Who Gets to Choose?

[PGA2]

Thank you, PGA. Of course you are free to use whatever term you want for whatever reason you want. I was merely sharing my considerations of the term "The Unborn." To me...it does sound like the title of a horror movie. I much prefer to call a zygote, a zygote...and a fetus, a fetus. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is to disguise (for various reasons) what is being discussed.



I am saying a human zygote is a human zygote.

It is.



I am not indulging in illogical thinking...I suspect that you are. I don't have to...I have no agenda at stake in this issue. Whether or not the zygote or fetus is other than just a zygote or fetus...it is being hosted in a living human's body as a pregnancy...and in my opinion, no matter what else the zygote or fetus may be, the person bearing that pregnancy has the right to terminate it...without interference from you or the government.

You, on the other hand DO have an agenda that requires severely illogical thinking. You must make the zygote or fetus into a human being...and you must then posit a god that requires you to defend that human being under penalty of eternal punishment.

I'm not asserting, as you are, that illogical thinking is happening. But I am asserting that if you are correct that it is happening...YOU, not I, are the one doing it.



I am not confusing anything. I am saying that the zygote or fetus is growing in the body of a living human being as a pregnancy...and if that living human being want to terminate that pregnancy, she should be able to do so without you requiring that she not.

I doubt we will reach agreement on this, Peter. Your need to do what you suppose your god requires of you in this regard prevents you from yielding to the obvious. A pregnant woman who decides to end her pregnancy...should have the right to do that without interference from you or the government.

Please post this on the abortion thread, Frank!

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...bortion-debate

Peter

PS. I don't have to use a biblical supported argument although the biblical principle is there. Abortion is wrong, except when the woman's life is threatened and there are no other options because if the woman dies the unborn dies also.

[Frank Apisa]

Please post this on the abortion thread, Frank!

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...bortion-debate

Peter

I was responding to something you wrote here, Peter. Have I done wrong?

I would post it there, but it would have no context. But if you go there and ask me to post something from this thread to there, I will do it.

PS. I don't have to use a biblical supported argument although the biblical principle is there.

What does the Bible have to do with abortion?

I'm not sure of your point.

Abortion is wrong, except when the woman's life is threatened and there are no other options because if the woman dies the unborn dies also.

Because you say so?

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with abortion. Some people, because of "religious" convictions want it to be "wrong"...but that is simply an unsubstantiated assertion from a religious perspective.

[Ibelsd]

This is pretty much a non-issue. Obviously the Roe decision referred exclusively to "woman" based on the premise that only women can be pregnant. If someone who is legally declared a man got pregnant, he would have as much of a legal right to have an abortion as a pregnant woman and any legal challenge to that based on the notion that since he's a pregnant man he's not technically entitled to the same rights as a pregnant woman would not stand up.

Obviously the 14th amendment, what the Roe decision is based on, holds that men are entitled to the same legal protections as a woman. So clearly any court case regarding this would end up saying that men have the right to terminate their pregnancies as women do.

I think that this is where things get dicey. If this is a potential avenue for the court to take a second look at Roe v Wade, could this be an opportunity for a conservative court to poke holes in the initial decision?

[MindTrap028]

If i may stir the pot, I think the real possibility for controversy is going to be in the area of bathroom/locker room identification, as well as sports in general.

As in, how long until the Olympics has nothing but men(or.. er former men) competing in the woman's sports. I mean assuming the same law and rules of the OP.
If a person must be identified as the sex they are claiming, then all of a sudden "woman's" sports will see a massive swing in records that will more closely resemble the men's records. Maybe we will see the "rings" for women introduced??
Suddenly the Williams sisters will no longer be the biggest strongest "women" on the court, as you have a few "women" with penis's swinging around the courts. (pun intended). If you are a fan of woman's tennis, and appreciate it's tendency to the technical rather than the strength aspects, this would be a huge potential change to the sport.

Off topic?? I know it is a bit of a swerve, but it seems to me to be a similar plain of thought as the op..

[PGA2]

Please post this on the abortion thread, Frank!

I was responding to something you wrote here, Peter. Have I done wrong?

No, Dionysus raised the point that we were not following the topic.

You brought up the subject of the 'unborn' as not being politically correct to your way of thinking. Since the discussion was not solely related to abortion, although the OP mentioned it, Dionysus asked us not to change the subject from what he wanted to talk about (Post # 20). That is why I suggested we take it to an abortion thread.

You said: "If you mean "human zygote" or "human fetus"...I would rationally and logically argue that neither is a human being...which is why they are called "a human zygote" or a "human fetus"...and not a human being."

And again: "I much prefer to call a zygote, a zygote...and a fetus, a fetus. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is to disguise (for various reasons) what is being discussed."

You made the comment that the "human fetus" or "human zygote" is not a human being. That is a ridiculous statement although I can understand you saying this because you don't realize what it is.

You said: "You must make the zygote or fetus into a human being."

