The All New Abortion Spin-Off Thread...

Mark Hamill

Naz_st wrote: »

And after that you have a zygote that also can't grow into anything without the the mothers body providing it with an environment and nutrients and oxygen. It cannot exist and grow independently. It can only exist and grow independently of the mother after a certain stage of development.

Yeah but going by some of the people I've met in school and college, that stage is somewhere between the ages of 18 and 30 .
But, seriously, even after the stage where the child is still completely biologically dependent the mother for growth (birth, i assume), its still completely dependent on others for its survival, its just the specificity of that dependence has gone. This implies that all you are saying is that abortion is wrong if the child can be shoved into some one elses arms, it's right if the child is stuck being your problem and that seems pretty pathetic to me.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not gonig to answer the rest because it's about "you as a person" and "you as a person" is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

Funny, because this is the only part that needed answering due to its relevance.

You seem to be going around in circles defining life, without really dealing with the issue of why you imagine it has so much value at conception that it can't be aborted, and why this value you give it is not arbitrary. The process of life, by definition, and yours, in this argument, is irrelevant.

You need to outline your reasons for placing value on the material in a womans body at conception. Your problem here is that I think you lack an understanding of the difficulty of neutrally describing values and where and why they should be given. Values are neither physical nor mental, and thus lack any objective substance.

If you are saying the material at conception has value because of what it may become at some future date, then at least accept that this is utterly subjective and arbitrary.

Rev Hellfire

Its all down to cuteness, if it looks like a little baby we're all on for saving it otherwise its fair game.

Lets face it, if its all about brain function we should busy harvesting organs from the severely mentally impaired and those in vegetative states.

Naz_st

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But, seriously, even after the stage where the child is still completely biologically dependent the mother for growth (birth, i assume), its still completely dependent on others for its survival, its just the specificity of that dependence has gone.

Yes. But the point is that it can survive and grow independent of the mother. It is still dependent on someone for quite some time in order to grow from being a baby to a full adult, but it is not wholly dependent on the specific biology of a single entity without which not only can it not survive, but it can't grow into something that can survive.

This implies that all you are saying is that abortion is wrong if the child can be shoved into some one elses arms, it's right if the child is stuck being your problem and that seems pretty pathetic to me.

First off, I wasn't specifically getting into the right and wrong of abortion, I was more justifying the counter-position to Sam's argument that a zygote is a lifeform. Second, the "abortion debate" is not so much about when it is "right or wrong" and more about at what point do we attribute the same set of criteria around human rights to an unborn foetus (i.e. its focus is on when it can be objectively deemed wrong). Third, you're completely missing the point I was making anyway. What I was implying was that there is a distinction between a foetus at the end of a pregnancy (where it is essentially identical to a newborn baby but located inside the mother rather than outside) and the single cell that is formed by the two separate gametes. One can survive as a living breathing entity completely independently (for a short time) of any other being and, with non-specific external dependency, can grow into a human adult who can in turn have children. One cannot, and is wholly dependent on the biology and life of the mother. It has no capacity to think, feel, breath, eat or any other criteria that is universally and objectively attributed to being deemed "alive". I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that concept?

Goduznt Xzst

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its all down to cuteness, if it looks like a little baby we're all on for saving it otherwise its fair game.

Funnily enough, those types of rules DO seem to apply to the animal kingdom. If you had the choice between killing a lizard or a puppy which would you choose? Aesthetics seems to play an arbitrary role on the value we place on creatures

Same thing goes for other arbitrary aspects like size. Between a blue whale and a blue bottle fly which would you kill? Again, both living creatures, yet we kill flies and insects all the time but wouldn't dream in most instances of killing creatures larger or equal in size to ourselves on such a scale.

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

Yes, and I would have thought that the answer to that is pretty self-evident: when it is born. Until then it is demonstrably not a "living being separate from its parents" since it's biologically, inextricably, necessarily, directly attached to one of its parents!

