Late Term Abortions

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

However, I believe that if you choose any point other than conception (Human conception) as to when you grant the 'human', personhood, it is arbitrary.

I think choosing the point of conception is arbitrary, for all the reasons you think it's arbitrary to choose another point in time.

 

[The Commish]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

So the point I'm missing is that the list of essential chemicals an ovum must absorb from its environment consists of exactly one item, namely sperm DNA?If so, the point is factually incorrect.

Or is it that, while brain development may or may not occur, fertilization always does? Because that's incorrect as well.

I think he's saying proper fertilization is always required before any of the other things can happen.

 

[Jewell]

Sorry, but you are the only one making a judgment here. You are arbitrarily judging when a person becomes a person. Everyone here is a person and we became people at conception. There was nothing magical about our births that catapulted us to personhood. So I am the true advocate of individual freedom as I advocate everyone's freedom. I don't pick and choose like you.

Your post is contradictory. You accuse me of arbritarily judging when a person becomes a person, and then in your very next statement, you state, "and we became people at conception." THAT is a judgment, and it is not even supported by everyone who is against abortions.I make no reference to when life begins, because it is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is directly at odds with yours in terms of who is promoting individual freedom. I don't see how a law which restricts human freedom can be said to promote it. Seems rather Orwellian to me.

Sorry, I disagree with both of you.Christo, count me out of the "everyone" that believes we became people at the point of conception.

And, Tim, many laws that restrict human freedom are meant to promote human freedom. For example:

1. People are restricted from the freedom to murder, and it's meant to promote the freedom for another to live.

2. People are restricted from kidnapping another person, and it's meant to promote another enjoying their life as a free person.

Plenty of laws that fall into this category.

I didn't say everyone believes. If they did we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Christo, you're absolutely correct -- you didn't say that. I completely misread it. My bad.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The natural lifespan of an ovum is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own, as nothing more than an ovum, or it will be fertilized, and no longer be an ovum. It is, in fact, the first of many stages of a complete human being.

The natural lifespan of a zygote is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own as nothing more than an zygote (this happens quite frequently), or it will be implanted in the uterine wall and become a blastocyst.The natural lifespan of an embryo is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own as nothing more than an embryo (spontaneous miscarriage happens in about 35% of all pregnancies), or it will be born and become an infant.

If you think one of those three parallel statements has more ethical significance than another, that's a judgment call -- not a factual observation.

Using your own logic: "That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant." ... That infant is just one of a great many essential stages on the way to becoming a toddler/child/adolescent/young adult/middle aged adult/old adult etc...

Exactly.

None of these, or any other descriptors, can make any of these things less than human. However, I believe that if you choose any point other than conception (Human conception) as to when you grant the 'human', personhood, it is arbitrary.

All of them, from the standpoint of mere factual observation, are equally arbitrary -- including conception. To pick out one point as being more ethically significant than the others must be done either (a) according to one's best moral judgment, or (b) based on logical fallacy.To me, the most morally significant point in the development of a person is her acquisition of a working brain. I know that other people have different points of view. I also know that I won't be able to persuade them over to my point of view by shoving a string of syllogisms in their face. People on both sides of this issue imagine they have some bit of irrefutable logic in their favor, but they are wrong. The issue cannot be disposed of by mere logic. It requires moral judgment.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

So the point I'm missing is that the list of essential chemicals an ovum must absorb from its environment consists of exactly one item, namely sperm DNA?If so, the point is factually incorrect.

Or is it that, while brain development may or may not occur, fertilization always does? Because that's incorrect as well.

I think he's saying proper fertilization is always required before any of the other things can happen.

The formation of an egg is required before fertilization can happen. So I suppose the formation of the egg is primary -- nay, the formation of the ovaries that produced that egg -- nay, the formation of the egg that eventually produced those ovaries -- nay, we're going to go back several billion years that way.Fertilization is one event among a long string of events required to form a person. It is neither first nor last in temporal sequence. It may be first in ethical significance, but -- to repeat myself -- that is a judgment call rather than a factual observation.

