Poll Shows Majority of Americans Believe Abortion ?Almost Always Bad? for Women

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
You need to study genetics and embryology:

The fertilized egg or zygote contains all of the genetic material needed to create the fully expressed individual and includes inherent complex encoding for individual human interjection and all the other associated qualities characteristic of human personhood.

We can take a single cell or zygote from a human being, a gorilla and a mouse and subject them to forensic testing and definitively identify each species. Moreover, if one or two cells were removed from a developing human embryo and either typed as to their individual specific DNA pattern or stored away, they could be used many years later to identify the adult individual.

Link

You have not provided an argument as to why a zygote or fetus should be conceptualized as a human being or person.

(btw I have studied genetics and embryology, I studied medicine for three years.)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It has been established by science that a zygote is a human being. You don't want to aknowlege it.

Lol, no it has not been established by science that a zygote is a human being.

It is true that a zygote is human (i.e., it is comprised of human cells containing human DNA).

Furthermore, a zygote has the potential to develop into a human being (providied certain environmental conditions are met).

However, to demonstrate that a zygote or fetus is a human being or person, you would first need to define precisely what you mean by these terms (human being, person) and then prove that a fetus or zygote has the attributes specified in your definition.

 

[rususa]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

However, to demonstrate that a zygote or fetus is a human being or person, you would first need to define precisely what you mean by these terms (human being, person) and then prove that a fetus or zygote has the specified attributes.

Personally, I consider a fetus to be human when it has its own unique genetic code, and will grow into a born human if left to itself. I don't know what you mean by environmental conditions having to be met. Since when have you heard of a fetus that suddenly stopped developing for no reason or became someting other than a human? I mean, without accidents and maltreatment, fetuses grow into humans, the same way a 5 year old becomes 10. It seems to me that many people simply don't want to admit that fetuses are human beings, because that would be admiting that they support the killing of hundreds of thousands every year.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: aidanjm

However, to demonstrate that a zygote or fetus is a human being or person, you would first need to define precisely what you mean by these terms (human being, person) and then prove that a fetus or zygote has the specified attributes.

Personally, I consider a fetus to be human when it has its own unique genetic code, and will grow into a born human if left to itself. I don't know what you mean by environmental conditions having to be met. Since when have you heard of a fetus that suddenly stopped developing for no reason or became someting other than a human? I mean, without accidents and maltreatment, fetuses grow into humans, the same way a 5 year old becomes 10. It seems to me that many people simply don't want to admit that fetuses are human beings, because that would be admiting that they support the killing of hundreds of thousands every year.

He means that it is not yet human just because it contains a distinct set of human DNA. He dfines being human differently than you do. I can't speak for him but to me it is not human till it becomes a self aware entity. Now I can't say specifically when that is but I know its not at the zygote stage. Therefore, as long as the zygote is allowed to stay into the womb (Environmental conditions) it will eventually become human. Since it is not human yet, it does not have a distinct set of rights.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: aidanjm

However, to demonstrate that a zygote or fetus is a human being or person, you would first need to define precisely what you mean by these terms (human being, person) and then prove that a fetus or zygote has the specified attributes.

Personally, I consider a fetus to be human when it has its own unique genetic code, and will grow into a born human if left to itself. I don't know what you mean by environmental conditions having to be met. Since when have you heard of a fetus that suddenly stopped developing for no reason or became someting other than a human? I mean, without accidents and maltreatment, fetuses grow into humans, the same way a 5 year old becomes 10. It seems to me that many people simply don't want to admit that fetuses are human beings, because that would be admiting that they support the killing of hundreds of thousands every year.

left to its own the fetus will die when it is no longer attached to the mother.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: aidanjm

However, to demonstrate that a zygote or fetus is a human being or person, you would first need to define precisely what you mean by these terms (human being, person) and then prove that a fetus or zygote has the specified attributes.

Personally, I consider a fetus to be human when it has its own unique genetic code, and will grow into a born human if left to itself. I don't know what you mean by environmental conditions having to be met. Since when have you heard of a fetus that suddenly stopped developing for no reason or became someting other than a human? I mean, without accidents and maltreatment, fetuses grow into humans, the same way a 5 year old becomes 10. It seems to me that many people simply don't want to admit that fetuses are human beings, because that would be admiting that they support the killing of hundreds of thousands every year.

left to its own the fetus will die when it is no longer attached to the mother.

