“If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine?” - Abortion Survivors Testify on Capitol
128 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665775]Yes they do, they have the potential to become a zygote if they meet, and then eventually develop a fetus.[/QUOTE]
"unaltered"
I can't tell if you're purposefully ignoring the point or honestly don't understand.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665779]"unaltered"
I can't tell if you're purposefully ignoring the point or honestly don't understand.[/QUOTE]
I suppose I don't understand why being 'unaltered' matters, do you mean that the definition of human is not based on what something could 'potentially' be in the future, but rather what it is in the present point of time? If so, then it doesn't matter whether something could potentially develop into a human, but rather whether the object in question can be handily identified as having traits that we identify as human. If so, what identifies a zygote as being human beyond the point that it can potentially become a human?
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665794]If so, what identifies a zygote as being human beyond the point that it can potentially become a human?[/QUOTE]
To be sure here, a human sperm and human egg cell are [I]human[/I], the question is what makes a zygote different from a sperm or egg cell. The answer is that an unmodified zygote [I]will[/I] develop into a foetus, and into a human baby.
By unmodified I mean unaborted, and its environment no tampered with (such as Plan B does).
It also has a unique DNA sequence that represents an individual human.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665892]It also has a unique DNA sequence that represents an individual human.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;48665889]To be sure here, a human sperm and human egg cell are [I]human[/I], the question is what makes a zygote different from a sperm or egg cell. The answer is that an unmodified zygote [I]will[/I] develop into a foetus, and into a human baby.
By unmodified I mean unaborted, and its environment no tampered with (such as Plan B does).[/QUOTE]
So is something identified as human because it can potentially become a human? If so, anything is human if it can potentially become a human. That may sound like circular reasoning there, but I'm just restating the obvious.
or to put it more concisely:
being human=might be human in the future
might be human in the future=being human
With this logic: a fetus is a human, a zygote is a human, a sperm is a human, an egg is a human, amino acids formed out of the food you eat is a human (because it can eventually be converted into cell tissue for sperm or eggs), animals are human (because they can become food), plants are human (because they contain the amino acids consumed by the animals that we in turn absorb into ourselves to become sperm or egg cells), the star dust that eventually turned into the chemicals that formed planetary bodies and then everything else is a human.
If we apply human-based morality based on the medical definition of what a human is and we propose that this is the medical definition of what a human is (not that this is actually the case), then that means we must apply human-based morality to sperm and human eggs as well as zygotes.
There's a difference between being human and being A human. The zygote is a specific human that can be identified as different to all other humans. An egg or sperm cannot. They are human, but they are not A human.
I would argue that a zygote is A human based on the nature of it's unique DNA and potentiality to gain consciousness. Both parts are necessary.
Whether being a human is enough to get rights depends on your moral theory.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665903]So is something identified as human because it can potentially become a human? If so, anything is human if it can potentially become a human. That may sound like circular reasoning there, but I'm just restating the obvious.[/QUOTE]
There is confusion here, just because something is human, does not mean it is a person. There is a difference between gametes and zygotes, that is what we have been discussing, a zygote will become a person, a gamete does not have that same attribute, neither do stray cells on someone's body, only a zygote displays this behavior.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665908]There's a difference between being human and being A human. The zygote is a specific human that can be identified as different to all other humans. An egg or sperm cannot. They are human, but they are not A human.
I would argue that a zygote is A human based on the nature of it's unique DNA and potentiality to gain consciousness. Both parts are necessary.[/QUOTE]
So everything in the entire universe is human, but only a zygote is 'A' human. The reason you state that a zygote is 'A' human is that it can potentially become a human in the future, which is once again getting into the whole 'being human=might be human in the future therefore might be human in the future=being human' thing.
[editline]12th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;48665920]There is confusion here, just because something is human, does not mean it is a person. There is a difference between gametes and zygotes, that is what we have been discussing, a zygote will become a person, a gamete does not have that same attribute.[/QUOTE]
A zygote is a human because it can potentially become a human in the future, sperm and egg cells can also potentially become a human at some point in the future. Is there a distinction at all between what something is at this point of time and what it could be in the future? Is an acorn a tree?
[QUOTE]This comes down to "life at conception", which I believe is a valid concept, a gamete is markedly different from a zygote, and we should accept that, the argument comes in when you need to decide when a foetus has "the right to live" which I argue comes down to when they become a person, which I think is when they are born. [/QUOTE]
We're not talking about concepts, we're talking about medical answers based on verifiable, falsifiable and reproducible evidence.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665925]So everything in the entire universe is human[/QUOTE]
No... anything with human DNA is human. For example, a steak sitting on my counter is still cow even though it's dead.