 

[Christo]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

So the point I'm missing is that the list of essential chemicals an ovum must absorb from its environment consists of exactly one item, namely sperm DNA?If so, the point is factually incorrect.

Or is it that, while brain development may or may not occur, fertilization always does? Because that's incorrect as well.

How do you get a person without fertilization?

 

[Christo]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

What about implantation? Fertilization without implantation is nothing. And in the medical community, implantation is the key event. When some couples who are having trouble getting pregnant go to a fertility clinic, they will have a bunch of eggs fertilized in a petri dish and all of them will be inserted hoping for at least one to be implanted. So why do you put special emphasis on just fertilization?

Should be conception not fertilization.

 

[Christo]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

Maurile, I believe you are minimizing the impact of fertilization in a manner that does not fit your intellect. While "The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after"is factually correct, it is not factually complete. I believe you know about the reproductive cycle of humans, (sexual reproduction) as opposed to the other reproductive method (asexual reproduction)...if not you can read about it Here.The natural lifespan of an ovum is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own, as nothing more than an ovum, or it will be fertilized, and no longer be an ovum. It is, in fact, the first of many stages of a complete human being.

Using your own logic: "That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant." ... That infant is just one of a great many essential stages on the way to becoming a toddler/child/adolescent/young adult/middle aged adult/old adult etc... None of these, or any other descriptors, can make any of these things less than human. However, I believe that if you choose any point other than conception (Human conception) as to when you grant the 'human', personhood, it is arbitrary.

 

[Christo]

The natural lifespan of an ovum is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own, as nothing more than an ovum, or it will be fertilized, and no longer be an ovum. It is, in fact, the first of many stages of a complete human being.

The natural lifespan of a zygote is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own as nothing more than an zygote (this happens quite frequently), or it will be implanted in the uterine wall and become a blastocyst.The natural lifespan of an embryo is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own as nothing more than an embryo (spontaneous miscarriage happens in about 35% of all pregnancies), or it will be born and become an infant.

If you think one of those three parallel statements has more ethical significance than another, that's a judgment call -- not a factual observation.

Using your own logic: "That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant." ... That infant is just one of a great many essential stages on the way to becoming a toddler/child/adolescent/young adult/middle aged adult/old adult etc...

Exactly.

None of these, or any other descriptors, can make any of these things less than human. However, I believe that if you choose any point other than conception (Human conception) as to when you grant the 'human', personhood, it is arbitrary.

All of them, from the standpoint of mere factual observation, are equally arbitrary -- including conception. To pick out one point as being more ethically significant than the others must be done either (a) according to one's best moral judgment, or (b) based on logical fallacy.To me, the most morally significant point in the development of a person is her acquisition of a working brain. I know that other people have different points of view. I also know that I won't be able to persuade them over to my point of view by shoving a string of syllogisms in their face. People on both sides of this issue imagine they have some bit of irrefutable logic in their favor, but they are wrong. The issue cannot be disposed of by mere logic. It requires moral judgment.

This is where we're differing. I think it has to be based upon logic. Moral judgment just allows people to bring their biases along for the ride.

 

[Christo]

The formation of an egg is required before fertilization can happen. So I suppose the formation of the egg is primary -- nay, the formation of the ovaries that produced that egg -- nay, the formation of the egg that eventually produced those ovaries -- nay, we're going to go back several billion years that way.

Fertilization is one event among a long string of events required to form a person. It is neither first nor last in temporal sequence. It may be first in ethical significance, but -- to repeat myself -- that is a judgment call rather than a factual observation.

While the egg (like the sperm and many of the other things you are talking about) is a necessity, the existence of the egg in and of itself means nothing. It must be triggered to create life. That trigger is conception.

