The All New Abortion Spin-Off Thread...

Dades

180 OT posts (mine included) moved from the other thread to this new one...

It took me fcuking ages, in case anyone cares.

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The fact that they did not all progress does not change the fact that they all began there.

You can argue that once they have progressed to be classified as living human beings that their life began at conception. But the point is that that classification is objectively reached only at some point after conception (and subjectively at various points before and after!).

To refute the statement "life begins at conception" you'd have to show that it actually began somewhere else.

No, I don't, since my point (and others) is that where it begins is not an objective determination. For example, I disagree with the current definitions and timelines in the U.S. regarding this in terms of the legality of abortion as much as I disagree with yours.

To boil it down:
Do you think that destruction of apple seeds in an apple core is the same thing as chopping down an apple tree? If yes, we have nothing more to discuss, we simply don't have sufficient middle ground on this one. If no, at what point in the growth of an apple tree would you consider it to be a "tree" and is this determination not subjective?

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you are not my target audience

Who here is your target audience then? because I have seen nobody thus far who meets the criteria of opinions you are arguing against.

Nobody here has said that a zygote is not living, or not different to an egg. It is different, but why you are choosing this phase of change as noteworthy is what is being questioned.

What is being said is that the living matter after conception is genetically unique, but not distinctly a human being, it therefore remains under the ownership of the host in which it grows. The only deciding factor in when it should be removed from the woman is decided by when it should be conferred with rights.

Also, if you could, I would like some more information (a website perhaps) on this large body of pro-choice advocates who likens the living matter of a zygote to the dead matter in a nail.

Dades wrote: »

Surely Sam Vimes' motives should be irrelevant to the question of whether a fertilised egg is inherently different to a separate egg/sperm?

Like I said, I am not dealing with that question. I believe I have already agreed with Sam earlier in this thread that after conception the living matter is distinctly different to the separate matter before conception. My issue is the distinction in value that he is placing on matter after conception. He has said he is not dealing with it, but it is inferred by the discussion as a whole.

If Sam does not believe that due to the uniqueness of the living matter after conception that all human rights should be conferred on it at this point then please correct me.

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Who here is your target audience then? because I have seen nobody thus far who meets the criteria of opinions you are arguing against.

Nobody here has said that a zygote is not living, or not different to an egg. It is different, but why you are choosing this phase of change as noteworthy is what is being questioned.

What is being said is that the living matter after conception is genetically unique, but not distinctly a human being, it therefore remains under the ownership of the host in which it grows.

Being genetically unique is not a requirement as in the case of twins or a clone. The entire point I am making is that it is a human being unless you attach connotations to the words "human being" that don't belong there specifically to exclude foetuses.

If I were to use the phrase "living being" instead of "human being" would you have less objection to the point? Can you accept that it is a living being, if not a human being?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The only deciding factor in when it should be removed from the woman is decided by when it should be conferred with rights.

This is true but I'm not talking about when it should be removed from the woman

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, if you could, I would like some more information (a website perhaps) on this large body of pro-choice advocates who likens the living matter of a zygote to the dead matter in a nail.

See above in our own post: "the living matter after conception is genetically unique, but not distinctly a human being, it therefore remains under the ownership of the host in which it grows". Also look up the "clump of cells" argument. It's compared to the toe nail in the "living matter but not a living being" sense and the fact that nail cells are dead isn't relevant to the point

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Like I said, I am not dealing with that question. I believe I have already agreed with Sam earlier in this thread that after conception the living matter is distinctly different to the separate matter before conception. My issue is the distinction in value that he is placing on matter after conception. He has said he is not dealing with it, but it is inferred by the discussion as a whole.

It's really not. As I have said, the problem we have is that we're having different debates. It seems you accept everything I'm saying but are inferring things from it that I am not actually saying and then arguing with those things.

