Hello Mr. president, Abortion Is Murder! Life Begins At Fertilization! That's A Fact [snip]!

reply to post by Indigo5

I think you are confusing "life" with "Human life" or "personhood".

I asked this on Pax's thread yesterday...what is "Human Life"?

"life" is the same thing as "Human Life"...Human's are animals...they aren't special.

This is what I mean by people trying to justify their stance on abortion with philosophy. You can't defend it any other way...so you create other concepts such as "human life" and say it is different than "biological life".

Why can't you just admit you support killing a human...why do you have to redefine what "life" means?

Tumors are replicating human cells..

Ears and simple organs can be grown in labs...replicating cells with genetic instructions.

You may need to review what the biological definition of "life" is and what criteria needs to be met for something to be considered a unique living organism.

Yes at the time of conception, there is "Life", but is it a "human life" in the sense of personhood?

There is life in the swimming sperm as well, almost awareness in the way they compete to penetrate the egg with various strategies.

Again...you are trying to redefine what "life" is to justify your support of the murder of living beings.

Sperm is not "life" as defined by biology.

For relatively "scientific" purposes as opposed to pure "philosophical" purposes I believe this happens around the begining of the 2nd tri-mester since that is the time that spontaneous abortions/misscarriages (natures way of protecting the mother or simply starting the process over in hopes of a better biologic outcome) fall from 50% of implantations to near Zero! When all of a sudden abortion/misscarriage seems an option that the body/nature/god/evolution suddenly and dramatically ceases to excercise.

Now I know all of that is not easy fodder for the extremists to engage in, but it is an argument that doesn't involve religious or liberal intransience all the same.

Your argument is pure philosophy...it ignores all known biological science.

My argument is pure science.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by DelMar

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by DelMar

 

What makes people valuable, as opposed to plants?

You can find value in both people and plants, but to bring killing plants into a discussion about abortion is beyond illogical.

Its not beyond illogical, but there are better comparisons such as gametes or braindead people.

They are human (they are not dogs, are they?) and they are alive (not biologically dead). Yet we kill them. Whats the difference with embryos?

To me, the difference is the potential for an embryo to become a fully developed, functional human being. Of course you can say gametes have "potential" as well, but alone, they will do nothing, except die. As for braindead people, you're a corpse being kept alive by a machine and I doubt the brain will fix itself.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I don't need to pick an arbitrary bodily function such as heartbeat or brainwaves...biology defines the life cycle already...I see no need to alter that.

How is picking up conception any less arbitrary than other options? Biology may define the beginning of a life cycle. But biology does not define what is the right cut-off point for abortion. Make no mistake, your opinion is as philosophical and arbitrary as any other.

Picking up "brainwaves" is at least consistent with legal definition of the end of life.

Originally posted by spiritualzombie


It is not only presidents and military commanders who are faced with life and death tough decisions. Normal people can be faced with this too and carry that burden with them the rest of their lives.

edit on 25-1-2012 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

THIS

It's not just presidents and military commanders, but Insurance company lawyers, looking for loopholes, pre-existing conditions or negligence. It's doctors deciding to give up on a senior citizen with cancer, et al, for monetary concerns.

Heaven forbid, a mere female mortal should have a say in her reproductive rights.


reply to post by Indigo5



Thanks for introducing, again, the chilling concept of "personhood" as opposed to life, viability and sentience, into the thread.

Having read the article and knowing a bit about the history of the court case, Roe V. Wade, I believe that I will way in.

Roe V. Wade, was not as so many would believe, about abortion, never has been, though it was the right of a woman to have an abortion that was the primary concern about such. This court case was about the fundamental right of privacy between a doctor and a client. Back when this case first went to court, the wall of privacy around a persons medical condition was not there, and in short, if a person was to have any sort of procedure done, that could be construed as illegal, then they could be arrested and imprisoned. And back then, it was also not exactly legal in some states for there to be a discussion of contraception, or the distribution of such.

The question of what constitutes human life and when it begins has been a very long one, where some saying conception, others saying different times. This definition, that human life starts at conception can have its own way of being perverted to actually do more harm than good. Right now it is fundamentally a debate over a woman’s right of privacy and control over her body. What is to stop the government there, why not state that drinking alcohol is against the law as it could lead to say that it is against the law for men to drink such or ingest any substance that could damage the sperm in their bodies, as such is a requirement for the production of a baby.

