Abortion......I will now use my psychic powers to predict the most popular....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
My body cells are present in my body itself, not a uterus.

That makes no difference at all. These are potential human beings, and will become one if the right conditions present themselves, which is no different from a zygote.

Originally posted by Elok
My body cells serve a definite function within my body, whether as muscle, organ, nerve, bone, whatever. Short of remarkable genetic tinkering, my body cells will never become independent human beings.

No, you don't need genetic tinkering at all. What's missing is just some kind of chemical that signals the cell to develop into an organism.

Originally posted by Elok
My body cells have, barring minor mutations, the exact same DNA as any other given body cell, and are part of the organism known to you as Elok. This is not rocket science.

How does whether an entity has identical DNA with another person or not has anything to with whether it is a person? Are you saying that one of the two in any pair of identical twins not a person? In rare cases of n-lets, you are saying that only one of them is a person. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Originally posted by Elok
The zygote, even if you refuse to call it an organism now, is biologically destined to become an independent organism.

You are just reinterating a bald assertion.

Originally posted by Elok
You are using weak and irrelevant technicalities.

Just because you don't comprehend them, doesn't make them weak or irrelevant.

[Boris Godunov]

Elok, I'm reminded of your thread on religion where you deplored using flames and attacks. Considering you are openly resorting to ad hominems against those with positions differing than yours, you should step back and reexamine your own methods.

I thought the difference was obvious. For further information consult your local library. Many of the books you'll find there have very colorful illustrations; you should enjoy them. Check 'em out.

This is not a difficult concept, bud.

I'm inclined to wonder whether there is some sort of shared synaptic dysfunction at work or if it's just common intellectual cowardice.

This is not rocket science.

Not very becoming, especially since others here had kept the debate free from insults prior to your advent.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
just as it is unsound to say that since you will die one day, it's okay to treat you as if you were already a corpse and bury you.

Excellent. I was looking for something like that.

[Drogue]

Edit: Wrong thread, sorry

[Elok]

Actually, I deplored parody posting, which is always obnoxious regardless of who does it. But you have a point. Sorry, I was rather frustrated at the time. We seem to be arguing on entirely different wavelengths and it's hard not to insult people when they sound like they're speaking Eskimo. I still think there must be some kind of mental block at work on your end, because nothing any of you say makes sense to me at all. But deeeeeeep breath.....
Let's try this pseudo-socratically. If you disagree with any of these statements stop me:
1. A sperm fertilizes an egg. The resulting cell(embryo) implants in the wall of the uterus.
2. The embryo gradually develops into a fetus.
3. The fetus is eventually shoved out of the birth canal, after which point it is legally considered an infant.
4. The odds of any of these steps (after number one) happening is well over fifty percent. Should any of these steps not happen the fetus dies and the event is classified as a miscarriage or stillbirth, depending on the time it occurs.
5. A miscarriage or stillbirth is generally considered an abnormal event, which is to say it is attributed to unusual stress on the mother, sudden impact or illness, or drug use/drinking/smoking during pregnancy. And so on.
6. Occasionally a fetus is miscarried or stillborn for no conceivable reason whatsoever, but it is my understanding that such inexplicable events account for less than twenty percent of all accidentally terminated pregnancies.
7. Hence, a pregnant woman is usually asked, "when are you expecting it to come out?" as opposed to, "what trimester are you betting it'll croak in?" The normal end of pregnancy is delivery of the child.
8. This is the meaning of my Bald Assertion of biological destiny. The term is perhaps a bit too strong, but a fetus is a potential baby much like a lit match near a gas leak is a potential conflagration. We expect it to happen, and generally take preparatory measures based on the assumption that it will happen.
9. Therefore I consider the fetus identical to the infant it later becomes. Even if pregnancy were a far more chancy thing than it actually is, abortion would effectively reduce the already low probability to an utter zero, and I would still consider it immoral.

