Another abortion debate opportunity.

[Frank Apisa]

This thread is specific to a discussion PGA and I were having in another thread. We decided there that our conversation was inappropriate to the thread topic...and decided to bring it here.

We invite everyone to join in.

My initial remark...the remark that started the diversion discussion...was:

As I see it...

...the person who's body is host to the the embryo, zygote, or fetus...should be the one who makes the "decision."

The other party, whether man, "man", woman, or "woman"...and or the government...should have no say at all.

We were discussing, "Who gets to choose (to obtain an abortion)?" (The question was framed in the context of gender identity questions being raised by current events in that area.)

I stand by my comment.

Let's take it from here.

[Dionysus]

Just to clarify, your claim is perfectly on-topic for that thread. PGA drifted from 'Given the hypothetical, who gets to choose?' to 'Irrespective of the hypothetical, should the choice be allowed at all?'.

If PGA wants to discuss the conditions under which abortions should or should not be allowed, at all, then THAT is the topic for another thread.

[Frank Apisa]

Just to clarify, your claim is perfectly on-topic for that thread. PGA drifted from 'Given the hypothetical, who gets to choose?' to 'Irrespective of the hypothetical, should the choice be allowed at all?'.

If PGA wants to discuss the conditions under which abortions should or should not be allowed, at all, then THAT is the topic for another thread.

Thank you for that, Dionysus. I get that distinction.

To be sure that side-track does not continue...we'll take that part of the discussion here. Hope you have your say here when the occasion arises.

[Dionysus]

No problem.

So to be clear, THIS thread deals with the question 'Should the choice to have an abortion be allowed at all?'

I only ask because it is not clear from the opening post what question is being addressed.

[PGA2]

This thread is specific to a discussion PGA and I were having in another thread. We decided there that our conversation was inappropriate to the thread topic...and decided to bring it here.

We invite everyone to join in.

My initial remark...the remark that started the diversion discussion...was:

We were discussing, "Who gets to choose (to obtain an abortion)?" (The question was framed in the context of gender identity questions being raised by current events in that area.)

I stand by my comment.

Let's take it from here.

Thanks for starting it!

You believe the woman should choose. I believe that it is not a question about a woman's right to do with her body as she desires but the killing of another human being. It is wrong.

Here is my rebuttal:

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.

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 helpless human beings.

Peter

[Frank Apisa]

Thanks for starting it!

You believe the woman should choose.

Thank you for that, PGA.

In discussions of this sort, I do not do "believing." If you are saying "It is your opinion that..."...please use that.

I believe that it is not a question about a woman's right to do with her body as she desires but the killing of another human being. It is wrong.

Okay...that is "what you believe"...which is to say, "that is your opinion."

We have differing opinions.

We can go through all the usual abortion debate nonsense about whether a human zygote or human fetus is a "human being" or not (the subject of that other thread about terms)...but that never goes anywhere.

WHATEVER the fetus or zygote is...IT IS WHAT IT IS.

I am saying it is my opinion that WHATEVER IT IS...it definitely IS A PREGNANCY.

There is no getting away from that.

IT IS A PREGNANCY!

And I am saying that the person who's body is host to the the embryo, zygote, or fetus (the person who is pregnant)...should be the one who makes the "decision" about whether to end the pregnancy if she wants.

If a woman is pregnant and wants to terminate that pregnancy...she should be totally free to do so without interference from you or the government.

You, nor the government, should be allowed to frame the pregnancy in a way in which YOU get to determine what the woman can do with regard to a pregnancy occurring in her own body.

Deal with that.

---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

No problem.

So to be clear, THIS thread deals with the question 'Should the choice to have an abortion be allowed at all?'

I only ask because it is not clear from the opening post what question is being addressed.

I have no problem dealing with that question (as you can see from my reply to PGA above.)

I certainly do not mean to limit this thread to that question, though.

[Dionysus]

The "human fetus" or "human zygote" is a human being.

We can go through all the usual abortion debate nonsense about whether a human zygote or human fetus is a "human being" or not (the subject of that other thread about terms)...but that never goes anywhere.

From my reading of this exchange, it looks to me like the point of contention is the difference between “human” in origin (such as a human heart, human brain, human kidney, etc), and something being an individual human in possession of personhood . You’re effectively arguing over “human” being an adjective or a noun.