Sorry there's confusion here. When I say separate I mean that it's not just a part of the mother's body like a lung is, it's a separate being that's using the mother for nutrients. It's basically a parasitic life form but a life form nonetheless

Naz_st wrote: »

I think that at some point during the pregnancy and prior to being born the foetus can be described as a "living being" that could survive independently of its mother and so is subsequently unnecessarily (but beneficially) attached to its mother. I think this is an important distinction, but when it occurs is not a simple determination.

It's an important distinction for people who want to abort foetuses but it's an irrelevant distinction for what I'm talking about. I'm not having an abortion debate here, I'm simply giving the medical fact that a new individual life begins at conception and not attaching any connotations to it

Naz_st wrote: »

And after that you have a zygote that also can't grow into anything without the the mothers body providing it with an environment and nutrients and oxygen. It cannot exist and grow independently. It can only exist and grow independently of the mother after a certain stage of development.

And you can't exist and grow independently of food (which almost completely consists of other life forms), water, oxygen and heat. Being able to exist independently of other life forms is not a requirement that is placed on being a life form.

Naz_st wrote: »

By your reasoning, every cell in the human body is a new life form since it contains all 46 chromosomes and could theoretically be implanted into an egg during a cloning process and potentially, given the right environment grow into a whole new lifeform.

No, by my reasoning every cell in the human body could theoretically be used to create a new life form. It's not a new life form until you actually inject the dna into the egg and start the process of growth.

Naz_st wrote: »

A cancer "grows" in the body of a human - is this a "living being" also?

Growth is not a sufficient requirement for life, merely a necessary one.

No it's not. Cancer is a part of a body, the same as a lung. It is not a living being

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Funny, because this is the only part that needed answering due to its relevance.

You seem to be going around in circles defining life, without really dealing with the issue of why you imagine it has so much value at conception that it can't be aborted, and why this value you give it is not arbitrary. The process of life, by definition, and yours, in this argument, is irrelevant.

You need to outline your reasons for placing value on the material in a womans body at conception. Your problem here is that I think you lack an understanding of the difficulty of neutrally describing values and where and why they should be given. Values are neither physical nor mental, and thus lack any objective substance.

I don't need to give reasons for placing value because I'm not talking about value and I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Wicknight said that life does not begin at conception (an individual life as opposed to the philosophical concept of life) and that is the only point I am answering because it is factually wrong

Mark Hamill

Naz_st wrote: »

Yes. But the point is that it can survive and grow independent of the mother. It is still dependent on someone for quite some time in order to grow from being a baby to a full adult, but it is not wholly dependent on the specific biology of a single entity without which not only can it not survive, but it can't grow into something that can survive.

But why is that important though? Its not its fault who it is dependent on, its not even its fault that it exists.

Naz_st wrote: »

First off, I wasn't specifically getting into the right and wrong of abortion, I was more justifying the counter-position to Sam's argument that a zygote is a lifeform.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to use any moral connotations here, you can just replace "right" and "wrong" with "you would accept" and "you wouldn't accept" if you like.

Naz_st wrote: »

Second, the "abortion debate" is not so much about when it is "right or wrong" and more about at what point do we attribute the same set of criteria around human rights to an unborn foetus (i.e. its focus is on when it can be objectively deemed wrong).

So the issue isnt when it's right or wrong, but when its objectively right or wrong?

Naz_st wrote: »

Third, you're completely missing the point I was making anyway. What I was implying was that there is a distinction between a foetus at the end of a pregnancy (where it is essentially identical to a newborn baby but located inside the mother rather than outside) and the single cell that is formed by the two separate gametes. One can survive as a living breathing entity completely independently (for a short time) of any other being and, with non-specific external dependency, can grow into a human adult who can in turn have children. One cannot, and is wholly dependent on the biology and life of the mother. It has no capacity to think, feel, breath, eat or any other criteria that is universally and objectively attributed to being deemed "alive". I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that concept?

There's nothing at all difficult to grasp about your concept, sure the only long term difference between your two examples is time. I think this is what the other side of this argument sees and wonders how you are missing it. The only way to have a foetus at the end of a pregnancy (something which should be given the same rights that a human has, if I'm reading your argument right) is to have the single cell in the first place, why not give that single cell the same rights as the human it will become?