If this law is overturned, then it would give companies a legal means to go into their employees medical files, to see if they are healthy or not, even using such as a means to decide on who to hire and promote, and the person would not even know about such.

While many see abortion is murder, the reality is, that ultimately it is the woman’s choice on if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy or not, and how that child will come out. If the woman does not choose to do such, yet at the same time, does nothing to foster a healthy environment in her body, does that make her actions attempted man slaughter or attempted murder?

And then what about what happens after said child is born? Seems like that there are too many that focus on what goes on in the womb, and not enough on what happens after the child is born to the world, is this also something that should be considered? Or how about the government decide on who can have children or not, after all and who is the acceptable parents of such?

While those who are against abortion have some valid arguments, they are not so willing to step up to the plate to take those children when they are born, and not wanted, or complain when their taxes are too high, or freak when someone mentions the very notion of a same sex couple want to adopt a child or even foster one, to be a parent.

The reality is that the government has always had it within its power to end this argument one way or the other, to put this debate to rest, but they choose not to. The main reason is they like a hot button issue such as the abortion debate to keep going, as a means of distraction, rather than a useful conversation.

reply to post by Maslo

How is picking up conception any less arbitrary than other options? Biology may define the beginning of a life cycle. But biology does not define what is the right cut-off point for abortion. Make no mistake, your opinion is as philosophical and arbitrary as any other.

Picking up "brainwaves" is at least consistent with legal definition of the end of life.

Biology doesn't say a thing about abortion...it is science...not philosophy.

But, people like to claim that abortion isn't killing a human being as justification for them supporting it. So, like you, they ignore what biology says about "life" and try to redefine it to start at some arbitrary point in development so they can believe in their mind that they don't support the killing of a young human being.

The only philosophical opinion I have is taht killing other humans is wrong...I don't think you or any one else disagrees on that point. I don't arbitrarily pick any point to claim life...I defer to science...as all logical people should.

I won't ignore science...but you are free to. Just remember...ignoring science and using arbitrary philosophy is exactly what religous fanatics do. So you are just the same as them...just on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Originally posted by isyeye

Originally posted by DelMar

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by paxnatus

 

If life begins at fertilization, and life should not be taken.....what about the murder of plants for food? They are living.

Just because something has life does not always mean that it is "alive".


Abortion is and should always be a personal choice.

Wow, seriously. You're equating plants with people? Interesting approach.

As for the topic and people asking her to quit posting, I say stop reading. If you don't like a topic, don't read about it.

IMO, plants are much more important than people.....If all humans died, life on earth will continue without a problem. Kill off the plants.....it's a big problem for life on earth.

So yes....I do equate plants with people.....actually......plants>humans

I value all life, especially children, but abortion is a choice that should be made by the ones it efffects...not by government.

Well sure, if all plants go away we're toast but I place higher value on humans. I do agree with you about personal choice though, I don't want the gov telling people what they can and can't do. I just wish more people would make a decision to let their baby live.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


A human cell has all the qualities that define life, it is not a human being, nor is a potential human being an actual human being.

Your "pragmatism" is showing.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


What a really dissapointing answer...You simply harped about "looking up" the definition of "life"....open a biology textbook etc.

While at the same time offering nothing in response to my many questions...

And not offering anything in the form of a definition ...just stating any Biology textbook will tell you so???

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

You may need to review what the biological definition of "life" is and what criteria needs to be met for something to be considered a unique living organism.

Here, I'll help you out...here is the defintion of "life" as found on Biology Science online dictionary..


LIFE

Definition

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

(2) The biota of a particular region


Supplement

There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable. Despite of the irresolute answer for questions about life, the basic characteristics of a living thing are as follows:

•with an organized structure performing a specific function
•with an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment
•with an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment
•capable of adapting
•with an ability to germinate or reproduce

www.biology-online.org...

So I will ask one more time what distinguishes the "life" in a cancerous tumor that is replicating or the "life" in a genetically directed tissue on matrix in a lab that is self replicating to become an ear or muscle?

Do you consider all of those equally as "Life" or do you distinguish "human life" and "personhood"?

Is the swimming sperm "life"? YES...is it human life?

Does a cancerous tumor meet the above criteria?

I gave you your own definition that you repeatedly cited but failed to provide...how does that answer any of my questions?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Biology doesn't say a thing about abortion...it is science...not philosophy.