PGA, I think it would be useful to understand what you mean when you say "human being", because as it stands now, it is not clear that you distinguish "human" hearts and "human" livers from "Denzel Washington" or "Frank Apisa" in terms of them being "human beings". By your usage, it appears that you hold all of these things in equal esteem in terms of personhood.

---

For the sake of simplicity, I’ll use “human” as an adjective, and I’ll use “person” to refer to an individual human being.

Human zygotes possess none of the physical characteristics of a fully developed persons (limbs, organs, central nervous system etc) and thus cannot be rightly called a person. However, human zygotes DO possess the potential to develop into a person, given that they possess all 46 human chromosomes necessary to do so.

But this is only the starting point; they are not “persons” (A), but rather, “potential persons” (B).

If “B” is only potential “A”, then it follows that “B” is not “A”. An egg is not a chicken, nor is an acorn a tree. They may be genetically complete, but they not fully developed things.

But every human cell also contains all 46 chromosomes. And if we’re arguing that rights of personhood should be granted to potential persons i.e. zygotes - rights that override the agency of its host – then why wouldn’t we extend those same rights to skin cultures and blood samples?

[Frank Apisa]

From my reading of this exchange, it looks to me like the point of contention is the difference between “human” in origin (such as a human heart, human brain, human kidney, etc), and something being an individual human in possession of personhood . You’re effectively arguing over “human” being an adjective or a noun.

PGA, I think it would be useful to understand what you mean when you say "human being", because as it stands now, it is not clear that you distinguish "human" hearts and "human" livers from "Denzel Washington" or "Frank Apisa" in terms of them being "human beings". By your usage, it appears that you hold all of these things in equal esteem in terms of personhood.

---

For the sake of simplicity, I’ll use “human” as an adjective, and I’ll use “person” to refer to an individual human being.

Human zygotes possess none of the physical characteristics of a fully developed persons (limbs, organs, central nervous system etc) and thus cannot be rightly called a person. However, human zygotes DO possess the potential to develop into a person, given that they possess all 46 human chromosomes necessary to do so.

But this is only the starting point; they are not “persons” (A), but rather, “potential persons” (B).

If “B” is only potential “A”, then it follows that “B” is not “A”. An egg is not a chicken, nor is an acorn a tree. They may be genetically complete, but they not fully developed things.

But every human cell also contains all 46 chromosomes. And if we’re arguing that rights of personhood should be granted to potential persons i.e. zygotes - rights that override the agency of its host – then why wouldn’t we extend those same rights to skin cultures and blood samples?

Exactly.

Or cancer cells...or tumors...or fingernails or beards.

[evensaul]

For the sake of simplicity, I’ll use “human” as an adjective, and I’ll use “person” to refer to an individual human being.

It seems to me that you switch from saying that a "person" is an individual human being, without other qualification...

Human zygotes possess none of the physical characteristics of a fully developed persons (limbs, organs, central nervous system etc) and thus cannot be rightly called a person.

...to saying a human being must be fully developed to qualify as a person. Why? How many physical characteristic are necessary to become a person? What is your authoritative source?

If we were to start with a "fully developed person" and begin removing physical characteristics, at what point does the person become a non-person? Is a blind quadriplegic in a coma not a person?

An egg is not a chicken, nor is an acorn a tree. They may be genetically complete, but they not fully developed things.

Germination of an acorn creates a seedling, which is a tree at an early stage of development. Likewise, fertilization of a human egg creates a human being at an early stage of development - an individual human being, which qualifies as a person.

[Dionysus]

It seems to me that you switch from saying that a "person" is an individual human being, without other qualification...to saying a human being must be fully developed to qualify as a person. Why?

In the first part I'm simply defining "person" as "an individual" since we wouldn't call a crowd of people "a person". In the second part, I'm claiming that a potential thing is distinct from an actual thing, and the acorn analogy is simply an example of the distinction.

[evensaul]

Or cancer cells...or tumors...or fingernails or beards.

This is very weak. Fingernails, skin cells and hair, when left alone to naturally develop, do not become children and then adults. A human fetus will.

[Belthazor]

...to saying a human being must be fully developed to qualify as a person. Why? How many physical characteristic are necessary to become a person? What is your authoritative source?

If we were to start with a "fully developed person" and begin removing physical characteristics, at what point does the person become a non-person? Is a blind quadriplegic in a coma not a person?