 

[The Commish]

The formation of an egg is required before fertilization can happen. So I suppose the formation of the egg is primary -- nay, the formation of the ovaries that produced that egg -- nay, the formation of the egg that eventually produced those ovaries -- nay, we're going to go back several billion years that way.Fertilization is one event among a long string of events required to form a person. It is neither first nor last in temporal sequence. It may be first in ethical significance, but -- to repeat myself -- that is a judgment call rather than a factual observation.

I get that these are all components. I've never questioned that. But by themselves they are worthless. Unless of course there are other uses for one's eggs or sperm that I am not aware of. If we are talking about "worth" here and where "value" of life comes from, it seems like a logical point to start, no? Start at the point in time where all the ingredients come together and are no longer worthless.

 

[vnel8tn]

However, I believe that if you choose any point other than conception (Human conception) as to when you grant the 'human', personhood, it is arbitrary.

I think choosing the point of conception is arbitrary, for all the reasons you think it's arbitrary to choose another point in time.

Sorry, but I gotta disagree. At conception, and all points after, you have a complete, individual human life at whatever stage it is at. That is not arbitrary. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. There is nothing discretionary about it. Up until that point, you have different cells that are not a complete, individual human life, but rather that "potential life" (ovum, sperm) that others seem to equivocate to a zygote, with their attempts at humor. Science is the foundation that others utilize in an attempt to belittle those of us people of faith. Curious that those on the other side attempt to sidestep this issue by clouding the semantics. I believe that none of us can know for certain when "life began", whether by choosing a faith based interpretation, or by foregoing faith all together. But I do know when "life continues" and that is at conception.

 

[vnel8tn]

The formation of an egg is required before fertilization can happen. So I suppose the formation of the egg is primary -- nay, the formation of the ovaries that produced that egg -- nay, the formation of the egg that eventually produced those ovaries -- nay, we're going to go back several billion years that way.Fertilization is one event among a long string of events required to form a person. It is neither first nor last in temporal sequence. It may be first in ethical significance, but -- to repeat myself -- that is a judgment call rather than a factual observation.

I get that these are all components. I've never questioned that. But by themselves they are worthless. Unless of course there are other uses for one's eggs or sperm that I am not aware of. If we are talking about "worth" here and where "value" of life comes from, it seems like a logical point to start, no? Start at the point in time where all the ingredients come together and are no longer worthless.

Stated better than I could have...

 

[vnel8tn]

The natural lifespan of an ovum is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own, as nothing more than an ovum, or it will be fertilized, and no longer be an ovum. It is, in fact, the first of many stages of a complete human being.

The natural lifespan of a zygote is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own as nothing more than an zygote (this happens quite frequently), or it will be implanted in the uterine wall and become a blastocyst.The natural lifespan of an embryo is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own as nothing more than an embryo (spontaneous miscarriage happens in about 35% of all pregnancies), or it will be born and become an infant.

If you think one of those three parallel statements has more ethical significance than another, that's a judgment call -- not a factual observation.

The fact that you are missing (or ignoring) is that the zygote/embryo is a complete, individual HUMAN at that particular stage.You attempted (and continue to persist) with the notion that an ovum is the same...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The formation of an egg is required before fertilization can happen. So I suppose the formation of the egg is primary -- nay, the formation of the ovaries that produced that egg -- nay, the formation of the egg that eventually produced those ovaries -- nay, we're going to go back several billion years that way.Fertilization is one event among a long string of events required to form a person. It is neither first nor last in temporal sequence. It may be first in ethical significance, but -- to repeat myself -- that is a judgment call rather than a factual observation.

I get that these are all components. I've never questioned that. But by themselves they are worthless. Unless of course there are other uses for one's eggs or sperm that I am not aware of. If we are talking about "worth" here and where "value" of life comes from, it seems like a logical point to start, no? Start at the point in time where all the ingredients come together and are no longer worthless.

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The natural lifespan of an ovum is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own, as nothing more than an ovum, or it will be fertilized, and no longer be an ovum. It is, in fact, the first of many stages of a complete human being.