[QUOTE], but only a zygote is 'A' human. The reason you state that a zygote is 'A' human is that it can potentially become a human in the future,[/QUOTE]
... and has unique DNA that corresponds to a new potential person. You really need to read our points more closely. I clearly said this in my post.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665940]No... anything with human DNA is human. For example, a steak sitting on my counter is still cow even though it's dead.
... and has unique DNA that corresponds to a new potential person. You really need to read our points more closely. I clearly said this in my post.[/QUOTE]
Alright, so the clear defining quality of whether something is human or not is whether it contains a full set of human DNA? Does that mean a floating strand of human DNA is considered human? If I took a blood sample from you, would I need to treat that blood sample as a living person? A single cell contains the whole DNA of that individual person, surely that would fall under your definition of human? I'm not even getting into the whole medical argument of how DNA by itself does not constitute a living person, I could extract your entire genome and put it on a computer and it wouldn't suddenly come alive and start forum arguments with me.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665949]Alright, so the clear defining quality of whether something is human or not is whether it contains a full set of human DNA? Does that mean a floating strand of human DNA is considered human? If I took a blood sample from you, would I need to treat that blood sample as a living person? A single cell contains the whole DNA of that individual person, surely that would fall under your definition of human? I'm not even getting into the whole medical argument of how DNA by itself does not constitute a living person, I could extract your entire genome and put it on a computer and it wouldn't suddenly come alive and start forum arguments with me.[/QUOTE]
I'm done. You still aren't actually reading my points. It's like you read the first line and totally skipped over the second. Please, reread that second point, look at every word, and see if a strand of hair or blood sample would apply.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665964]I'm done. You still aren't actually reading my points. It's like you read the first line and totally skipped over the second. Please, reread that second point, look at every word, and see if a strand of hair or blood sample would apply.[/QUOTE]
Your second point was:
[QUOTE]and has unique DNA that corresponds to a new potential person.[/QUOTE]
Which is a restatement of the belief that being human means 'potentially human in the future', which would not preclude sperm, eggs and just about everything else from being human. I thought we went over this point already.
The first and second statements are actually two entirely different prepositions, if they are connected by some consistent strand of logic then you need to explain what that logic is.
What you've said is basically:
[QUOTE]1.Humans are humans because they have a full set of human dna (so basically blood samples, skin cells, and anything else that contains a full set of human dna)
2.?????
3.Humans are humans because they have the potential to become human (sperm, eggs, amino acids, stardust from millions of years ago, etc.)
4.????
5.Only a zygote, fetus and developed humans are human[/QUOTE]
As I said earlier, either anything that is potentially human is human, or there must be a specific definable characteristic that makes something human. Those are the two possibilities that you've suggested. I've been very reasonable and spelled everything else as much as I can here. I've also read all of your points and responded to them one by one in a very through manner. If you want me to understand and agree with you, you need to lay out your argument in a very clear and explicit manner (in the form of both a proposition and then evidence or reasoning to explain that proposition).
You haven't actually explained why you are right, why I am wrong or what is wrong with my reasoning. All you've done is tell me what you believe and then claimed I haven't read your posts properly when I didn't immediately agree with you. You actually need to lay out your logic and explain your reasoning if you want to have an argument with me.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665925]A zygote is a human because it can potentially become a human in the future, sperm and egg cells can also potentially become a human at some point in the future. Is there a distinction at all between what something is at this point of time and what it could be in the future? Is an acorn a tree?
[/quote]
I've covered this already, a sperm cell will not create a person, it [I]could[/I] combine with an egg cell and create a zygote, and that zygote will produce a person. You keep using purposely vague wording, a human cell is a human cell, a human cell makes up a human [I]person[/I].
Cosmic stardust is not explicitly "destined" to create a human, as it so happens, zygotes have undergone millions of years of evolution and happen to reliably produce human offspring, there's your observation: Zygotes (in an environment that will support them) will produce after roughly 9 months, a human person*.
*Woop, we also have to define what a "person" is, a baby whom has been born fits my definition.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48665925]
We're not talking about concepts, we're talking about medical answers based on verifiable, falsifiable and reproducible evidence.[/QUOTE]
Verifiable, falsifiable, and reproducible evidence do not create morals, principles, or legal laws, this is why we have moral debate and philosophy.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;48666077]You keep using purposely vague wording.[/QUOTE]
It's not that I'm using vague wording, it's that I'm trying to work within your rather vague definition.
