A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Keep up with the thread. This has been discussed and is currently BEING DISCUSSED.

Ummm….I am discussing it, too, chief.

You can keep repeating your nonsense but you have no valid argument.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

I do not accept that it was ever alive, so your assertion about 'ceasing' to be alive is moot. However, you -do- accept that something that cannot assimilate nutrients is not alive.

An embryo outside of a uterus is not alive.
A human is a being that lives outside of a uterus.

Anything that cannot assimilate nutrients will not continue to be alive...there will be a time period that it is still alive. If you take a fetus or even an embryo out of the womb...it will for a time still continue to be alive...cells will continue to divide...if it is developed enough it's heart will still beat...brain waves will still be active...it may even have movement. Depending on it's development stage, the time it will continue to be alive will either be very short or maybe a significant amount of time.

I'm curious what you call it during that time when it is out of the womb, but unable to assimilate nutrients, but still isn't "dead"?

But it seems you are altering your definitions now...and you are now saying that if it is still in utero that it is not a human. So a 35 week old human (from conception) that is still in utero is not a human in your opinion? But one that has been born premature is a human? That seems like a very random, arbitrary and primitive definition of being "human".

reply to post by firemonkey


My point is that there is no beginning point at which life begins, ie. fertilization, because life is a cycle that has no definable beginning. That is FACT!

It doesn't matter what context the talk was given, in this case in a series that looks at population control through birth control. The biology presented is valid. The fact that your pro-life doctors conveniently ignore this fact doesn't make it's truth invalid. But does make your argument invalid.

New life is not created through sexual activity, it's advanced.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

Because "murder" consists of plotting and killing someone who has a legal status in the world. Usually carried out with foul motives. And to be clear, you cant call abortion murder if you cant legally pinpoint when foetus becomes a human with a legal identity.

Murder is just a legal term...legality can change...so why not change it?

Cannibalism is illegal because eating other human beings would contribute to the spread of diseases.

Only if they were diseased themselves...logically if we have a food problem in places...why not just eat humans? Logically it is a valid solution.


The reason you don't want either of those legal is because of "morals"...which are not logical. So when people start saying "logic" is the reason they support abortion, I see it as them using "logic" to attempt to justify their neglect of "morals" they would hold in a similar situation.

That statement defeats the purpose of what you're trying to say. Logic usually wins hands down, without the use of logic human's may have never "progressed" to this point.

While you're replying to my post, could you actually try and poke holes in my assumptions of what banning birth control and abortions would lead to? Do you accept that there would be:

Logic only provides if a conclusion is true or false, it doesn't provide if it right or wrong.

Example: If I owe someone money but don't want to pay them, it logically works out that if I kill them then I don't have to pay them. It's not the right thing to do, but logically it is solid.


You or I can't predict what the consequences would be of banning abortion, we can make guesses...but we can't know for sure. A lot of it would depend on the punishments for getting an illegal abortion or performing an illegal abortion. Ultimately, I don't care about the consequences if it is the right thing to do.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Can an embryo survive and continue to develop outside of a uterus? No. This is not indicative of human life. Humans CAN survive and thrive outside of a uterus.

So premature babies that survive for a few hours after they are born were never human?

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I do not accept that it was ever alive, so your assertion about 'ceasing' to be alive is moot. However, you -do- accept that something that cannot assimilate nutrients is not alive.

An embryo outside of a uterus is not alive.
A human is a being that lives outside of a uterus.

Anything that cannot assimilate nutrients will not continue to be alive...there will be a time period that it is still alive. If you take a fetus or even an embryo out of the womb...it will for a time still continue to be alive...cells will continue to divide...if it is developed enough it's heart will still beat...brain waves will still be active...it may even have movement. Depending on it's development stage, the time it will continue to be alive will either be very short or maybe a significant amount of time.

I'm curious what you call it during that time when it is out of the womb, but unable to assimilate nutrients, but still isn't "dead"?

But it seems you are altering your definitions now...and you are now saying that if it is still in utero that it is not a human. So a 35 week old human (from conception) that is still in utero is not a human in your opinion? But one that has been born premature is a human? That seems like a very random, arbitrary and primitive definition of being "human".

You are jumping the gun by determining that something is alive before it can assimilate nutrients on it's own. A 35 week old fetus has the scientifically verifiable ability to live outside of the womb. a 12 week old embryo does not. Nor does a 20 week old embryo.

reply to post by windword

My point is that there is no beginning point at which life begins, ie. fertilization, because life is a cycle that has no definable beginning. That is FACT!

That “fact” exists only in your mind.

I will continue to quote this as long as it’s ignored.

Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, said an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization.

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

thechart.blogs.cnn.com...
What credentials do you have that makes your ‘opinion’ hold more weight than Dr. DeCook and others?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by firemonkey

 

My point is that there is no beginning point at which life begins, ie. fertilization, because life is a cycle that has no definable beginning. That is FACT!

It doesn't matter what context the talk was given, in this case in a series that looks at population control through birth control. The biology presented is valid. The fact that your pro-life doctors conveniently ignore this fact doesn't make it's truth invalid. But does make your argument invalid.