Germination of an acorn creates a seedling, which is a tree at an early stage of development. Likewise, fertilization of a human egg creates a human being at an early stage of development - an individual human being, which qualifies as a person.

Indeed sir, I agree.

Or put the other way, how developed does the embryo need to be before it is an individual?

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

Human zygotes possess none of the physical characteristics of a fully developed persons (limbs, organs, central nervous system etc) and thus cannot be rightly called a person. However, human zygotes DO possess the potential to develop into a person, given that they possess all 46 human chromosomes necessary to do so.

But clearly abortions are taking place where development includes has progressed where "limbs, organs, etc..." are present.


How is zygote not just a stage of human life? Every human that has ever lived had to go thru that stage of life if they grew to maturity.
(I can't remember the last time I heard ANY pregnant woman talk about her "zygote"....)

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

If “B” is only potential “A”, then it follows that “B” is not “A”. An egg is not a chicken

At what point does it go from "potentially human individual" to actually "being" a human individual? What must take place for this to occur?

---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

Exactly.

Or cancer cells...or tumors...or fingernails or beards.

Saying these things can become a "human individual" needs support.

[Dionysus]

At what point does it go from "potentially human individual" to actually "being" a human individual? What must take place for this to occur?

Please answer my question first. What do you mean when you say "human being"? Do you differentiate between a "human" heart and a human "being"?

[Belthazor]

Please answer my question first. What do you mean when you say "human being"? Do you differentiate between a "human" heart and a human "being"?

Sorry, didn't realize you were waiting on me.

A "human heart" (if you mean like you could hold it in your hand during a transplant, for instance) is very different than what I mean by "human being".
You and I is two human beings.
A heart is a heart, and will only ever be a heart.
A heart in and of itself can not be a "human being".

[SharmaK]

No problem.

So to be clear, THIS thread deals with the question 'Should the choice to have an abortion be allowed at all?'

I only ask because it is not clear from the opening post what question is being addressed.

Thanks for the reframing of the OP but I don't think it is enough. The choice to abort is ALWAYS available in the entire history of the world. What the question REALLY is, is whether abortions should be made legally available and if so, under what conditions. This strikes at the heart of RvW and should be the focus of the debate: if abortions were made illegal, they will happen anyway - we'd be back to women harming themselves to avoid an unwanted or forced pregnancy; they'd be going to back alleys and visiting quacks. RvW isn't so much about supporting abortions but making sure that when abortions had to be done that they were done ethically and safely.

To literally, per the reworking of the OP, how could the "choice to have an abortion" be forbidden?

In many cases, Plan B seems to be a reasonable choice but opponents of abortions don't like that either, so the line seems to be unreasonable drawn by the PL side of things.

Personally, I think the PL side of the arguments fail to address why RvW is so important in the first place, and some PL supporters also promote terrible sex education; usually abstinence and sometimes even not teaching safe and responsible sex. Those people's arguments should be wholly rejected and they should not be allowed to affect the debate: since they're usually driven by their religious views their real end goal is to force their religion upon others.

On the flip side of things, some PL supporters have a point. Some abortions happen immediately on a Downs Syndrome diagnosis to the point that in Iceland 100% of Downs pregnancies are aborted. And just today Sweden is headed in that same direction (source). So it's not always a clear cut choice given that some Downs kids can function independently as adults. And is it really moral to destroy a potential life just because they would cause hardship for their parents as well as not necessarily have a great quality of life.

[Dionysus]

A heart in and of itself can not be a "human being".

Ok, thank you for that.

My sense is that your position is that life begins at conception; that at the moment of conception, the zygote is effectively a human being, and should be legally endowed with the same rights and privileges you and I share as fellow human beings.

Is this correct?

[SharmaK]

Ok, thank you for that.

My sense is that your position is that life begins at conception; that at the moment of conception, the zygote is effectively a human being, and should be legally endowed with the same rights and privileges you and I share as fellow human beings.

Is this correct?

The problem with this view is that when a women is being harmed by a baby in the womb and the choice to abort to save the mother's life becomes an issue, then the baby is in effect murdering their mother. So in this case, should that child be imprisoned or even given the death penalty for a deliberate, premeditated murder? Surely if one entity kills another in order to survive then they need to be punished as a human being per your argument.