But, people like to claim that abortion isn't killing a human being as justification for them supporting it. So, like you, they ignore what biology says about "life" and try to redefine it to start at some arbitrary point in development so they can believe in their mind that they don't support the killing of a young human being.

Honestly I am not sure you know anything at all about what biology says about life. You keep refering to it in every post, but I have yet to see you provide a definition or defend it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

But, people like to claim that abortion isn't killing a human being as justification for them supporting it. So, like you, they ignore what biology says about "life" and try to redefine it to start at some arbitrary point in development so they can believe in their mind that they don't support the killing of a young human being.

The issue is just a misunderstanding of definitions. Often people consider only "viable" or "sentient" humans as human beings, while some people consider even a blob of embryonic cells to be a human being. Then the discussion degenerates into a stupid play on words, as is sadly often the case.

The only philosophical opinion I have is taht killing other humans is wrong...I don't think you or any one else disagrees on that point.

Oh yes, I do. Killing humans without mind is not wrong at all.

Abortion is wrong & should not be condoned. It should only be allowed if the potential baby's quality of life will end up being so bad that it will require constant medical attention and supervision to be able to survive or fend for itself for it's entire life, or if it was initiated against a man or womans consent (rape). If the potential baby has no acute health problems then no one has any right in terminating the potential baby's life.

Anyone that has consentual unprotected sex has already made the decision to bring another human into this world and they shouldn't be allowed to go back on that decision just because of inconvenience or a change of plans or because they were too lazy or off their heads to take the necessary precautions.

Originally posted by DanielET
Abortion is wrong & should not be condoned.

OK..Abortion is murder?

It should only be allowed if the potential baby's quality of life will end up being so bad that it will require constant medical attention and supervision to be able to survive or fend for itself for it's entire life,

Only murder those that can not survive on their own or require serious help?

or if it was initiated against a man or womans consent (rape).

And killing an innocent life is justified how in circumstances of rape?

If the potential baby has no acute health problems then no one has any right in terminating the potential baby's life.

So we are only able to murder those with less than perfect health?

See the slipperly slope?

Originally posted by DanielET
Anyone that has consentual unprotected sex has already made the decision to bring another human into this world

Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy or birth.

and they shouldn't be allowed to go back on that decision just because of inconvenience or a change of plans or because they were too lazy or off their heads to take the necessary precautions.

Why not? If no sentient life is harmed, there is no victim, and no crime. You should be allowed to do anything which does not harm anyone else. Only things that actually harm other persons should be restricted.

reply to post by Indigo5


You have your answer right in the definition you pasted.

A tumor and a sperm cell do not have the ability to reproduce to produce a new living organism. I sperm can not produce another sperm...hence it is not defined as "life". A tumor is part of the individual that it is in...dna may be damaged...but it is still the same dna. It came about from cell division...a zygote does not come from cell division. The two are nothing alike.

Please find me any source that says a tumor is a unique living being...same for sperm.

I'll refer you to the biological life cycle.

www.biology-online.org...

Life cycle
Definition

noun

The whole life history of an organism, usually depicted through a series of developmental stages (e.g. from zygote into a mature form where another zygote can be produced) in which an organism goes through.


Supplement

Life cycle entails the course of development of an organism, i.e. from the time of inception to growth to finally maturity when an organism can viably produce another of its kind.

In certain organisms, life cycle includes the different generations of species. For instance, a life cycle of an angiosperm involves both the sporophyte and gametophyte generations.

It's quite clear the life cycle begins with the zygote.

Zygote
Definition

noun, plural: zygotes

A cell in diploid state following fertilization or union of haploid male sex cell (e.g. sperm) and haploid female sex cell (e.g. ovum).

Supplement

To be precise, zygote is the term used to refer to the cell as a result of the fusion of two haploid nuclei during fertilization until the first cleavage. When the zygote starts to divide and multiply, it is called an embryo.

You can continue to deny biology...but it doesn't justify your support of the killing of the youngest of human beings that are in the earliest development stages of life.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

A human cell has all the qualities that define life, it is not a human being, nor is a potential human being an actual human being.

Your "pragmatism" is showing.

A human cell can not reproduce.

Dividing is not reproduction in terms of biology.