That's a big part of the argument as well - regardless of if you consider a fetus a person or not it's hard to force someone to do something with their body (like carry the fetus to term and give birth to a child). I miss the days when conservatives really did want everyone to have the maximum personal freedoms....

 

[rususa]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

left to its own the fetus will die when it is no longer attached to the mother.

Left to its own did not mean left to live alone without other human interaction. Most of us would end up dying if we were "left to our own". I meant that no sort of action would be taken and that only what would happen naturally would be allowed. In that case, the fetus invariably becomes "human". Calling something human because it is self-aware is also a pointless and arbitrary distinction. Are comatose people "human"? Do we lose our humanity for eight hours each night?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: Spencer278

left to its own the fetus will die when it is no longer attached to the mother.

Left to its own did not mean left to live alone without other human interaction. Most of us would end up dying if we were "left to our own". I meant that no sort of action would be taken and that only what would happen naturally would be allowed. In that case, the fetus invariably becomes "human". Calling something human because it is self-aware is also a pointless and arbitrary distinction. Are comatose people "human"? Do we lose our humanity for eight hours each night?

Where each of your examples self aware at one point? Yes. once you're human, you're human it doesn't go away. We're trying to determine when that point occurs. And how is this definition pointless when you are trying to define when something becomes human? Is it because you don't have a snappy way to put it down? Self awareness has always been a defining aspect by scientists as to what makes humans "human".

Basically, you made up your mind about abortion and then latched onto the defintion of "human" that supported your conclusion. Same as me. I don't accuse your points of being any less valid.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: tss4

Yes. once you're human, you're human it doesn't go away.

We're trying to determine when that point occurs.

And how is this definition pointless when you are trying to define when something becomes human?

Is it because you don't have a snappy way to put it down?

Self awareness has always been a defining aspect by scientists as to what makes humans "human".

Basically, you made up your mind about abortion and then latched onto the defintion of "human" that supported your conclusion. Same as me. I don't accuse your points of being any less valid.

What's all this self awareness bullcrap???

Are you trying to say the two "human" cells that come together are not "human" cells???

Save the Cells!!!

 

[rususa]

Originally posted by: tss4

Where each of your examples self aware at one point? Yes. once you're human, you're human it doesn't go away. We're trying to determine when that point occurs. And how is this definition pointless when you are trying to define when something becomes human? Is it because you don't have a snappy way to put it down? Self awareness has always been a defining aspect by scientists as to what makes humans "human".

Basically, you made up your mind about abortion and then latched onto the defintion of "human" that supported your conclusion. Same as me. I don't accuse your points of being any less valid.

I suppose you could cling to your self-awareness idea to justify abortion but it is pointless. You are much more guilty of choosing your preferred definition of personhood than I am. Saying it has been used by scientists does nothing either. From my point of view, you looked at the entire timeline of a human organism (from conception to death), picked a completely arbitrary point that happens to be convenient, and declared it as the start of a "human". The world doesn't work that way. Declaring something to be true does not make it so. I realize that at this point you think I'm doing the exact same thing, but looking at the evidence and not some preconcieved ideology leads to only one logical conclusion. A new human life begins when a zygote with its own genetic code is formed, which from that time on, if nature takes its course, develops into a full-bodied, self-aware, man or woman.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tss4

Yes. once you're human, you're human it doesn't go away.

We're trying to determine when that point occurs.

And how is this definition pointless when you are trying to define when something becomes human?

Is it because you don't have a snappy way to put it down?

Self awareness has always been a defining aspect by scientists as to what makes humans "human".

Basically, you made up your mind about abortion and then latched onto the defintion of "human" that supported your conclusion. Same as me. I don't accuse your points of being any less valid.

What's all this self awareness bullcrap???

Are you trying to say the two "human" cells that come together are not "human" cells???

Save the Cells!!!

Did you not read any of the rest of the thread? They're human cells, but they don constitute a "human" being. Wasn't aware you were pro life.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: tss4

Where each of your examples self aware at one point? Yes. once you're human, you're human it doesn't go away. We're trying to determine when that point occurs. And how is this definition pointless when you are trying to define when something becomes human? Is it because you don't have a snappy way to put it down? Self awareness has always been a defining aspect by scientists as to what makes humans "human".

Basically, you made up your mind about abortion and then latched onto the defintion of "human" that supported your conclusion. Same as me. I don't accuse your points of being any less valid.