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wicknight said that life does not begin at conception (an individual life as opposed to the philosophical concept of life) and that is the only point I am answering because it is factually wrong

Ok, say for a moment Wicknight agrees that life begins at conception*, then what? What is your point?

So lets assume, for arguments sake, an individuals life does begin at conception... please proceed with why you think this matters? What is the purpose of your argument? Are you trying to merely prove Wicknight wrong on a point or is there some end to this line of reasoning, specifically in regards to abortion.

*I agree with Wicknight btw, your argument basically amounts to saying the energy to light a lightbulb only comes into existence when you flick the switch

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't need to give reasons for placing value because I'm not talking about value and I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Wicknight said that life does not begin at conception (an individual life as opposed to the philosophical concept of life) and that is the only point I am answering because it is factually wrong

But surely it's not "factually wrong" given the different definitions and connotations there are around what you, or others, mean when they say "individual life"? If you define it as beginning when a cell has different DNA than either parent then sure. But if you define it as a living breathing organism that is not materially, biologically and inextricably dependent on its "host" (in your parlance) then not?

Basically I don't see the objectivity in your definition that would be required to declare something "factually wrong", as I think there are equally compelling arguments to be made for other definitions of what constitutes an "individual life"...

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

But surely it's not "factually wrong" given the different definitions and connotations there are around what you, or others, mean when they say "individual life"? If you define it as beginning when a cell has different DNA than either parent then sure. But if you define it as a living breathing organism that is not materially, biologically and inextricably dependent on its "host" (in your parlance) then not?

Basically I don't see the objectivity in your definition that would be required to declare something "factually wrong", as I think there are equally compelling arguments to be made for other definitions of what constitutes an "individual life"...

I don't define it as that. I say conception is the point because that's when a new cell is formed that, given a livable environment, nutrients and oxygen will grow into a fully formed human being. Growth starts at conception and ends when you die. Before conception all you have is a sperm and an egg, neither of which possess that property and after conception you just have the continuation of the growth process that began at conception, no point of which is any more significant than any other in terms of whether it's a living being or not.

Breathing is not a requirement placed on a living organism, although the foetus does receive oxygen through other means and not being materially, biologically and inextricably dependent on its "host" is not a requirement either. Both of those are arbitrary restrictions placed on life forms by pro choice people specifically to exclude foetuses. The only objective point that can be chosen as the beginning of a new life is conception.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ok, say for a moment Wicknight agrees that life begins at conception*, then what? What is your point?

So lets assume, for arguments sake, an individuals life does begin at conception... please proceed with why you think this matters? What is the purpose of your argument? Are you trying to merely prove Wicknight wrong on a point or is there some end to this line of reasoning, specifically in regards to abortion.

It matters because an awful lot of pro choice people use the argument that life begins at some arbitrary point after conception, conveniently chosen to give them enough time to abort the foetus before it meets their arbitrary criteria. For people who don't think the fact that it is a living being is important it make no difference to their stance but to people who latch onto this factually incorrect idea as their justification for it, it makes a lot of difference. If it can be proven that a zygote is a living being it blows the "it's just a clump of cells" argument out of the water. It's not a clump of cells, it's a developing living being

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

*I agree with Wicknight btw, your argument basically amounts to saying the energy to light a lightbulb only comes into existence when you flick the switch

So what point would you pick? Is it when the 100th cell develops? The 230th? The 476th? The 10,456,273th? At what point does it stop being a component of someone's body and become a separate life form?


edit: have a read of this:
http://www.familydoctormag.com/sexual-health/251-when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue.html
"The generally recognized pro-life stance is life begins at fertilization. So the pro-choice stance is, no, it doesn’t. … Right?" "Wrong"

You lot should email him and tell him that it actually is the stance of a lot of people. He recognises the fact that life begins at conception but rejects it as not important which is a far more solid stance for a pro-choice person because it's not based on provably wrong statements

Naz_st

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So the issue isnt when it's right or wrong, but when its objectively right or wrong?