The natural lifespan of a zygote is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own as nothing more than an zygote (this happens quite frequently), or it will be implanted in the uterine wall and become a blastocyst.The natural lifespan of an embryo is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own as nothing more than an embryo (spontaneous miscarriage happens in about 35% of all pregnancies), or it will be born and become an infant.

If you think one of those three parallel statements has more ethical significance than another, that's a judgment call -- not a factual observation.

The fact that you are missing (or ignoring) is that the zygote/embryo is a complete, individual HUMAN at that particular stage.You attempted (and continue to persist) with the notion that an ovum is the same...

Just bolding stuff doesn't make it more persuasive.

 

[vnel8tn]

All of them, from the standpoint of mere factual observation, are equally arbitrary -- including conception. To pick out one point as being more ethically significant than the others must be done either (a) according to one's best moral judgment, or (b) based on logical fallacy.To me, the most morally significant point in the development of a person is her acquisition of a working brain. I know that other people have different points of view. I also know that I won't be able to persuade them over to my point of view by shoving a string of syllogisms in their face. People on both sides of this issue imagine they have some bit of irrefutable logic in their favor, but they are wrong. The issue cannot be disposed of by mere logic. It requires moral judgment.

Maurile, I gotta disagree again. I think the facts are clear. Conception is the FIRST stage at which an individual human is complete. I have purposefully avoided trying to impose morals, ethics or religion into this debate, because, again, those are all arbitrary. I am basing my position on the science....that which you often tout as the ammunition against those whose positions are frequently based on faith.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

All of them, from the standpoint of mere factual observation, are equally arbitrary -- including conception. To pick out one point as being more ethically significant than the others must be done either (a) according to one's best moral judgment, or (b) based on logical fallacy.To me, the most morally significant point in the development of a person is her acquisition of a working brain. I know that other people have different points of view. I also know that I won't be able to persuade them over to my point of view by shoving a string of syllogisms in their face. People on both sides of this issue imagine they have some bit of irrefutable logic in their favor, but they are wrong. The issue cannot be disposed of by mere logic. It requires moral judgment.

Maurile, I gotta disagree again. I think the facts are clear. Conception is the FIRST stage at which an individual human is complete. I have purposefully avoided trying to impose morals, ethics or religion into this debate, because, again, those are all arbitrary. I am basing my position on the science....that which you often tout as the ammunition against those whose positions are frequently based on faith.

You keep saying "complete" but you mean something like "has all the genetic material it will ever have." I don't think that's the same thing.

 

[vnel8tn]

The formation of an egg is required before fertilization can happen. So I suppose the formation of the egg is primary -- nay, the formation of the ovaries that produced that egg -- nay, the formation of the egg that eventually produced those ovaries -- nay, we're going to go back several billion years that way.Fertilization is one event among a long string of events required to form a person. It is neither first nor last in temporal sequence. It may be first in ethical significance, but -- to repeat myself -- that is a judgment call rather than a factual observation.

I get that these are all components. I've never questioned that. But by themselves they are worthless. Unless of course there are other uses for one's eggs or sperm that I am not aware of. If we are talking about "worth" here and where "value" of life comes from, it seems like a logical point to start, no? Start at the point in time where all the ingredients come together and are no longer worthless.

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

An embryo (generically), is not what I am putting a 'worth' or 'value' on. A HUMAN embryo, is. Why, you ask? Because a HUMAN embryo is a complete HUMAN at that given stage. Why do you value some human(s) 'worth' as more than others, based on whatever stage each might be in?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

An embryo (generically), is not what I am putting a 'worth' or 'value' on. A HUMAN embryo, is. Why, you ask? Because a HUMAN embryo is a complete HUMAN at that given stage. Why do you value some human(s) 'worth' as more than others, based on whatever stage each might be in?

I think the thing that makes humans special, broadly, is the capacity to think. So not all stages of life have the same value. For example, I don't think irreversibly brain dead people have much value at all.

 

[bentley]

All I know is that this is clearly the cutest blastocyst ever.