I suppose you could cling to your self-awareness idea to justify abortion but it is pointless. You are much more guilty of choosing your preferred definition of personhood than I am. Saying it has been used by scientists does nothing either. From my point of view, you looked at the entire timeline of a human organism (from conception to death), picked a completely arbitrary point that happens to be convenient, and declared it as the start of a "human". The world doesn't work that way. Declaring something to be true does not make it so. I realize that at this point you think I'm doing the exact same thing, but looking at the evidence and not some preconcieved ideology leads to only one logical conclusion. A new human life begins when a zygote with its own genetic code is formed, which from that time on, if nature takes its course, develops into a full-bodied, self-aware, man or woman.

You're not really doing much for your case here. Under your definition the popular fertility treatment invitro is murder just like abortion

from Babycentre.co.uk

--------------------
By monitoring your blood hormone levels, your doctor can detect when your eggs are mature; an ultrasound confirms that the eggs are ready to be retrieved. Shortly afterwards, you'll be given a sedation anaesthetic and your doctor will remove the eggs using a fine, hollow needle. (Another ultrasound helps your doctor locate the eggs.) Your partner's sperm is then combined with your eggs in a dish containing a nutrient medium, which is then cultured in an incubator.

Two days later, any fertilised eggs will each have become a ball of cells called an embryo. Usually, two or three embryos are transferred into your uterus through your cervix with a thin catheter. -------------------

Notice the rest of the embryos (full humans with the right to life under your definition) are not implanted.

Under your definition, this fertility treatment, is murder. As you would say, that is the only logical conclusion.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It has been established by science that a zygote is a human being. You don't want to aknowlege it.

How do you define a human being, Rip?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tss4

Yes. once you're human, you're human it doesn't go away.

We're trying to determine when that point occurs.

And how is this definition pointless when you are trying to define when something becomes human?

Is it because you don't have a snappy way to put it down?

Self awareness has always been a defining aspect by scientists as to what makes humans "human".

Basically, you made up your mind about abortion and then latched onto the defintion of "human" that supported your conclusion. Same as me. I don't accuse your points of being any less valid.

What's all this self awareness bullcrap???

Are you trying to say the two "human" cells that come together are not "human" cells???

Save the Cells!!!

Did you not read any of the rest of the thread? They're human cells, but they don constitute a "human" being. Wasn't aware you were pro life.

either you are missing that he is joking or I am missing that you are joking

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: tss4

Where each of your examples self aware at one point? Yes. once you're human, you're human it doesn't go away. We're trying to determine when that point occurs. And how is this definition pointless when you are trying to define when something becomes human? Is it because you don't have a snappy way to put it down? Self awareness has always been a defining aspect by scientists as to what makes humans "human".

Basically, you made up your mind about abortion and then latched onto the defintion of "human" that supported your conclusion. Same as me. I don't accuse your points of being any less valid.

I suppose you could cling to your self-awareness idea to justify abortion but it is pointless. You are much more guilty of choosing your preferred definition of personhood than I am. Saying it has been used by scientists does nothing either. From my point of view, you looked at the entire timeline of a human organism (from conception to death), picked a completely arbitrary point that happens to be convenient, and declared it as the start of a "human". The world doesn't work that way. Declaring something to be true does not make it so. I realize that at this point you think I'm doing the exact same thing, but looking at the evidence and not some preconcieved ideology leads to only one logical conclusion. A new human life begins when a zygote with its own genetic code is formed, which from that time on, if nature takes its course, develops into a full-bodied, self-aware, man or woman.

"develops into a full-bodied, self-aware, man or woman"

or sometimes both

but back to topic....

I still don't think it's as clearcut as you say - would someone stopping me from having sex with someone be stopping the "natural progression." Just as most people would be against abortions in the absolute latest terms people are more likely to be for them (the options anyway) in the earliest terms. At some point there will have to be a hard line put down as to where it's a human being and where it's not. I'm not sure science can make this call - it's too open to perspective.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tss4

Yes. once you're human, you're human it doesn't go away.

We're trying to determine when that point occurs.

And how is this definition pointless when you are trying to define when something becomes human?

Is it because you don't have a snappy way to put it down?

Self awareness has always been a defining aspect by scientists as to what makes humans "human".

Basically, you made up your mind about abortion and then latched onto the defintion of "human" that supported your conclusion. Same as me. I don't accuse your points of being any less valid.