[Dionysus]

Thanks for the reframing of the OP but I don't think it is enough. The choice to abort is ALWAYS available in the entire history of the world. What the question REALLY is, is whether abortions should be made legally available and if so, under what conditions.

Well, that's why I used the word "allowed". I assumed that it would be understood that I meant 'legally allowed', but that's on me for assuming.

Also, I think you meant to say that 100% of Downs Diagnosed pregnancies in Iceland are aborted; not "in Iceland 100% pregnancies are aborted".

---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

The problem with this view is that when a women is being harmed by a baby in the womb and the choice to abort to save the mother's life becomes an issue, then the baby is in effect murdering their mother. So in this case, should that child be imprisoned or even given the death penalty for a deliberate, premeditated murder? Surely if one entity kills another in order to survive then they need to be punished as a human being per your argument.

I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making. I'm asking Belthazor for clarification on their position.

[Belthazor]

Thanks for the reframing of the OP but I don't think it is enough. The choice to abort is ALWAYS available in the entire history of the world. What the question REALLY is, is whether abortions should be made legally available and if so, under what conditions. This strikes at the heart of RvW and should be the focus of the debate: if abortions were made illegal, they will happen anyway - we'd be back to women harming themselves to avoid an unwanted or forced pregnancy; they'd be going to back alleys and visiting quacks. RvW isn't so much about supporting abortions but making sure that when abortions had to be done that they were done ethically and safely.

To literally, per the reworking of the OP, how could the "choice to have an abortion" be forbidden?

In many cases, Plan B seems to be a reasonable choice but opponents of abortions don't like that either, so the line seems to be unreasonable drawn by the PL side of things.

Personally, I think the PL side of the arguments fail to address why RvW is so important in the first place, and some PL supporters also promote terrible sex education; usually abstinence and sometimes even not teaching safe and responsible sex. Those people's arguments should be wholly rejected and they should not be allowed to affect the debate: since they're usually driven by their religious views their real end goal is to force their religion upon others.

On the flip side of things, some PL supporters have a point. Some abortions happen immediately on a Downs Syndrome diagnosis to the point that in Iceland 100% pregnancies are aborted. And just today Sweden is headed in that same direction (source). So it's not always a clear cut choice given that some Downs kids can function independently as adults. And is it really moral to destroy a potential life just because they would cause hardship for their parents as well as not necessarily have a great quality of life.

I would have hit "like" but that would just not express my shock and awe about your post.

In many ways I agree, though when you say "how can it be forbidden?" is easy to understand even if you don't agree.

People against abortion are generally so because they feel like that "life" is equal to yours (legally).

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 PM ----------

Ok, thank you for that.

My sense is that your position is that life begins at conception; that at the moment of conception, the zygote is effectively a human being, and should be legally endowed with the same rights and privileges you and I share as fellow human beings.

Is this correct?

May I take a moment to say, I have read your posts over several yrs and only somewhat recently started posting myself. I know you said you didn't like debating these days and I just wanted to say I appreciate you talking with me anyway.

I can see no other logical/reasonable/defensible position?

Welcome to other ideas on the subject?

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

The problem with this view is that when a women is being harmed by a baby in the womb and the choice to abort to save the mother's life becomes an issue, then the baby is in effect murdering their mother. So in this case, should that child be imprisoned or even given the death penalty for a deliberate, premeditated murder? Surely if one entity kills another in order to survive then they need to be punished as a human being per your argument.

I think majority holds the mother should be saved because if she dies the fetus/zygote/poor little human that didn't matter anyway till it gets "older/more developed" would die anyway.
The law generally sides with saving life.

[evensaul]

Personally, I think the PL side of the arguments fail to address why RvW is so important in the first place, and some PL supporters also promote terrible sex education; usually abstinence and sometimes even not teaching safe and responsible sex. Those people's arguments should be wholly rejected and they should not be allowed to affect the debate: since they're usually driven by their religious views their real end goal is to force their religion upon others.

And the pro-abortion side disingenuously argues that the fetus isn't human, or is a "potential" person, and time after time trots out the unscientific acorn analogy. (On other issues, liberals embrace science - but not on abortion.) You people need to just man up and admit that you know the unborn child is a person, and that you think a woman should have the right to kill it anyway. Seriously, just be honest about it.