[QUOTE]a human cell is a human cell, a human cell makes up a human person.[/QUOTE]
What's a 'human person' then?
[QUOTE]Cosmic stardust is not explicitly "destined" to create a human, as it so happens, zygotes have undergone millions of years of evolution and happen to reliably produce human offspring, there's your observation: Zygotes (in an environment that will support them) will produce after roughly 9 months, a human person*.
[b]*Woop, we also have to define what a "person" is, a baby whom has been born fits my definition.[/b][/QUOTE]
Ah alright then, thanks. I think you're starting to work out how this whole argument thing operates :). So a 'human person' is a baby whom has been born, so do we apply human rights only to a 'human person' or to some other entity that may become a person? The phrase 'human rights' implies that we only apply those rights to a 'human person' and anything else that doesn't fall under the definition of a 'human person' could not explicitly have those rights. In that situation, how we could view something such as a zygote, which does not fall under your definition of a 'human person', to be the recipient of human rights or indeed as being a human being in any more of a sense than a sperm or egg cell.
[QUOTE]Verifiable, falsifiable, and reproducible evidence do not create morals, principles, or legal laws, this is why we have moral debate and philosophy. [/QUOTE]
The question 'is a zygote identifiably a human being' is a medical question, it needs a medical answer and some sort of medical evidence or medical reasoning to back it up.
So a zygote is not a human being, it is a cell that will, after some period of time if left to incubate, become a human being. Therefore it makes no sense to call a zygote a human being or to apply human rights or human morality to a zygote.
Here's an example that will explain this dichotomy a little bit further:
You're walking down the street one day, an old man crosses the street in front of you and then inexplicably collapses to the ground in front of you. Without checking his pulse, approaching him or applying any medical knowledge to figure out whether the old man is alive but unconscious or dead, how do you use morality or philosophy to figure out whether the old man is alive or not?
Our human rights and human morality is based on the idea that the individual in question is alive and human, we can neither apply human morality to a individual whom we don't know is alive nor find out if that individual is a living human simply through the use of human morality. We need to first know that something is alive before we can apply morality to it, and we need medical information to find that out. Whether something is alive or not is based on medical information, once we have that information we can decide what to do based on whether something is alive or not-alive, human or not-human.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48665964]I'm done. You still aren't actually reading my points. It's like you read the first line and totally skipped over the second. Please, reread that second point, look at every word, and see if a strand of hair or blood sample would apply.[/QUOTE]
actually, his arguments have pretty much touched on everything you have said.
@zyler: though it's a fascinatingly thorough logical analysis you've made of their statements, you have yet to provide your own opinion. care to tell us where you think the line between a being who gains human rights, and one who can be killed without reprise lies?:)
[QUOTE=mrknifey;48666281]actually, his arguments have pretty much touched on everything you have said.
@zyler: though it's a fascinatingly thorough logical analysis you've made of their statements, you have yet to provide your own opinion. care to tell us where you think the line between a being who gains human rights, and one who can be killed without reprise lies?:)[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the acknowledgment. I pretty much said right at the beginning of this in my first post that I consider 'a human being' to exist the moment there is conscious synaptic activity, i.e. thoughts are occurring, during the third trimester, because what separates human life from any other kind of life (plants or animals) or non-life is our ability to be self-aware in our thinking. Pretty much if you don't choose to have an abortion before that point, you're shit out of luck unless there's some life-threatening complication that would lead to either the mother or the fetus dying (or both). At that point, if there's a choice between the mother and the almost fully developed fetus (if both the mother and the fetus will die if an abortion isn't performed, then it makes sense that it be performed so that at least one person survives) then it should be up to the parents themselves (mainly the mother) whether the abortion takes place. I think that solution makes the most sense and is the fairest for everybody, although it would be better if people just used protection where possible.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48666337]Thanks for the acknowledgment. I pretty much said right at the beginning of this in my first post that I consider 'a human being' to exist the moment there is conscious synaptic activity, i.e. thoughts are occurring, during the third trimester, because what separates human life from any other kind of life (plants or animals) or non-life is our ability to be self-aware in our thinking. Pretty much if you don't choose to have an abortion before that point, you're shit out of luck unless there's some life-threatening complication that would lead to either the mother or the fetus dying (or both). At that point, if there's a choice between the mother and the almost fully developed fetus (if both the mother and the fetus will die if an abortion isn't performed, then it makes sense that it be performed so that at least one person survives) then it should be up to the parents themselves (mainly the mother) whether the abortion takes place. I think that solution makes the most sense and is the fairest for everybody, although it would be better if people just used protection where possible.[/QUOTE]
I feel like it should be before the second trimester. There's plenty of time to get an abortion in the first trimester and if you decide that you want one after that, I feel like there's no excuse unless you've been in a coma for a couple months. My reasoning is that by this point the fetal period has already started and there is now a recognizable fetus that is certainly more than just "a bunch of cells".