It's more about determining when it's wrong. (Objectively in terms of the dictates of society, not some absolute). Perhaps its just my natural aversion to the whole concept and the thought of being able to objectively declare it the "right" thing to do.

There's nothing at all difficult to grasp about your concept, sure the only long term difference between your two examples is time. I think this is what the other side of this argument sees and wonders how you are missing it. The only way to have a foetus at the end of a pregnancy (something which should be given the same rights that a human has, if I'm reading your argument right) is to have the single cell in the first place, why not give that single cell the same rights as the human it will become?

Well, that's the abortion ethics question isn't it. And it's not a simple one.

But as Sam has said, this wasn't about the ethics of whether abortion is right or wrong, just a debate on the definitional aspects of what constitutes "individual life" etc (which is probably inherently part of the abortion debate, but not the entire debate).

To use Sam's answer to one of my questions as a potential example of the difference I was trying to point out:

He said, in elaborating on a point about what he deemed "separate" from the mother:

"When I say separate I mean that it's not just a part of the mother's body like a lung is"

Ok, so a person has the right to have a part of their own body removed. (e.g. a mole, an unsightly lump, a kidney, whatever). So Sam's answer raises an interesting point: at what point is a foetus deemed a separate entity from the mother? As a single cell, or as a blastocyst or an unimplanted zygote or an implanted embryo or a viable foetus, whatever. Now, up until a certain point, it is remaining live cellular tissue purely because of its attachment to the mother, in exactly the same way that the mother's lung or kidney is being maintained as living tissue by receiving energy and oxygen from the mother. If you take out a kidney from a person and hand it to someone and say "take care of this", what you will end up with is necrotic and decaying tissue in short order. Up until a certain point, this is exactly the same as if you took out an undeveloped foetus and gave it to someone with the same instructions. But after a certain point, you can take out the unborn foetus and give it to someone (often highly trained doctors with special medical equipment if too early) and say "take care of this" and it will eventually become a fully independent adult. That is the distinction I was making in trying to point out that Sam's objective definition of life beginning at conception isn't necessarily objective.

The whole ethics of abortion debate needs to go much further than this though and take into account things like foetal pain, reactions to stimuli, the health of the mother, etc, etc

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

As a single cell, or as a blastocyst or an unimplanted zygote or an implanted embryo or a viable foetus, whatever. Now, up until a certain point, it is remaining live cellular tissue purely because of its attachment to the mother, in exactly the same way that the mother's lung or kidney is being maintained as living tissue by receiving energy and oxygen from the mother

Sorry, stopped reading there because that's simply wrong. The foetus is feeding off the mother through the placenta (once it develops). It is not a part of the mother's body, it is living in the mother's body. It's more comparable to a tape worm than a lung

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It matters because an awful lot of pro choice people use the argument that life begins at some arbitrary point after conception

I think you are missing the fundamental purpose behind this argument. No one would deny a fetus is alive, but they are arguing the arbitrary point where it becomes distinctly human and an individual and thus inherits value and rights.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So what point would you pick? Is it when the 100th cell develops? The 230th? The 476th? The 10,456,273th? At what point does it stop being a component of someone's body and become a separate life form?

The clue is in the name of the camp. Ever wonder why it's pro-choice, and not pro-abortion? Personally I would never have an abortion, but would support a society that allows it up until either the formation of the brain, or up until the point where the fetus has the ability to feel pain.

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry, stopped reading there because that's simply wrong. The foetus is feeding off the mother through the placenta (once it develops). It is not a part of the mother's body, it is living in the mother's body. It's more comparable to a tape worm than a lung

Living tissue (as opposed to dead tissue) is different from a living being. A living being is made up of living tissue. Living tissue requires oxygen and energy, the living tissue in a lung is being maintained as living tissue by the mothers circulatory and respatory system, so is the foetus, through the placenta after implantation.

