumstances.

Sure you can assume it but it can't be an argument in itself. Feeling lucky isn't an argument.
But yet we do it all the time. We place our lives on it.

I can't see how that it can't be used as an argument. Please explain further.

[uruk]

~snip~

I'm not sure you draw a sharp distinction between questions 2 and 3. For example, you said in reply to SC:
I just feel that the adoption solution has maximum benefit to humanity as a whole because a child is allowed to be born.
Is that intended as a reason for saying that abortion is wrong? Or for saying that it ought not to be permitted? If it's the latter, then I should want to ask why the benefit ( whatever it may be) to humanity should override the woman's wishes, and why the law should be made to put its thumb on the scale.
It is to say that abortion ought not to be permitted under certain circumstances. I do not think that all abortion is wrong or immoral.

Because humanity in the large picture is greater than the individual. We have to sacrifice some individual right inorder to exist as a society. And society is necessary for the continued existance of humanity. Further more, at times it is necessary to sacrifice further rights of the individual for the greater good of a society, such as in time of war or incarceration for crime. Two extremes I know.

In the case of abortion and the rights of the mother. I feel that the benefit of the continued existance of the foetus outwieghs the temporary loss of rights and soforth of the mother because the end result of the preganacy adds to humanity (that is if it survives gestation) I feel that this is justified in light of all the other sacrifices we make for the good of humanity.

on a side note. I don't believe the issue of wether a Hitler is produce or an Einstine is produced is as much dependent on the gestation process as on the upbringing and possibly genetic make up.

[uruk]

Let's say you are building a house. You have cleared the land and laid the foundation, and suddenly you realize for some reason you can no longer afford the house. So you cancel the project and make plans to do it later.

Is this the same as demolishing a house? Is there any reason to keep building the house when you know you would not be able to keep it and would have to end up selling it at a loss?
Maybe it's me But I don't see how this applys to the issue of abortion. Is the loss of the ability to afford to continue to build the house the same as if something goes wrong in the gestation process? If so the feotus is usually aborted by the body. No problem. Nature has taken it's course.

If that's not what you mean please explain further.

[Third Eye Open]

Maybe it's me But I don't see how this applys to the issue of abortion. Is the loss of the ability to afford to continue to build the house the same as if something goes wrong in the gestation process? If so the feotus is usually aborted by the body. No problem. Nature has taken it's course.

If that's not what you mean please explain further.

If I lose my job and can no longer afford to raise a child, I will cancel the process of building the child.

[Piero]

The first is that the golden rule requires reciprocity. Since the foetus is not a moral agent it cannot enter into a reciprocal ethic: so the rule does not apply to that relationship: it cannot.
In that case, you should also be allowed to kill a newborn.