Hopefully I don't end the awesome argument going on by saying this, but whether or not a zygote is classified as human is not the end of the abortion debate. You must also consider whether the zygote/baby's rights trump those of the mother and if so, at what point and to what degree? Remember that a woman must play host to this new being and - to some degree - sacrifice the integrity of her body to do so.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48666337]Thanks for the acknowledgment. I pretty much said right at the beginning of this in my first post that I consider 'a human being' to exist the moment there is conscious synaptic activity, i.e. thoughts are occurring, during the third trimester, because what separates human life from any other kind of life (plants or animals) or non-life is our ability to be self-aware in our thinking. [/QUOTE]
I should note that I'm not defending sgman91's argument, thought I can see how they seem to be coming from the same place.
While I disagree with your premise of humans being "special" (even more so at such a young age), I think we can come to the understanding that even a zygote that is going to become a foetus, and that will eventually be born, does not have the same "rights" as the host (mother) it is inside of. That is to say, I think the mother has a greater right over her body than a foetus does.
My stance is that it should be the mother's choice, up to the moment the baby is born an abortion should be an option.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;48667591]
My stance is that it should be the mother's choice, [B]up to the moment the baby is born[/B] an abortion should be an option.[/QUOTE]
Fucking seriously? So a mother could go to the hospital days or hours before she gives birth and you would be perfectly OK with her saying "Actually, nevermind, scramble it."
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;48667683]Fucking seriously? So a mother could go to the hospital days or hours before she [U]would[/U] give birth and you would be perfectly OK with her saying "Actually, nevermind, scramble it."[/QUOTE]
Yes.
And after talking with my sister, I think there is even a case to be made for allowing mothers to deny care from being done on your just born baby, such as if they are born with Cerebral palsy and cannot breathe for themselves, though that is not abortion.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;48668303]Yes.
And after talking with my sister, I think there is even a case to be made for allowing mothers to deny care from being done on your just born baby, such as if they are born with Cerebral palsy and cannot breathe for themselves, though that is not abortion.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck?
Honestly, I don't like abortion. But it would be worse to force women to have children they don't want. Until it becomes viable to transfer a fetus to some sort of artificial womb and raise them from there, abortion will be the best choice. Sure, it's possible to transfer a fetus to another woman, but there aren't many people willing to do that, especially relative to the increase in fetuses from stopping abortions. Additionally, the adoption system is already very full, so even if it's scientifically possible and at a reasonable cost, it won't be viable to transfer them to an artificial womb until we clear up the adoption system.
-First trimester, abortion should be fine. In the future, when fetal transfer is more viable, it should start being the prioritized option late in this trimester.
-Second trimester onward, it would be best to transfer the fetus elsewhere. For now though, abortion shouldn't be limited here either. At least until about some point around 24 weeks, when the nervous system and brain start developing rapidly. To note, however: only about 1% of abortions happen after 20 weeks, so even less should happen after 24 weeks. I imagine the vast majority of those are some sort of emergency, so limiting abortion after that would only serve to delay solving the emergency through paperwork, making the problem worse, most of the time. We shouldn't base our abortion laws on the small amount of women seeking abortions because "oops it's been 6 months and apparently I'm having a baby or something, I dunno lol". Because they're about as prevalent as poor people on welfare who are perfectly content being at that level and unemployed - nearly nonexistent.
-Third trimester, for the reason stated above, should still have abortion be an option for now. It's really only unacceptable when there's like a week or however much left where the baby is [I]very[/I] likely to survive outside of the womb, in which case the procedure should just be switched to an emergency c-section rather than emergency abortion. Sure, it's terrible when it isn't actually an emergency, but we should treat that as the abnormality it is rather than the norm. In the future, however, any abortions in this period should instead be some form of fetal transfer.
Hopefully in the future we can take the fetus out of the mother and still have some sort of technology that can allow it to develop outside the womb. That way both parties are happy.