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I think you are missing the fundamental purpose behind this argument. No one would deny a fetus is alive, but they are arguing the arbitrary point where it becomes distinctly human and an individual and thus inherits value and rights.

I'm afraid you've made the classic error there by confusing "being alive" with "being a living being". All the cells are of course alive at all points.

Most people are arguing the arbitrary point where it becomes distinctly human and an individual and thus inherits value and rights but not all. Many base their case on the incorrect idea that it's not a living being. The whole mantra of "her body, her choice" makes the incorrect assumption that the foetus is a part of the woman's body when it's actually another living organism that is hitching a ride inside her body. It's not just her body anymore and that is a fact. Once that is accepted we can move onto whether this other being should have rights or not

Sorry you didn't answer me btw. I didn't ask at what point it's ok to have an abortion, I asked at what point does it stop being a component of someone's body and become a separate life form, if not conception?

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

Living tissue (as opposed to dead tissue) is different from a living being. A living being is made up of living tissue. Living tissue requires oxygen and energy, the living tissue in a lung is being maintained as living tissue by the mothers circulatory and respatory system, so is the foetus, through the placenta after implantation.

So is a tapeworm, which is definitely not part of the woman's body

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So is a tapeworm, which is definitely not part of the woman's body

So is a lung, which is definitely part of the womans body. What's your point?

Look, you can take a tapeworm out of a womans body and stick it into a dog or pig or sheep or whatever, it's still "alive", it can still feed, metabolise, "breath", react to stimulus, grow, move, procreate, etc. That is not the same as a zygote/blastocyst.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not just her body anymore and that is a fact. Once that is accepted we can move onto whether this other being should have rights or not

Ok, for arguments sake, lets entertain the idea that a fetus at the moment of conception becomes a separate living being. Please move onto explaining why you believe it has rights.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry you didn't answer me btw.

... because we are discussing abortion When it becomes a "separate life form" is of no consequence to me if it does not have enough value to be considered distinctly human. Until a fetus has value, it is the property of the woman who holds it to do with it what she desires. It is within her rights.

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

So is a lung, which is definitely part of the womans body. What's your point?

Look, you can take a tapeworm out of a womans body and stick it into a dog or pig or sheep or whatever, it's still "alive", it can still feed, metabolise, "breath", react to stimulus, grow, move, procreate, etc. That is not the same as a zygote/blastocyst.

Zygotes feed
Zygotes metabolise
Breathing is not a requirement on a life form but it techincally does "breathe" because it receives oxygen
Reacting to stimulus isn't necessarily a requirement of a living being, lot's don't
Zygotes grow
Moving is not a requirement but Zygotes move anyway, in that they immediately start growing new cells to become an embryo
Even 10 year old children can't procreate so that's clearly not a requirement


My point is that receiving nutrients from the woman's body does not mean that it's part of her body like a lung is because a tapeworm does too, which is more comparable to a foetus.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ok, for arguments sake, lets entertain the idea that a fetus at the moment of conception becomes a separate living being. Please move onto explaining why you believe it has rights.

Oh I'm not going that far Just pointing out factually incorrect information

Mark Hamill

Naz_st wrote: »

If you take out a kidney from a person and hand it to someone and say "take care of this", what you will end up with is necrotic and decaying tissue in short order. Up until a certain point, this is exactly the same as if you took out an undeveloped foetus and gave it to someone with the same instructions. But after a certain point, you can take out the unborn foetus and give it to someone (often highly trained doctors with special medical equipment if too early) and say "take care of this" and it will eventually become a fully independent adult. That is the distinction I was making in trying to point out that Sam's objective definition of life beginning at conception isn't necessarily objective.

So something now is not fully human if medical science cant save it yet if its natural enviroment is altered? Would you be considered to be not fully human since you cannot survive if your heart was removed? What if you were hooked up to a dialysis machine and without it you would not survive, are you now not a full human?