I'm not "making" it into anything, you are. I'm stating what it is. You are making it less than what it is. The "human fetus" or "human zygote" is a human being.
Declassifying the unborn is exactly what the pro-choice position does to minimize destroying it at the whim of the woman.

I would post it there, but it would have no context. But if you go there and ask me to post something from this thread to there, I will do it.

Okay. Please reply in the link that follows:

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...bortion-debate

I will comment on you posting there, unless you want me to start a new thread?

PS. I don't have to use a biblical supported argument although the biblical principle is there.

What does the Bible have to do with abortion?

I'm not sure of your point.

You were the one who brought up the Christian God. I said I did not have to use the Bible to defend the life of the unborn and the wrong of abortion.

My point is that the Bible defends life but I do not have to use it to make my point.

You said: "...you must then posit a god that requires you to defend that human being under penalty of eternal punishment."


I don't have to do anything of the sort. I can make the argument without including God.

1) Is the unborn a human being?

If it is not a human being it doesn't matter what you do with it. If it a is human being it matters greatly.

2) Do human beings have intrinsic value?

If not then don't complain about human rights violation. What Hitler or Kim Jong-Un did doesn't matter. There is nothing wrong with what they did. ("You're next! This way to the gas chamber, please!")

You also said: "Your need to do what you suppose your god requires of you in this regard prevents you from yielding to the obvious."

Again, you brought the subject of God into this.

Abortion is wrong, except when the woman's life is threatened and there are no other options because if the woman dies the unborn dies also.

Because you say so?

It is common sense that is not so common anymore.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with abortion. Some people, because of "religious" convictions want it to be "wrong"...but that is simply an unsubstantiated assertion from a religious perspective.

There most definitely is something intrinsically wrong with abortion. It takes the life of the most helps human beings.

Peter

[Belthazor]

If i may stir the pot, I think the real possibility for controversy is going to be in the area of bathroom/locker room identification, as well as sports in general.

As in, how long until the Olympics has nothing but men(or.. er former men) competing in the woman's sports. I mean assuming the same law and rules of the OP.
If a person must be identified as the sex they are claiming, then all of a sudden "woman's" sports will see a massive swing in records that will more closely resemble the men's records. Maybe we will see the "rings" for women introduced??
Suddenly the Williams sisters will no longer be the biggest strongest "women" on the court, as you have a few "women" with penis's swinging around the courts. (pun intended). If you are a fan of woman's tennis, and appreciate it's tendency to the technical rather than the strength aspects, this would be a huge potential change to the sport.

Off topic?? I know it is a bit of a swerve, but it seems to me to be a similar plain of thought as the op..

Why have men/women bathroom/locker rooms?

I personally have no issue with a woman in the "men's" room. If they are ok with it, why not? I can also understand why a "woman" might not want a "man" in their bathroom/locker room, and as I have a daughter, I share some of those concerns.

Dio, by your last post I got the impression you were leaving the thread so I didn't think you would mind me veering a little farther than MT.

[Frank Apisa]

I use that term rather than the term designated by science because I see the being as human being and those terms tend to hid what they really are, to lessen the impact of what we are speaking of.



So you saying the human zygote is not a distinct, separate, individual human being?

What you are saying goes against numerous scientific and biological texts that recognize the zygote or fetus is precisely that - a human being. I think you have again allowed your illogical thinking to dictate what is true, Frank.

What you do is CONFUSE different STAGES of development with its humanness. If it is not a human being what kind of being is it, because it is alive and is a being.


“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86
“The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...n-debate/page2



Things to consider:
1) Does the human being (please establish it is not a human being) have the same nature that you and I do, if allowed to develop? If it does, then how does development determine a change of nature? Everything needed is supplied at conception - the DNA structure that determines what we are - human beings. Every quality that I will ever have is present at conception, when the chromisomes from each parent are received that form your genetic makeup.
2) If you work on the level of development, then why can't a mother choose to kill the newborn or pre-teen female offspring? Their development is not on the level of a mature woman reproductively. If you want to work on the size of the unborn, you are bigger than the unborn but you are not as big as some basketball players. Would it be okay to kill you because you are not as big?
3) You can't tax a human being until they are in the world and reach a certain maturity. Why would they count as a deduction until they are in the world?
4) A government can legislate rules but the question is whether those rules are just and righteous. Murdering unborn human beings, the most defenseless human there is, and most innocent, is not just or righteous. Kim Jong-Un can pass a law that kills you for whatever reason he may deem desirable to him, but just because there is such a law does not make it just. Of course we can develop this further if you wish, because we are getting into the subject of morality and ethics.



It depends on what I ordered, a cutlet, a roast lamb, a chop, a leg...

I would expect them to bring me what I asked for, not a different stage of development in the life cycle of the animal.

Peter

Peter, your link comes up as "not available."

I will start a thread devoted to our discussion of abortion...and not discuss it here per Dionysus' request.