 

[Christo]

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

An embryo (generically), is not what I am putting a 'worth' or 'value' on. A HUMAN embryo, is. Why, you ask? Because a HUMAN embryo is a complete HUMAN at that given stage. Why do you value some human(s) 'worth' as more than others, based on whatever stage each might be in?

I think the thing that makes humans special, broadly, is the capacity to think. So not all stages of life have the same value. For example, I don't think irreversibly brain dead people have much value at all.

What if that brain dead person were your mother? Or child?

 

[vnel8tn]

All of them, from the standpoint of mere factual observation, are equally arbitrary -- including conception. To pick out one point as being more ethically significant than the others must be done either (a) according to one's best moral judgment, or (b) based on logical fallacy.

To me, the most morally significant point in the development of a person is her acquisition of a working brain. I know that other people have different points of view. I also know that I won't be able to persuade them over to my point of view by shoving a string of syllogisms in their face. People on both sides of this issue imagine they have some bit of irrefutable logic in their favor, but they are wrong. The issue cannot be disposed of by mere logic. It requires moral judgment.

Maurile, I gotta disagree again. I think the facts are clear. Conception is the FIRST stage at which an individual human is complete. I have purposefully avoided trying to impose morals, ethics or religion into this debate, because, again, those are all arbitrary. I am basing my position on the science....that which you often tout as the ammunition against those whose positions are frequently based on faith.

You keep saying "complete" but you mean something like "has all the genetic material it will ever have." I don't think that's the same thing.

Pretty presumptious of you to tell me what I mean. I am saying that there are scientifically definitive stages of (human) life. Each of them is as complete as it can be at that given stage. The fact that at conception a human being

"has all the genetic material it will ever have."

and is the initial point at which that happens, pretty much delineates why it is non-arbitrary. Thanks for the assist!

 

[vnel8tn]

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

An embryo (generically), is not what I am putting a 'worth' or 'value' on. A HUMAN embryo, is. Why, you ask? Because a HUMAN embryo is a complete HUMAN at that given stage. Why do you value some human(s) 'worth' as more than others, based on whatever stage each might be in?

I think the thing that makes humans special, broadly, is the capacity to think. So not all stages of life have the same value. For example, I don't think irreversibly brain dead people have much value at all.

Help me understand how you delineate

'irreversibly brain dead people '

, from any other kind of brain dead people. Thanks in advance!

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

An embryo (generically), is not what I am putting a 'worth' or 'value' on. A HUMAN embryo, is. Why, you ask? Because a HUMAN embryo is a complete HUMAN at that given stage. Why do you value some human(s) 'worth' as more than others, based on whatever stage each might be in?

I think the thing that makes humans special, broadly, is the capacity to think. So not all stages of life have the same value. For example, I don't think irreversibly brain dead people have much value at all.

What if that brain dead person were your mother? Or child?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Would I pull the plug? Yes. Would I still be emotionally attached to a family member in that situation? Yes.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I am saying that there are scientifically definitive stages of (human) life. Each of them is as complete as it can be at that given stage. The fact that at conception a human being

"has all the genetic material it will ever have."

and is the initial point at which that happens, pretty much delineates why it is non-arbitrary.

It's arbitrary because you've decided that "having all the genetic material" is the important inquiry without any justification. Why is "having all the genetic material" important? As opposed to Maurile's suggestion of "having a working brain."

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Help me understand how you delineate

'irreversibly brain dead people '

, from any other kind of brain dead people.

Well, I made that stipulation to try to make the hypo simple. It becomes a much more complex question when you're talking about someone that can't think now, but might be able to in the future. As for distinguishing between the two, I believe doctors consider certain brain injuries to be irreversible and can make that diagnosis. For example, I think that was the situation in the Terri Schiavo case.

 

[vnel8tn]

I am saying that there are scientifically definitive stages of (human) life. Each of them is as complete as it can be at that given stage. The fact that at conception a human being

"has all the genetic material it will ever have."

and is the initial point at which that happens, pretty much delineates why it is non-arbitrary.