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Zygotes feed
Zygotes metabolise
Breathing is not a requirement on a life form but it techincally does "breathe" because it receives oxygen
Reacting to stimulus isn't necessarily a requirement of a living being, lot's don't
Zygotes grow
Moving is not a requirement but Zygotes move anyway, in that they immediately start growing new cells to become an embryo
Even 10 year old children can't procreate so that's clearly not a requirement

My point is that receiving nutrients from the woman's body does not mean that it's part of her body like a lung is because a tapeworm does too, which is more comparable to a foetus.

A tapeworm is a fully complete, external organism that has entered the body and is feeding off it, but the existence of the host is not a necessary requirement for its existence, it can be transferred to another animal, like a pig say, and it will still go on living and reproducing without issue. Growing new cells isn't "moving". What forms of life don't respond to stimuli btw?

Anyway, we're going around in circles here. You seem to be defining a new life as any cell that has a different genetic component to its parents and could, potentially, under the right conditions, eventually become a new born baby. That's fine, I've no problem with that (but it does allow a very wide range of things to be deemed a new life (cf the cloning point from earlier)). I just disagree that your definition is any less arbitrary than say, for example, at the point at which the foetus is viable (is no longer wholly biologically dependent on the mother). Or the point at which it can react to stimulus, or the point at which it is larger than a pin head, or as individual gametes that could combine, etc. There's no point continuing to go over the same objections, but I would suggest that, given the inherent importance of this topic in the "abortion debate", and the different opinions on this topic in each camp, it is inaccurate to suggest your definition is an objective one and any others are "factually incorrect".

Naz_st

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So something now is not fully human if medical science cant save it yet if its natural enviroment is altered? Would you be considered to be not fully human since you cannot survive if your heart was removed? What if you were hooked up to a dialysis machine and without it you would not survive, are you now not a full human?

Either you misinterpreted my point or I'm misinterpreting yours, but this isn't anything to do with what I said.

My point was basically that an excised kidney has as much chance of staying alive and growing into an adult human as an excised blastocyst regardless of how well it is looked after. Not so a 28 week old foetus in a premature birth.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryiUBIiN4xE

New related video from one of my favourite YouTubers. Thought I would pitch it in as it poses three interesting questions to pro-lifers.

smidgy

The previous n pages seems to have been a scientific discussion of when life begins. I think that we will all agree that nobody has convinced anyone else on the opposing side as to the starting point. However surely this leads us to the single ethical conclusion that if we dont know then we simply CANNOT choose any single point in time to destroy this 'entity'.

I understand that the pro-abortion people dont want to kill a life any more than the pro-life people then the only surefire way of achieving that is in not choosing - otherwise the pro-abortion people must accept that they could possibly be killing someone.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well it kind of does tbh. You are making the point that life is one long link since the primordial goo so why place value on one particular part of it over another?

Because one particular part has unique properties.

It is like asking why put value on one particular stretch of coast line. I can think that the spot where my friend has a holiday home is particularly nice without viewing that big of beach as a separate coast line individual and distinct from 1 mile that way and 1 mile this way.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No because I'm not introducing that factor

You said separate. All cells are separate from all other cells, so I'm assuming you mean actually not clumped together, ie proximity.

Again conjoined twins are a good example of this. The zygote splits into two embryos but they do not split apart. Or the embryo cells rejoin (really throwing your definition out the window)

The embryo cells do not develop into two separate foetuses. The foetus develops as a single organism but with multiple organs.

The zygote has split but you only have one foetus, with copies of organs. So was that two life forms or one. What if it has two brains?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I said "I don't think that's possible" because unless I see some compelling evidence to the contrary, the separate cells of an embryo can not produce a new baby.

Where do you think the foetus comes from. The zygote is only the first cell. The next cells produce more cells and they produce more cells after that. They zygote is gone after a few days.

If the zygote splits into two embryos both these embryo cells can develop into a child. Or they can fuse back together again where under your definition you have one life form, then two life forms, then one life form again. Which is all a bit silly.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's really not circular logic Wicknight. A zygote has the property that it can grow into a human unless it has a disease preventing it from doing so. Living being can get all forms of disease that don't remove their status as living beings.