What's all this self awareness bullcrap???

Are you trying to say the two "human" cells that come together are not "human" cells???

Save the Cells!!!

Did you not read any of the rest of the thread? They're human cells, but they don constitute a "human" being. Wasn't aware you were pro life.

either you are missing that he is joking or I am missing that you are joking

I'm an idiot.

 

[rususa]

Originally posted by: tss4

Under your definition the popular fertility treatment invitro is murder just like abortion.

Technically this doesn't fall under my definition since the two requirements I laid out to be human were for the zygote to have its own unique genetic code, AND for it to be in a position where it naturally develops into a full grown person. However, I do think this practice has its moral flaws and that adoption would a be a much better alternative in all respects.

Originally posted by: Tommunist

At some point there will have to be a hard line put down as to where it's a human being and where it's not. I'm not sure science can make this call - it's too open to perspective.

You're correct in that science cannot declare what constitutes a human being in the sense of what constitutes a "person". That is a matter for philosophy. However, science can make the call on what is a separate organism belonging the species homo sapiens. That is pretty clear cut.

 

[Tommunist]

fair enough

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: tss4

Under your definition the popular fertility treatment invitro is murder just like abortion.

Technically this doesn't fall under my definition since the two requirements I laid out to be human were for the zygote to have its own unique genetic code, AND for it to be in a position where it naturally develops into a full grown person. However, I do think this practice has its moral flaws and that adoption would a be a much better alternative in all respects.

Originally posted by: Tommunist

At some point there will have to be a hard line put down as to where it's a human being and where it's not. I'm not sure science can make this call - it's too open to perspective.

You're correct in that science cannot declare what constitutes a human being in the sense of what constitutes a "person". That is a matter for philosophy. However, science can make the call on what is a separate organism belonging the species homo sapiens. That is pretty clear cut.

Now whos tailoring their definition to suit their needs?

 

[rususa]

Originally posted by: tss4

Now whos tailoring their definition to suit their needs?

Allright, I admit you're probably right here in that I didn't want invitro to be equivalent to abortion and I said as much. I guess it's just as difficult for me to see a group of cells as human, simply because they don't do everything normal humans do. Logically, they are human because they will grow into a full human, but looking at that instant, it's hard not to think your way. Nevertheless, I will maintain my position that invitro is morally wrong, though I don't know if I would call it murder. The couple should be adopting.

However, even the invitro case doesn't help you at all. There are still thousands of normals abortions going on where it's clear cut that the embryo will become a full human. What can you say to justify that?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: tss4

Where each of your examples self aware at one point? Yes. once you're human, you're human it doesn't go away. We're trying to determine when that point occurs. And how is this definition pointless when you are trying to define when something becomes human? Is it because you don't have a snappy way to put it down? Self awareness has always been a defining aspect by scientists as to what makes humans "human".

Basically, you made up your mind about abortion and then latched onto the defintion of "human" that supported your conclusion. Same as me. I don't accuse your points of being any less valid.

I suppose you could cling to your self-awareness idea to justify abortion but it is pointless. You are much more guilty of choosing your preferred definition of personhood than I am. Saying it has been used by scientists does nothing either. From my point of view, you looked at the entire timeline of a human organism (from conception to death), picked a completely arbitrary point that happens to be convenient, and declared it as the start of a "human". The world doesn't work that way. Declaring something to be true does not make it so. I realize that at this point you think I'm doing the exact same thing, but looking at the evidence and not some preconcieved ideology leads to only one logical conclusion. A new human life begins when a zygote with its own genetic code is formed, which from that time on, if nature takes its course, develops into a full-bodied, self-aware, man or woman.

"develops into a full-bodied, self-aware, man or woman"

or sometimes both

but back to topic....

I still don't think it's as clearcut as you say - would someone stopping me from having sex with someone be stopping the "natural progression." Just as most people would be against abortions in the absolute latest terms people are more likely to be for them (the options anyway) in the earliest terms. At some point there will have to be a hard line put down as to where it's a human being and where it's not. I'm not sure science can make this call - it's too open to perspective.

That hard line need not occur prior to birth. Some people advocate setting the line months after birth. Even after birth, we consider the infant as a "lesser" form of life than a grown adult. For example, in many jurisdictions the killing of a baby is not legally considered to be 'murder' but rather infanticide. Infanticide attracts a lesser penalty than murder.