A single human cell is part of a living organism...not a living organism itself.

reply to post by Maslo


You keep talking about being "sentient". And now you are arguing that killing something that isn't "sentient" isn't murder.

dictionary.reference.com...

sen·tient   /ˈsɛnʃənt/ Show Spelled[sen-shuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
noun
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic . the conscious mind.

There are many situations where mature humans lose their "sentience". I could drug you to the point to where you are no longer "sentient". You may lose your sentience from a sever blow to the head. You may drink yourself into a coma, hence losing sentience per the definition.

Does that give me the right to kill you while you are in that state?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You have your answer right in the definition you pasted.

A tumor and a sperm cell do not have the ability to reproduce to produce a new living organism.

A tumor reproduces new tumor cells all the time, that is how they grow..

Now if you are claiming the ability to "reproduce a new living organism" is the definitive bar, then no one would be considered human life until puberty? Certainly a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus etc are incapable of human reproduction?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Please find me any source that says a tumor is a unique living being...same for sperm.

I like the new "unique living being" term ...it beats the "Life is Life" bit you were using earlier.

So your new defintion is what? Life that is both unique to it's host and a being?

By unique I suppose we will define unique as a synthesis of two existing DNAs?

But the altered DNA of a Cancerous tumor does not count?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

It's quite clear the life cycle begins with the zygote.

And what does that cycle lead to?

Your own logical mind betrays your argument. I would not contest that the life "cycle" begins with the zygote...a cycle that will lead to human life as we know it. I would not contest that the process begins at conception or even earlier...but it is a PROCESS that LEADS to LIFE and is no more "Human Life" than an egg is a rooster. It is a development cycle, a process...which by definition requires fundemental and dramatic change to evolve into what we consider a "person" or "being".

When does that happen to the satisfaction of nature? I discussed that in the last post you dismissed.

Originally posted by beezzer
Personal responsibility. It boils down to personal responsibility.

Abortion absolves people from responsiblity. It is government sactioned birth control. It means you don't have to take responsibility when you have sex. You don't have to take responibility to have and raise a child. You can just kill him/her.

So does birth control and contraception.
Also, in some cases it's more responsible to get an abortion.

Seriously, how many times are we going to see this stupid argument against abortion?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Eugenics in action, a higher percentage of women that get abortion are African American or poor,

blackgenocide.org...

People like you and Beezer really aren't making Pro-Lifers look good with comments like these. It's really hard for me not to see pro lifers as evil/stupid when I see comments like these.

reply to post by Indigo5

A tumor reproduces new tumor cells all the time, that is how they grow..

Now if you are claiming the ability to "reproduce a new living organism" is the definitive bar, then no one would be considered human life until puberty? Certainly a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus etc are incapable of human reproduction?

A tumor never reproduces, it's cells divide. Cell division is not reproduction.

I like the new "unique living being" term ...it beats the "Life is Life" bit you were using earlier.

So your new defintion is what? Life that is both unique to it's host and a being?

By unique I suppose we will define unique as a synthesis of two existing DNAs?

But the altered DNA of a Cancerous tumor does not count?

Again, these aren't my definitions. They are the definitions of biology.

You will be hard pressed to find any biologist to say that a tumor is a living organism.

And what does that cycle lead to?

Your own logical mind betrays your argument. I would not contest that the life "cycle" begins with the zygote...a cycle that will lead to human life as we know it. I would not contest that the process begins at conception or even earlier...but it is a PROCESS that LEADS to LIFE and is no more "Human Life" than an egg is a rooster. It is a development cycle, a process...which by definition requires fundemental and dramatic change to evolve into what we consider a "person" or "being".

When does that happen to the satisfaction of nature? I discussed that in the last post you dismissed.

A cycle implies it is unending. But for the individual, they cycle leads to death...not life. Abortion is simply terminating the life cycle at a very early stage of development...no different than a newborn child being killed.

An egg is the early stage of the "roosters" development...I would no more call an egg a rooster than I would call it a chick. Nor would I call a human baby an adult....nor would I call a embryo an adult. But a human embryo IS a human no less. It is the early development stage of the human life cycle. This cycle does not start at the third trimester of pregnancy...it starts at conception.

Deny it all you want...or try to redefine when it is indeed a "human"...it is all justification so that you can sleep better at night. It would weigh heavily on your mind if you had to admit that you are for the outright slaughter (by brutal techniques) of humans.