It does under your definition.

I was pointing out a flaw in your definition of a living being, not trying to argue that diseased creatures about to die are not living. That is your flawed definition (the need to be able to continue to grow) not mine.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

By comparing a zygote with a genetic error to a car built without wheels you are not comparing like with like. A better analogy would be a car that has been damaged by removing the wheels and what you have there is a damaged car.

Well yeah, if that works better for you. The point is that it is the definition of the car requires it has wheels. No wheels then it isn't a car. That is obviously a dumb definition of a car, which was the point.

You defined earlier an individual life as having to have the ability to develop to birth. You are now saying that this is not necessary if it has been damaged or prevented from doing so by something.

So, under the logic, why is a egg not an individual life form?

If the egg does not receive a sperm it will not survive. It is in effect broken without the sperm, in that its purpose is to be fertilised and to continue to grow. You say that it cannot be considered a living thing because it cannot grow any further.

But you consider a zygote or an embryo that cannot grow any further an individual living thing despite the fact that it will not develop any further than its current state, but its natural purpose is to grow but something has stopped it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An egg needs to combine with another object so that neither object exists anymore and a new object that has a completely different genetic structure from both an egg and a sperm comes into existence.

So. The zygote cell disappears after a few days and completely different types of cells take over, which themselves produce different cells again.

The fact that the fertilisation of the egg cell produces a different type of cell is no more importance than the zygote cell producing a different type of cell.

You can say that the zygote has different genetic structure than the egg cell, but the egg cell had a different genetic structure to the parent cell that produced it. So if a change in genetic structure is what defines the "start" why does the process not start at the egg?

And this is before we get into considering asexual reproduction which doesn't even involve a change in genetic structure. If it is a requirement then an asexual frog is under this definition the same individual life form as its parent is. Which clearly doesn't work too well.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I specifically used the words "the correct environment, food and other nutrients" to prevent this line of argument. All living beings need food but that food does not change the entire genetic structure of the thing that is eating it

Again that is just arbitrarily excluding.

The egg will grow. It needs the sperm cell to do this but it will grow with it. Because that is growth requiring genetic material doesn't mean it is not growth.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now that's just factually incorrect. What grows is not an egg not least because an egg contains 23 chromosomes and a zygote contains 26.

It is the same cell. It is not even a copy of the original cell, it is the same cell. The cell will separate and grow from this point.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't ask for ""You", in relation to abortion and rights and a "person""

Well it is a bit confusing because you keep saying you are not talking about abortion and then introducing it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I asked when it became a living being

My body never became a living being. It was always alive. My parents where alive, their sperm and egg cells were alive, they joined together and continued to live. At no point was anything dead or not living and at no point did anything start living from a state of not living.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and suggesting that it wasn't a living being before the brain was formed is provably wrong.

I didn't suggest that. My point is that the zygote is no more the start of a life form than the egg and sperm are.

You can pick reasons why you can say this is the "start" but they are all arbitrary (the genetic code changes ... so?)

Life never stops. There is no start. We are all just copies of earlier versions. You are a copy of your self a few years ago who was a copy of yourself a few years before that who was a copy of your parents etc etc.

We are simply replication machines. The replication started billions of years ago and has not stopped, ever. If it did you would know because it is very difficult to start it up again.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Growth of a new baby begins at conception

So what was the production of the egg cell if not growth. What was fertilisation if not growth.

The growth of a new baby starts when the mother produces an egg cell and the father produces a sperm cell. I would like to see you produce a baby with out them.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Before conception you have a sperm and an egg neither of which can grow into anything

That is just silly nonsense.

If the sperm and egg cells cannot grow into anything you would never get a zygote. Fertilisation is a process of growth. It how these cells grow.