It's arbitrary because you've decided that "having all the genetic material" is the important inquiry without any justification. Why is "having all the genetic material" important? As opposed to Maurile's suggestion of "having a working brain."

It is NOT arbitrary, because before, you did not have a complete individual human at any point. After conception, you do. You and Maurile (and others who agree with you) choose to distinguish one distinct individual human being from others based on stages. You can yell all you want, but it is still YOU who is choosing something arbitrary, you just choose that based on what you feel is 'worth' it, which is arguable.

 

[Orange Crush]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

What about implantation? Fertilization without implantation is nothing. And in the medical community, implantation is the key event. When some couples who are having trouble getting pregnant go to a fertility clinic, they will have a bunch of eggs fertilized in a petri dish and all of them will be inserted hoping for at least one to be implanted. So why do you put special emphasis on just fertilization?

Should be conception not fertilization.

Because ... ???Fertilization is the point where that group of cells finally has a greater than 50% chance of being born a baby.

If you make the point conception, first off, almost all oral contraceptives would be banned since they prevent implantation rather than conception. So you're damning all men to a life of condom use.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I am saying that there are scientifically definitive stages of (human) life. Each of them is as complete as it can be at that given stage. The fact that at conception a human being

"has all the genetic material it will ever have."

and is the initial point at which that happens, pretty much delineates why it is non-arbitrary.

It's arbitrary because you've decided that "having all the genetic material" is the important inquiry without any justification. Why is "having all the genetic material" important? As opposed to Maurile's suggestion of "having a working brain."

It is NOT arbitrary, because before, you did not have a complete individual human at any point. After conception, you do. You and Maurile (and others who agree with you) choose to distinguish one distinct individual human being from others based on stages. You can yell all you want, but it is still YOU who is choosing something arbitrary, you just choose that based on what you feel is 'worth' it, which is arguable.

You only have a "complete" person at conception if you define "complete" as meaning "having all genetic material." If I define a "complete" person as "someone with a brain," then a newly formed embryo is is still incomplete.

 

[The Commish]

The formation of an egg is required before fertilization can happen. So I suppose the formation of the egg is primary -- nay, the formation of the ovaries that produced that egg -- nay, the formation of the egg that eventually produced those ovaries -- nay, we're going to go back several billion years that way.Fertilization is one event among a long string of events required to form a person. It is neither first nor last in temporal sequence. It may be first in ethical significance, but -- to repeat myself -- that is a judgment call rather than a factual observation.

I get that these are all components. I've never questioned that. But by themselves they are worthless. Unless of course there are other uses for one's eggs or sperm that I am not aware of. If we are talking about "worth" here and where "value" of life comes from, it seems like a logical point to start, no? Start at the point in time where all the ingredients come together and are no longer worthless.

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

If the goal is to have a child, you can't really skip the embryo stage, can you?? It's a stage in the critical path from conception to birth.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

If the goal is to have a child, you can't really skip the embryo stage, can you?? It's a stage in the critical path from conception to birth.

So is the only value of an embryo that it may some day become a baby, if things progress the right way? If so, how is that different from an unfertilized egg?

 

[The Commish]

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

If the goal is to have a child, you can't really skip the embryo stage, can you?? It's a stage in the critical path from conception to birth.

So is the only value of an embryo that it may some day become a baby, if things progress the right way? If so, how is that different from an unfertilized egg?

Unfertilized eggs don't become babies. The embryo represents a required step in achieving the end goal of producing a baby.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Unfertilized eggs don't become babies. The embryo represents a required step in achieving the end goal of producing a baby.

Huh? Unfertilized eggs do become babies. After they're fertilized and implanted and grow inside a womb. Just like embryos become babies after they implant and grow inside a womb.

 

[timschochet]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

 

[The Commish]

Unfertilized eggs don't become babies. The embryo represents a required step in achieving the end goal of producing a baby.

Huh? Unfertilized eggs do become babies. After they're fertilized and implanted and grow inside a womb. Just like embryos become babies after they implant and grow inside a womb.