I do not oppose abortion in the very latest stages of the pregnancy. If the mother wants it out of her uterus, then that it her prerogative. If that means sucking out the brains thru the back of the fetus' head, then so be it.

 

[rususa]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

That hard line need not occur prior to birth. Some people advocate setting the line months after birth. Even after birth, we consider the infant a lesser form of life than a grown adult. For example, in many jurisdictions the killing of a baby is not legally considered to be 'murder' but rather infanticide. Infanticide attracts a lesser penalty than murder.

I do not oppose abortion in the very latest stages of the pregnancy. If the mother wants it out of her uterus, then that it her prerogative. If that means sucking out the brains thru the back of the fetus' head, then so be it.

This is just plain disgusting. Tell me, why should I or anyone else refrain from going out and murdering whoever the hell I please? Why doesn't our society round up all "lesser forms of life" and do us all a big favor by gassing them all in massive chambers? It's bad enough we kill thousands of embryos each year simply because we dont see them as human, but when we get to the point where we see other clear humans as "lesser forms of life", well... I'll let you guys figure out where it goes.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: aidanjm

That hard line need not occur prior to birth. Some people advocate setting the line months after birth. Even after birth, we consider the infant a lesser form of life than a grown adult. For example, in many jurisdictions the killing of a baby is not legally considered to be 'murder' but rather infanticide. Infanticide attracts a lesser penalty than murder.

I do not oppose abortion in the very latest stages of the pregnancy. If the mother wants it out of her uterus, then that it her prerogative. If that means sucking out the brains thru the back of the fetus' head, then so be it.

This is just plain disgusting. Tell me, why should I or anyone else refrain from going out and murdering whoever the hell I please? Why doesn't our society round up all "lesser forms of life" and do us all a big favor by gassing them all in massive chambers? It's bad enough we kill thousands of embryos each year simply because we dont see them as human, but when we get to the point where we see other clear humans as "lesser forms of life", well... I'll let you guys figure out where it goes.

Why is a chimpanzee a lesser form of life than a human? How can it be legal to conduct medical experiments on chimps, which involve inflicting horrendous pain? An adult chimpanzee is certainly more intelligent, more aware, than an infant human. An adult chimp feels pain, experiences terror, pleasure, and so on. How can it be legal to kill an adult chimpanzee, with no legal consequences?

 

[rususa]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Why is a chimpanzee a lesser form of life than a human? How can it be legal to conduct medical experiments on chimps, which involve inflicting horrendous pain? An adult chimpanzee is certainly more intelligent, more aware, than an infant human. An adult chimp feels pain, experiences terror, pleasure, and so on. How can it be legal to kill an adult chimpanzee, with no legal consequences?

A chimpanzee is not a sentient animal. Humans are. And just because humans are not sentient at certain points in their life (sleep, coma, infant) does not mean that they don't get full human rights at that point.

Disclaimer: this reply does not mean I condone horrific experiments done to chimps, or other animals.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: rususa

Originally posted by: aidanjm

That hard line need not occur prior to birth. Some people advocate setting the line months after birth. Even after birth, we consider the infant a lesser form of life than a grown adult. For example, in many jurisdictions the killing of a baby is not legally considered to be 'murder' but rather infanticide. Infanticide attracts a lesser penalty than murder.

I do not oppose abortion in the very latest stages of the pregnancy. If the mother wants it out of her uterus, then that it her prerogative. If that means sucking out the brains thru the back of the fetus' head, then so be it.

This is just plain disgusting. Tell me, why should I or anyone else refrain from going out and murdering whoever the hell I please? Why doesn't our society round up all "lesser forms of life" and do us all a big favor by gassing them all in massive chambers? It's bad enough we kill thousands of embryos each year simply because we dont see them as human, but when we get to the point where we see other clear humans as "lesser forms of life", well... I'll let you guys figure out where it goes.

Why is a chimpanzee a lesser form of life than a human? How can it be legal to conduct medical experiments on chimps, which involve inflicting horrendous pain? An adult chimpanzee is certainly more intelligent, more aware, than an infant human. An adult chimp feels pain, experiences terror, pleasure, and so on. How can it be legal to kill an adult chimpanzee, with no legal consequences?

It bothers you to kill a chimp, but it doesn't bother you to stab an infant human being in the back of the head and suck out its brains until its skull collapses?

Interesting.