New life is not created through sexual activity, it's advanced.

In that case, it has no end...and murder shouldn't be illegal.

The biology is valid, it's just that you and the professor aren't using it correctly. There is a difference when talking about "life" in general and when talking about an individual "life".

Like I said, if you don't see this, then you don't see any individuality...and then most of our laws are pointless because as long as a female and male capable of mating survive...it doesn't matter if anyone else is.

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Can an embryo survive and continue to develop outside of a uterus? No. This is not indicative of human life. Humans CAN survive and thrive outside of a uterus.

So premature babies that survive for a few hours after they are born were never human?

If a fetus is born before 22 weeks, the youngest that a baby can be born and have any chance for survival, and doesn't survive, I have no problem saying that it wasn't actually alive, and that it was merely using the last vestiges of energy given during the pregnancy.

reply to post by windword


I was hoping you would post that lecture again. I watched it about 10 times because I found it very informative . He does a great job of explaining the precursors to conception, but takes the debate completely out of context right from the start.

I'm on my phone ATM so I'm not going to bother quoting the lecture. What I recall is that he same tactic as the moderator in the beginning of this thread. If you listen to the arguments he's supposed to be addressing, anyone with half a brain will notice that he changes from the specific singular sense of the word "life "(as in A life) and starts using it in a general and plural sense (such as the water is teeming with life).

That might not be important to you, but it does render his arguments useless when you think about it. And for the record I'm not disputing any of the science he presented, only his premise.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

You are jumping the gun by determining that something is alive before it can assimilate nutrients on it's own. A 35 week old fetus has the scientifically verifiable ability to live outside of the womb. a 12 week old embryo does not. Nor does a 20 week old embryo.

Define "assimilate nutrients on it's own"?

An embryo/fetus is assimilating nutrients from the time of conception...all on it's own. They are being provided in a unique way...but they are "assimilating nutrients" all on it's own. So where do you get the arbitrary thinking that they MUST be able to do it on their own outside the womb for it to be considered "alive"? What you are really saying is that it is not a human until it can assimilate nutrients from a source that is not connected to it's umbilical cord...which is really just desperately grasping at straws.

So you take a 20 week old fetus out of the womb, lay it on a table...and for a period of time it is moving and it's heart is beating...it is actively dying. But according to you, it was never alive...so what is it? What is something that is moving and has a beating heart, a circulatory system, a brain and brain waves....but isn't alive? What exactly is it?

reply to post by kaylaluv

Dear kaylaluv,

I really owe you public applause and thanks for your comments on molar pregnancies. You've provided information I wasn't aware of and used it reasonably in support of an argument. Your post should be an example to ATSers. And, there are large portions of it with which I agree.

If I read your source correctly, molar pregnancies occur about one time in a thousand and most often take care of themselves. You're right, that one way of looking at it is that there is proof that a fertilized egg is not human life. But from another view point, couldn't it be considered that a rare condition attacked the fertilized egg converting it from a human life (whatever we're using for a definition) and deformed it, preventing it from continuing it's devlopment?

Thus, I think we can use the term "potential life" to categorize a fertilized egg. Once it is determined that a fertilized egg is developing normally (maybe after the first trimester?), we can then call the development a definite life, but only has the potential for being a child.

Now, I hope, I can return the favor of offering some new information.

An ultrasound of a complete molar pregnancy — which can be detected as early as eight or nine weeks of pregnancy —

Mayo-Molar Pregnancies-Tests

and

A molar pregnancy — also known as hydatidiform mole — is a noncancerous (benign) tumor that develops in the uterus. A molar pregnancy occurs when there is an extra set of paternal chromosomes in a fertilized egg. This error at the time of conception transforms what would normally become the placenta into a growing mass of cysts.

www.mayoclinic.com...

And I'm not going to argue with Mayo. Is that the point when states should be allowed to start imposing restrictions? Eight or nine weeks? That's not my first choice, but I'll accept that for now.

So now, we need to decide whose rights supersede whom? A "potential child" or a definite woman?

I'd like to offer a different point of view here, too. Rights are placed along a scale. Not every right has the same weight. The "Right to Privacy" is an important right, but not the most important. As an example, to exercise the right to vote, one has to identify oneself, losing the right to privacy. Even for the privilege of driving, a driver's license means surrendering the right to privacy. Before Roe states could decide where to draw the lines, just as states have different immunization laws.

That brings us to the third trimester, when the developing fetus can theoretically survive outside the womb. But as long as the child is still in the mother's womb, the mother's right to life will still supercede the child's right to life. Why is that? I suppose it is because the mother was here first, so she gets first rights to life.

I largely agree with you, though I think using third trimester is a little outdated due to scientific advances. Should we try somewhere in the 20-22 week range? And I think the mother's right to life supercedes the child's based on the principle of self-defense, but your explanation could just as well be right.

I just don't see how the Court could have ruled any other way, legally.

Oh, goodness, they could have said, except for the right to self-defense, we should let the states decide it. Or, they could have put the times for state interest anywhere. Their decision was just a useful compromise. There was little that forced them to decide as they did. That's one of the reasons it's still being fought over.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Can an embryo survive and continue to develop outside of a uterus? No. This is not indicative of human life. Humans CAN survive and thrive outside of a uterus.