DIONYSUS...sorry about this, I misunderstood the nature of the discussion. My bad.

[MindTrap028]

Why have men/women bathroom/locker rooms?

Given our culture of the last several hundred years. If your asking me to justify why we should have separate locker rooms, I think that is a shifting of the burden. It is on those who wish to change the culture that should have the burden to explain why the culture should change.
If you are asking the important question of what major concern has driven our society to desire separate bathrooms so that whatever solution we take in the future recognizes that fundamental concern. Then I would say it is privacy in general first, and then privacy from the opposite gender (IE a gender based on vagina's and penises).

I personally have no issue with a woman in the "men's" room. If they are ok with it, why not? I can also understand why a "woman" might not want a "man" in their bathroom/locker room, and as I have a daughter, I share some of those concerns.

I think you are kinda missing where the real controversy would lay.
Per the OP, if you are forced by law to call a person with a penis a woman, and they walk into the woman's locker room at the gym, there will be a lot of people, (included fathers outside) who will just see a dude in a girls locker room. The conflict would be obvious IMO, that being that the law would force people to contradict hundreds of years of social concerns. IE the concern of men (defined as persons with a penis) in girls locker rooms, is a long standing one that the law is saying to just ignore.

So the question of "who gets to decide" becomes even more sever. Should the fathers of 10 year old girls at the YMCA, and women of all ages who object to having a penis in the "girls" locker room get to decide (as they have entered the "girls" locker room for an expected level of protection from such exposure) or should the man who thinks they are a woman, backed by government decree get to decide?

[PGA2]

Peter, your link comes up as "not available."

I will start a thread devoted to our discussion of abortion...and not discuss it here per Dionysus' request.

DIONYSUS...sorry about this, I misunderstood the nature of the discussion. My bad.

I don't know why that happened. I copied the link.

Please see "Terms in the Abortion debate" on your homepage and go to the last entry to comment on my last post here or I can copy and paste my latest rebuttal to your last comment if you like?

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...885#post557885

[Frank Apisa]

I've started the new thread so we could move our conversation...which is straying off topic...out of this one.

Here is a link to the new thread. If you (or anyone) would like to post there, I would welcome it.

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...te-opportunity

[PGA2]

I've started the new thread so we could move our conversation...which is straying off topic...out of this one.

Here is a link to the new thread. If you (or anyone) would like to post there, I would welcome it.

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...te-opportunity

My reply has been posted there.

[Belthazor]

Given our culture of the last several hundred years. If your asking me to justify why we should have separate locker rooms, I think that is a shifting of the burden. It is on those who wish to change the culture that should have the burden to explain why the culture should change.
If you are asking the important question of what major concern has driven our society to desire separate bathrooms so that whatever solution we take in the future recognizes that fundamental concern. Then I would say it is privacy in general first, and then privacy from the opposite gender (IE a gender based on vagina's and penises).

Wow, my bad.
I meant that comment to those trying to justify why it would be a good idea to "stick a penis" in the girls locker room because the penis owner "thinks like a girl" ( or however you want to say a man that "feels" like a woman...).

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

I think you are kinda missing where the real controversy would lay.
Per the OP, if you are forced by law to call a person with a penis a woman, and they walk into the woman's locker room at the gym, there will be a lot of people, (included fathers outside) who will just see a dude in a girls locker room.

Agreed, and I would be one of them generally speaking.

[MindTrap028]

The OP I believe tries to draw out the problem caused within gov or rather as gov applies to the people. So a person is denied service by the gov in some way or another. In the case of the OP with abortions or protection of abortion. I think this is or can be a difficult question at times to answer. I was hoping to show the other side of the coin. Namely how laws effect the interaction of peoples. It is one thing for the gov to say it is going to play along with a persons particular mind set. IE call yourself a boy or girl.. we are still gong to draft you, protect you etc, and correcting problems is more like just changing a form. Sure it can be a pain or slow, but it can be done.
That is not the case when applied to the vast majority of the nation. I was hoping to draw that distinction and problem out.

For those arguing for this change, I think it would have to go something like integration and doing away with white and black water fountains and bathrooms. Basically it was a forced adjustment on the population's culture, at least a large portion, but it was a "just cause", and "ought" to have been done.

As opposed I would say there is a fundamental difference between gender, that doesn't exist between race. For example we don't send people to jail for exposing their skin color to children. However if you decide to take a piss in front of the bus full of kids(IE not trying to hide it) you may find yourself in trouble. A concerned mom saying "he was touching himself and exposing himself to 50 kids" is going to get a lot of traction in court. I think for the most part people recognize this distinction, but the gov is capable of ignoring it and forcing cultural change that is unjust.

[YaprakDolma]

Legally, the person with the right to choose would be the "woman," if we are to assume that when a court ruling references "woman" that it refers to a legal "woman." If "woman" is legally so then they would choose whether to abort.

Logically, "woman" from Roe vs. Wade refers to a female, and since "man" is female, he/she/it gets to chose.