You saying that is has to be growth without genetic changes is just arbitrarily picking something to try and win an argument. Growth is growth.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you want to argue that a foetus shouldn't have rights until its brain is formed you can do that but if you're saying that it's not a living being until its brain is formed you are simply wrong. If it's not a living being it's impossible for it to grow in order for a brain to be formed

Quite on the contrary I'm arguing that the sperm and egg cells that produce the zgyote are as much a living thing as the zygote itself. They are not less a life form than the zygote is. They are simply a different stage

You seem obsessed with trying to make out that I have an alterer motive here. What if I started implying that you had an alterer motive because you wanted to freely destroy life by using a condom without feeling guilty about it so you choose to ignore the sperm and egg and focus only on the zygote.

That would be a bit silly wouldn't it. So can you stop with the sly accusations please.

Zombrex

smidgy wrote: »

The previous n pages seems to have been a scientific discussion of when life begins. I think that we will all agree that nobody has convinced anyone else on the opposing side as to the starting point. However surely this leads us to the single ethical conclusion that if we dont know then we simply CANNOT choose any single point in time to destroy this 'entity'.

Why not?

We destroy living things all the time. What did you have for dinner?

Dinner

smidgy wrote: »

I understand that the pro-abortion people dont want to kill a life any more than the pro-life people then the only surefire way of achieving that is in not choosing - otherwise the pro-abortion people must accept that they could possibly be killing someone.

Well since none of us can settle on a definitive 'start of life' then surely the pregnant woman should have the choice to determine whether or not the 'entity' she is carrying is alive or not. It should be her choice to decide whether or not she wants the entity inside her or not. Not the governments, not the popes and not mine. She should be given all the help and support she needs. Make her aware of the potential for regret, but ultimately it should be her choice.

For me, the only issue that remains then is when the cut off point should be. As a society we make up these cut off points to make things easier to cope with. Voting age for example. Why is an 18 year old better able to make a political choice than a 17 year and 364 day old person. They're not. But we have to put a line in the sand to stop it getting out of control.

Similarily, experts in the field should determine up to what stage abortions should be carried out at. Not because that is the definitive beginning of life, but because a cut off point would be needed. So, up until the cut off point set by doctors it should be the womans choice to judge whether the zygote is alive or not.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So would you be against abortion after the brain has formed in the foetus? Would the brain have to be just starting to form (8 weeks after conception, i think), or would the brain have to be pretty much formed (about 26 weeks, i think) for you to be against the abortion? Or would you support the notion that if it cant feel pain the abortion would be ok (as early as 14 weeks)?

That is a very good question, one that I do not have an answer for. I do not know when the brain in the foetus is sufficiently switched on (so to speak) that the features we associate with higher brain functions begin to materialise.

But to me that is what is important, it is the value in human life (and life of other animals that possess these features).

eoin5

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People keep saying this but it just boggles my mind. It makes as much sense to me as saying it's arbitrary to say gravity makes things fall

The only thing I can think is that people really really want it to be ok to have an abortion so they do that thing we so criticise religious people for, they deny facts because they don't want them to be true

I say conception is the point because that's when a new cell is formed that, given a livable environment, nutrients and oxygen will grow into a fully formed human being. Growth starts at conception and ends when you die. Before conception all you have is a sperm and an egg, neither of which possess that property and after conception you just have the continuation of the growth process that began at conception, no point of which is any more significant than any other in terms of whether it's a living being or not. Does that honestly not make any sense to you?

What point would you pick if not conception?

I think if you want to use that kind of reasoning then I would say the cutoff point is when the possibility of the embryo splitting into twins/triplets has ended. Personally I think its a bit meaningless to give any life a moment of creation for anything other than practical reasons.

Zillah

smidgy wrote: »

However surely this leads us to the single ethical conclusion that if we dont know then we simply CANNOT choose any single point in time to destroy this 'entity'.

The last n pages have actually been completely irrelevant in my opinion. Even if you and I agree that a foetus is alive at point x, I still maintain we should kill it at point x if the woman does not want it in her womb.

As I said, the only exception I'd make is late term where the foetus could survive on it's own, then get it out of there as opposed to abort.

Also, as Wicknight said, we kill stuff all the time. Our culture is a carnival of death, as grotesque as anything in the natural world, we just choose to not ponder it.