Okay, I'm getting tired of talking like that. Let's look at "preventing human life" in the form of birth control, which I agree is simple prevention, without the damned numbers and pedantics.
In order for a woman to be impregnated after sex, it must be approximately the right time of the month-a window of about a week, maybe a day or two more, before the egg runs out of energy and croaks. Twenty-five percent right there. The window is limited further by the fact that the prostate only fuels a sperm cell for a few days of swimming, so the egg can't be too far up the fallopian tubes. I'm not a doctor, but I'd guesstimate twenty percent odds of fertilization assuming the two of them aren't trying. But wait, there's more. Tack on the fact that sperm cells are not phds; they have strength in numbers, but they can't see or reason, and spend an inordinate amount of time running into walls and getting caught around the cervix, etc. Doesn't help that there are two fallopian tubes for the egg to possibly come out of. Plus, once they find the egg, they don't just pop right in. There's some digging involved. I'm serious. I had to watch fertilization on video for health class so many times, and the little suckers take HOURS to penetrate the membrane. I'm not going to try and guess odds further because I don't really know a thing for sure, but fertilization is much less of a sure thing than the successful delivery of a fetus provided the mother isn't smoking crack or anything. Normal birth control and abortion aren't really comparable. That is where I'm coming from. That, and the fact that a sperm cell or an egg are undeniably a different form of life from a fertilized egg, whereas a fertilized egg is genetically identical to the baby it will eventually become. If you're gonna draw the line anywhere, the sensible spot is there. And that's all I mean by genetic distinction, UR: that the fetus is NOT genetically identical to the mother, but a seperate life form, and so cannot really be considered a "part of a woman's body," the way many insist, any more than Prince Charles can be considered a U.S. citizen when he's here on a diplomatic visit.
Dagnabit, you guys have me talking in analogies now. Grr. Speaking of which, Boris, that's a very cute metaphor, but not applicable. Death is not a transition comparable to birth. It is the point after which I will cease to exist as a human being. The burial of the dead is disposal of matter that once functioned as a human being, and, from my perspective at least, is the removal of inconvenient material you all purport abortion to be. When I die they will not bury Elok. The metaphor does not hold up.

[Lorizael]

I don't think anyone is going to change sides here.

But you said it yourself, the fetus is a potential baby. It isn't there yet.

As far as Boris' metaphor, I say it still stands. What is inside the womb has not become a human being yet, therefore it is not the person it will later be (and then cease to be at death).

Thanks for apologizing, btw.

[Ben Kenobi]

Working backwards....

Elok:

but a fetus is a potential baby much like a lit match near a gas leak is a potential conflagration.

Close. The term 'potential baby' implies that there can exist a period of time when a mother is pregnant yet not with a baby.

If an embryo is not a baby, what is it? A cat, a dog, the term begs this question.

There is no need for a bald-faced assertion, all you need to say that conception is the point at which an individual human person forms is to look at science.

Biologically, what happens at conception is that the sperm and the egg unite to form a single-celled organism, the zygote.

What species is the zygote? Human, if the parents are human. Your DNA structure forms at conception, not afterwards, not at birth, but conception. This is something that you retain throughout your life.

[Lorizael]

The embryo is an embryo, Obiwan, it needs no other definition. The point of pregnancy is so that over time, the embryo will become a member of the species from whence it comes.

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

What's missing is just some kind of chemical that signals the cell to develop into an organism.

Then please elaborate. We never get past this point.


Boris:

What matters is what the entity IS at the time of abortion.

No other point come close, so let's examine Boris' statement.

Unless the fetus is developed enough to be a conscious, sentient entity capable of independent survival (which is probably about midway through the second trimester),

So three different qualities are required:

1. The entity must be conscious.

Boris, may I slit your throat under anaestetia?
If not, why can we kill the unborn child?

2. The entity must be sentient

Please define sentient. How do we know if someone is sentient or not? Prove to me that you are sentient.

3. The entity must be capable of independent survival.

Can you survive on your own at the North Pole? Why not? Clearly you are not viable in this particular environment, just like the unborn child. Clearly personhood has nothing to do with whether one can survive independent of others, since human beings are interdependent.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point of pregnancy is so that over time, the embryo will become a member of the species from whence it comes.