Yes, after they are fertilized, they aren't unfertilized any longer....unfertilized eggs don't become babies.

 

[Orange Crush]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

Tim, no right is ever absolute. Often times a right will conflict with a competing right. The Court is left to split the baby in such situations.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Unfertilized eggs don't become babies. The embryo represents a required step in achieving the end goal of producing a baby.

Huh? Unfertilized eggs do become babies. After they're fertilized and implanted and grow inside a womb. Just like embryos become babies after they implant and grow inside a womb.

Yes, after they are fertilized, they aren't unfertilized any longer....unfertilized eggs don't become babies.

Using the same logic, I could say this:After an embryo grows in a womb, it is a fetus ... embryos don't become babies.

 

[Orange Crush]

Unfertilized eggs don't become babies. The embryo represents a required step in achieving the end goal of producing a baby.

Huh? Unfertilized eggs do become babies. After they're fertilized and implanted and grow inside a womb. Just like embryos become babies after they implant and grow inside a womb.

Yes, after they are fertilized, they aren't unfertilized any longer....unfertilized eggs don't become babies.

Using the same logic, I could say this:After an embryo grows in a womb, it is a fetus ... embryos don't become babies.

I thought you were going to come back with "after an embryo develops a brain it becomes a baby. Embryos that don't develop brains don't become babies."

 

[timschochet]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

Tim, no right is ever absolute. Often times a right will conflict with a competing right. The Court is left to split the baby in such situations.

I believe that a human being's right to do what they wish with their own body is an absolute right. It should not, does not conflict with any other rights in my mind. To me, this is the most basic of human rights, more important in terms of human dignity than that of life itself.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I thought you were going to come back with "after an embryo develops a brain it becomes a baby. Embryos that don't develop brains don't become babies."

Yeah, this would have worked too.

 

[Orange Crush]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

Tim, no right is ever absolute. Often times a right will conflict with a competing right. The Court is left to split the baby in such situations.

I believe that a human being's right to do what they wish with their own body is an absolute right. It should not, does not conflict with any other rights in my mind. To me, this is the most basic of human rights, more important in terms of human dignity than that of life itself.

So ...* sell their own body parts?

* use highly addicting and damaging drugs?

* commit suicide?

* sell sexual access to your body for money?

 

[The Commish]

Unfertilized eggs don't become babies. The embryo represents a required step in achieving the end goal of producing a baby.

Huh? Unfertilized eggs do become babies. After they're fertilized and implanted and grow inside a womb. Just like embryos become babies after they implant and grow inside a womb.

Yes, after they are fertilized, they aren't unfertilized any longer....unfertilized eggs don't become babies.

Using the same logic, I could say this:After an embryo grows in a womb, it is a fetus ... embryos don't become babies.

I thought you were going to come back with "after an embryo develops a brain it becomes a baby. Embryos that don't develop brains don't become babies."

I can see this....I can't see the other. If there is any portion of the critical path that gets screwed up going forward, then the end result of a baby ceases to exist. I don't question that....it's actually my point.

 

[CBusAlex]

This is where we're differing. I think it has to be based upon logic.

Circular logic isn't really logic.

 

[vnel8tn]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

Tim, no right is ever absolute. Often times a right will conflict with a competing right. The Court is left to split the baby in such situations.

I believe that a human being's right to do what they wish with their own body is an absolute right. It should not, does not conflict with any other rights in my mind. To me, this is the most basic of human rights, more important in terms of human dignity than that of life itself.

Really? I mean, REALLY? C'mon, Tim.

How much right does one have to swing his/her own fist? How much of a conflict might that have with YOUR nose? If my right to swing my fist was TRULY ABSOLUTE, it would not matter where YOUR nose was? Or is this

most basic of human rights, more important in terms of human dignity than that of life itself

somehow taken out of context?

 

[timschochet]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

Tim, no right is ever absolute. Often times a right will conflict with a competing right. The Court is left to split the baby in such situations.