[QUOTE=redBadger;48668876]Hopefully in the future we can take the fetus out of the mother and still have some sort of technology that can allow it to develop outside the womb. That way both parties are happy.[/QUOTE]
I agree, then we could completely ban abortion altogether (except life-saving in certain situations).
However I was thinking about this myself the other day and I wondered what kind of culture we might create where we have abortion orphans who, once grown up, are told that their mother didn't want them... shit makes me kind of sad.
[QUOTE=Last or First;48668855]Honestly, I don't like abortion. But it would be worse to force women to have children they don't want. Until it becomes viable to transfer a fetus to some sort of artificial womb and raise them from there, abortion will be the best choice. Sure, it's possible to transfer a fetus to another woman, but there aren't many people willing to do that, especially relative to the increase in fetuses from stopping abortions. Additionally, the adoption system is already very full, so even if it's scientifically possible and at a reasonable cost, it won't be viable to transfer them to an artificial womb until we clear up the adoption system.
-First trimester, abortion should be fine. In the future, when fetal transfer is more viable, it should start being the prioritized option late in this trimester.
-Second trimester onward, it would be best to transfer the fetus elsewhere. For now though, abortion shouldn't be limited here either. At least until about some point around 24 weeks, when the nervous system and brain start developing rapidly. To note, however: only about 1% of abortions happen after 20 weeks, so even less should happen after 24 weeks. I imagine the vast majority of those are some sort of emergency, so limiting abortion after that would only serve to delay solving the emergency through paperwork, making the problem worse, most of the time. We shouldn't base our abortion laws on the small amount of women seeking abortions because "oops it's been 6 months and apparently I'm having a baby or something, I dunno lol". Because they're about as prevalent as poor people on welfare who are perfectly content being at that level and unemployed - nearly nonexistent.
-Third trimester, for the reason stated above, should still have abortion be an option for now. It's really only unacceptable when there's like a week or however much left where the baby is [I]very[/I] likely to survive outside of the womb, in which case the procedure should just be switched to an emergency c-section rather than emergency abortion. Sure, it's terrible when it isn't actually an emergency, but we should treat that as the abnormality it is rather than the norm. In the future, however, any abortions in this period should instead be some form of fetal transfer.[/QUOTE]
Actually the baby is pretty likely to survive outside the womb from 24 weeks onwards, I personally as well as UK law believe that the point a baby can survive outside the womb is the point at which they are an independent living being and can only be aborted for medical reasons.
[QUOTE=Levithan;48658698]That's the thing, the unborn have a lesser moral status than the person they're inhabiting. You don't see any (sane) country putting people who've miscarried on trial for manslaughter, or doctors being put on trial for murder after performing an abortion. They straight up don't have as many rights as a sentient person.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to point out that a murder of a pregnant woman is in most countries also not considered a double murder. But a specific case of murder that carries a harsher penalty than mere murder.
In that sense even criminal law usually recognises that while a fetus has a certain potencial and a certain unique status, it is not fully human.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;48669482]I'd like to point out that a murder of a pregnant woman is in most countries also not considered a double murder. But a specific case of murder that carries a harsher penalty than mere murder.
In that sense even criminal law usually recognises that while a fetus has a certain potencial and a certain unique status, it is not fully human.[/QUOTE]
its usually considered double murder only if the fetus could have been viable on its own
[editline]12th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=redBadger;48668876]Hopefully in the future we can take the fetus out of the mother and still have some sort of technology that can allow it to develop outside the womb. That way both parties are happy.[/QUOTE]
how is that solving any of the problems. technology doesn't fix social issues it only plasters over them or at worst exacerbates them
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48668936]I agree, then we could completely ban abortion altogether (except life-saving in certain situations).
However I was thinking about this myself the other day and I wondered what kind of culture we might create where we have abortion orphans who, once grown up, are told that their mother didn't want them... shit makes me kind of sad.[/QUOTE]
No different to how adoption works these days, surely? Whether you're carried to full term artificially or by your biological mother, you would still have the same issue with the child.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48669625]how is that solving any of the problems. technology doesn't fix social issues it only plasters over them or at worst exacerbates them[/QUOTE]Solves the "every life is precious" argument as well as "well it's my body I do what I want" argument.
Debating about the quality of life an unborn baby would or wouldn't have is only relevant if the system for taking care of unwanted or orphaned children has severe problems. Problems that shouldn't exist in the first place and should be fixed anyway, so really the important part of the argument is fixed by an improvement in technology.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.