Lorizael:

Nope. Don't we distinguish between fetal pigs and fetal humans? One does not 'gradually' become a member of the human species, one is a member after conception.

[Ben Kenobi]

Lorizael:

There's a point at which that embryo has no concept of self, no thoughts, no memories, no perceptions. There is no reality to that thing because it has yet to develop into a person.

All right, you've got lots of stuff wrapped up in this statement.

Your argument:

One cannot be a person unless one has the following features:

1. Self-concept
2. No thoughts
3. No memories
4. No perceptions.

All 4 beg the question, how do we know someone has a self-concept, that someone thinks? You have not related these to physiological development. Is it possible to have a self-concept that does not qualify one as a person?

Finally, none of these fit all born people. Do you have a self-concept when you are asleep? Do you think when you are in a coma? Do you have any memories when you suffer from amnesia? Can you percieve anything if you are blind?

[Lorizael]

Yes, the distinction is that a fetal pig is a fetus that will become a pig, whereas a fetal human is one that will become a human.

And btw, I doubt you could tell the difference between the fetus of a pig and the fetus of a human, at least not early in development.

We already said that containing the DNA of a human is not enough to be classified as human, because then every cell in the human body is an individual human.

What makes an embryo unique is not the DNA it harbors, but that given proper conditions, it will grow into a developed human being.

But that takes time. And it is not a fully developed human being at the moment of conception.

[Ben Kenobi]

We already said that containing the DNA of a human is not enough to be classified as human, because then every cell in the human body is an individual human.

Waiting for the other shoe...

What makes an embryo unique is not the DNA it harbors, but that given proper conditions, it will grow into a developed human being.

Indeed. Now how does this differ from a zygote?

[Lorizael]

Those are all conditions that afflict humans. Normally developed humans don't act that way. A normal human is not blind, a normal human does not suffer from amnesia. And actually, you do think when you're unconscious.

And those seemingly metaphysical things are physiological, for part of what develops during pregnancy is the brain. The brain is what governs your thinking.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Waiting for the other shoe...



Indeed. Now how does this differ from a zygote?

*shrug* I guess it doesn't. But what does that prove?

[Ben Kenobi]

Those are all conditions that afflict humans. Normally developed humans don't act that way.

So the blind are not persons?

As for the zygote, this shows that there are no substantial differences, with respect to personhood between the zygote and the embryo.

[Lorizael]

Gah, I knew that would come up. Shoulda preemptively said something about that. The blind are blind because there is something wrong with them, not because they're not human. If everything had gone right, they would have vision. On the other hand, an embryo that cannot see is not expected to be able to see yet, because it hasn't reached the stage at which it would develop sight.

Still, where did anyone attempt to draw a distinction between zygote and embryo? I wasn't arguing that. At least, I don't think I was.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you arguing for the personhood of the embryo?

If so you have just argued for the personhood of the zygote as well.

On the other hand, an embryo that cannot see is not expected to be able to see yet, because it hasn't reached the stage at which it would develop sight.

And for the same reason, we take the general case and do not expect an embryo to function in the same way that we do because it is in a different stage of development.

[Lorizael]

That's the thing. It is in a different stage of development, and it does function differently. That's why it is not human yet.

But I'm off to get me some food stuff.

I shall continue this endless debate later.

Sometimes this sort of thing really depresses me. Each and every point we make has a counterpoint, it's like there really isn't a right answer. Almost as if there's no point. Sigh...

[Ben Kenobi]

Enjoy your meal. I have to go soon as well.

It is in a different stage of development, and it does function differently. That's why it is not human yet.

This still assumes that personhood has something to do with our current functions.

Try to see outside this point, and you may be surprised at how some of this falls into place.

[Lorizael]

Oh I do understand what you're saying. I realize that our definition of person differs, and that this inhibits our ability to really discuss things. That's why I'm so wishy washy on this whole thing. I debate the pro-choice side because I see what it says a little bit clearer. But you definetely provide convincing arguments.