I believe that a human being's right to do what they wish with their own body is an absolute right. It should not, does not conflict with any other rights in my mind. To me, this is the most basic of human rights, more important in terms of human dignity than that of life itself.

So ...* sell their own body parts?

* use highly addicting and damaging drugs?

* commit suicide?

* sell sexual access to your body for money?

YesYes

Yes

Yes

All of it should be legal. Yes.

 

[vnel8tn]

Help me understand how you delineate

'irreversibly brain dead people '

, from any other kind of brain dead people.

Well, I made that stipulation to try to make the hypo simple. It becomes a much more complex question when you're talking about someone that can't think now, but might be able to in the future. As for distinguishing between the two, I believe doctors consider certain brain injuries to be irreversible and can make that diagnosis. For example, I think that was the situation in the Terri Schiavo case.

So, if I understand you correctly, you were really looking for a term similar to (or perhaps, actually) 'persistant vegetative state', rather than 'irreversibly brain-dead'? I agree that doctors often do

consider certain brain injuries to be irreversible and can make that diagnosis

. I also believe that there are examples (granted, this is rare) of cases similar to Schiavo in which the person did eventually awake from a previously diagnosed persistant vegetative state...in those cases, the doctor was wrong (sort of like a jury convicting a person of a capital crime, only to find exculpatory evidence later).

 

[timschochet]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

Tim, no right is ever absolute. Often times a right will conflict with a competing right. The Court is left to split the baby in such situations.

I believe that a human being's right to do what they wish with their own body is an absolute right. It should not, does not conflict with any other rights in my mind. To me, this is the most basic of human rights, more important in terms of human dignity than that of life itself.

Really? I mean, REALLY? C'mon, Tim.

How much right does one have to swing his/her own fist? How much of a conflict might that have with YOUR nose? If my right to swing my fist was TRULY ABSOLUTE, it would not matter where YOUR nose was? Or is this

most basic of human rights, more important in terms of human dignity than that of life itself

somehow taken out of context?

You have the right to swing your fist however much you want. You do not have the right to connect with somebody else's nose. But as long as you're not harming others, you should be able to do what you want. In addition, (and this is where, I suspect we disagree) if somebody else is inside your body, you still should not be restricted from doing what you will to your body. This is why abortions should be legal. The state should not interfere.

 

[Orange Crush]

How much right does one have to swing his/her own fist? How much of a conflict might that have with YOUR nose? If my right to swing my fist was TRULY ABSOLUTE, it would not matter where YOUR nose was? Or is this

most basic of human rights, more important in terms of human dignity than that of life itself

somehow taken out of context?

You have the right to swing your fist however much you want. You do not have the right to connect with somebody else's nose. But as long as you're not harming others, you should be able to do what you want. In addition, (and this is where, I suspect we disagree) if somebody else is inside your body, you still should not be restricted from doing what you will to your body. This is why abortions should be legal. The state should not interfere.

This is where you're losing people. Your determination of "inside someone's body" is a distinciton solely to capture abortions. Thus it sounds like a rationalization instead of some logically-derived maxim.Tim: The right to control over your own body that is absolute.vnel8tn: Even if it interferes with another's control over their body?Tim: No, that's an exception.vnel8tn: So abortions shouldn't be allowed, because that's a violation of your exception.Tim: Well, then I need an exception to my exception.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Unfertilized eggs don't become babies. The embryo represents a required step in achieving the end goal of producing a baby.

Huh? Unfertilized eggs do become babies. After they're fertilized and implanted and grow inside a womb. Just like embryos become babies after they implant and grow inside a womb.

Yes, after they are fertilized, they aren't unfertilized any longer....unfertilized eggs don't become babies.

Using the same logic, I could say this:After an embryo grows in a womb, it is a fetus ... embryos don't become babies.

I thought you were going to come back with "after an embryo develops a brain it becomes a baby. Embryos that don't develop brains don't become babies."

Once babies are born, they are not unborn anymore. The unborn never become toddlers.