So premature babies that survive for a few hours after they are born were never human?

If a fetus is born before 22 weeks, the youngest that a baby can be born and have any chance for survival, and doesn't survive, I have no problem saying that it wasn't actually alive, and that it was merely using the last vestiges of energy given during the pregnancy.

So your definition of when life begins is dependent on technology?

If there is a medical advancement that allows a fetus at 15 weeks to survive...does your definition then change?

Do you see a problem with your definition of "life" being dependent on current technology?


You are spinning yourself into so many logical problems by picking arbitrary points in development as the "beginning" of life. I don't have any of these logical problems, my definitions don't change dependent on technology, a 25 week old fetus is alive by my definitions no matter if it is born today or born 2000 years ago (according to you, that fetus 25 years ago was never alive).

Most people realize that when their opinion keeps running into logical issues and they have to keep making special cases, justifications, or alter their definitions based on outside factors...that maybe their is a problem with their opinion.

If you think I have a logical problem with my definition of life beginning at conception, please point it out.

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

You are jumping the gun by determining that something is alive before it can assimilate nutrients on it's own. A 35 week old fetus has the scientifically verifiable ability to live outside of the womb. a 12 week old embryo does not. Nor does a 20 week old embryo.

Define "assimilate nutrients on it's own"?

An embryo/fetus is assimilating nutrients from the time of conception...all on it's own. They are being provided in a unique way...but they are "assimilating nutrients" all on it's own. So where do you get the arbitrary thinking that they MUST be able to do it on their own outside the womb for it to be considered "alive"? What you are really saying is that it is not a human until it can assimilate nutrients from a source that is not connected to it's umbilical cord...which is really just desperately grasping at straws.

So you take a 20 week old fetus out of the womb, lay it on a table...and for a period of time it is moving and it's heart is beating...it is actively dying. But according to you, it was never alive...so what is it? What is something that is moving and has a beating heart, a circulatory system, a brain and brain waves....but isn't alive? What exactly is it?

I am not going to argue your opinion. I am going to simply restate the position you have yet to actually address.

Can an embryo exist and thrive outside of a uterus? No. It cannot. Like I said before, it doesn't matter if it is alive or not, and for the sake of this argument, I am going to concede that it is alive.

So what?

Can it survive the process of being born? What makes a scheduled pre-term birth at 39 weeks different from a pre-term birth at 12 weeks?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by windword

 

My point is that there is no beginning point at which life begins, ie. fertilization, because life is a cycle that has no definable beginning. That is FACT!

That “fact” exists only in your mind.

I will continue to quote this as long as it’s ignored.

Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, said an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization.

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

thechart.blogs.cnn.com...
What credentials do you have that makes your ‘opinion’ hold more weight than Dr. DeCook and others?

Not my credentials.

The idea that "life begins at conception" is not a scientific one. Since the disproof of 'spontaneous generation' (1668-1859), we have known that life only derives from life. Life arose billions of years ago and has continued since as a cycle. Assigning a beginning to a cycle (like the year) is arbitrary.

Here's a video lecture from Yale University that will give you the basic reasons why you're wrong, within the first 5-10 minutes.

reply to post by Bone75


Life is life. Your theory that human life is somehow special is invalid in a non-religious debate on the origin of life.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Can an embryo exist and thrive outside of a uterus? No. It cannot. Like I said before, it doesn't matter if it is alive or not, and for the sake of this argument, I am going to concede that it is alive.

And why should environment be the determinant on what is human life and what is not? Can a newborn baby survive for hours in the dessert in 100+ degree heat and in direct sunlight? Can a grown man? Should it matter that one can and one can't?

Your line of thinking seems very primitive. It's a arbitrary test, to see if something is "alive" or not. It reminds me of tying a witch to a stone and dropping her in a lake to see if she is a witch or not.

Can it survive the process of being born? What makes a scheduled pre-term birth at 39 weeks different from a pre-term birth at 12 weeks?

Many full term fetuses can't survive the process of being born...that is why we now have C-sections. So now instead of environment for your test of if a fetus is alive or not...you have now moved to a physical test of traveling down the birth canal to see if it is "alive" or not.

So are you now claiming that only babies that were vaginally delivered are actually alive? Those that had to be delievered by C-section failed your test and are no longer "alive"?

Again...your position is creating logical problems for you left and right. I have yet see you point out a logical problem with my definition of life beginning at conception.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75

 

Life is life. Your theory that human life is somehow special is invalid in a non-religious debate on the origin of life.

Human life is special in our society, in our laws, and in our morals.

You don't consider all life equal, you may say you do...but you don't. You have killed countless forms of life during your lifetime...how many humans have you killed?

Originally posted by windword
Here's a video lecture from Yale University that will give you the basic reasons why you're wrong, within the first 5-10 minutes.

No start point, huh?

Feel good, pro-choice pseudo-science!

Meh..

reply to post by seabag


Anti-choice equals female slavery as breeding machines for the state. There is nothing sacred about biology and we work to overthrow it at every turn. As is our right to do so.