It brings me back to the point Dades was making. You instinctively place value on the word "life" and so you object to me using that word in relation to foetuses, not for some objective scientific reason but because of the repercussions that doing so would have on your opinions. And if that is the case then you are my target audience. If I can show you that the word life can be objectively, scientifically applied to them, we'll be getting somewhere

rockmongrel

Life begins at conception.

But "living" doesn't begin until leaving the womb. This is the clear distinction for me, and I am completely pro-choice.

Sam Vimes

rockmongrel wrote: »

Life begins at conception.

But "living" doesn't begin until leaving the womb. This is the clear distinction for me, and I am completely pro-choice.

So is it ok to abort a baby the day before the woman goes into labour?

And if my distinction was that "living" didn't begin until the baby could talk, would that be ok?

rockmongrel

I don't want to be made into a fiend, but yes i believe so.

Dades

Step right people and get your pitchforks... :pac:

Sam Vimes

rockmongrel wrote: »

I don't want to be made into a fiend, but yes i believe so.

What about the babies that were born at 6 months and survived? Is it ok to kill them until they reach the normal 9 month point? Does the fact that a baby can survive perfectly well on its own the day before birth not figure in your thinking at all?

rockmongrel

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly...
I make the distinction between Life starting at conception, is so far as there is a biological procedure which has led to a fetus, and "Living" starting when a child is outside of the womb. So no, it would not be ok to kill a premature child, that would be murder.

MrPudding

I have a nice and simple view of it. I believe that a woman has the right to have an abortion if she feels that is what she needs to do. I actually don’t care whether it is a life, a human life, a human being, or would have grown up to be the person that cured cancer. I believe that the rights of the woman should take priority over that of the unborn.

I would prefer that abortions did not take place and believe that there should be a cut off point. For me a reasonable cut off point would be the point at which the foetus could survive outside of the womb, independently of the mother.

MrP

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

I have a nice and simple view of it. I believe that a woman has the right to have an abortion if she feels that is what she needs to do. I actually don’t care whether it is a life, a human life, a human being, or would have grown up to be the person that cured cancer. I believe that the rights of the woman should take priority over that of the unborn.

I would prefer that abortions did not take place and believe that there should be a cut off point. For me a reasonable cut off point would be the point at which the foetus could survive outside of the womb, independently of the mother.

MrP

Good man, at least you're honest with yourself and don't try to define the foetus as something other than it is so you can justify it

rockmongrel wrote: »

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly...
I make the distinction between Life starting at conception, is so far as there is a biological procedure which has led to a fetus, and "Living" starting when a child is outside of the womb. So no, it would not be ok to kill a premature child, that would be murder.

Is it ok to kill the premature child if you do it by sucking it out of the womb (as some abortions are done), instead of by surgically removing it and then breaking its neck?

rockmongrel

Is it ok to kill the premature child if you do it by sucking it out of the womb (as some abortions are done), instead of by surgically removing it and then breaking its neck?

You seem to be making an argument against the method of abortion, as opposed to abortion itself

Sam Vimes

rockmongrel wrote: »

You seem to be making an argument against the method of abortion, as opposed to abortion itself

No I'm not, you're the one making the argument against the method. An abortion is done by sucking the foetus out of the womb. You think this is fine. But if it is surgically removed and then killed you consider it murder. Seems odd to me that the method of killing it should matter.

rockmongrel

What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be putting words in my mouth...

Where did I even mention the method?

Sam Vimes

rockmongrel wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be putting words in my mouth...

Where did I even mention the method?

Well you see a distinction between abortion right up until birth and murder. The only difference between killing a foetus by sucking it out of the womb and killing it by surgically removing it and breaking its neck is the method used to kill it so why is one ok but not the other?

Dades

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Seems odd to me that the method of killing it should matter.

I like a good steak myself, but I'd prefer the cow died humanely rather than being beaten to death with a bar of soap in a sock.

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

I like a good steak myself, but I'd prefer the cow died humanely rather than being beaten to death with a bar of soap in a sock.

Right but you wouldn't say that one method is perfectly acceptable with no moral implications and the other is murder carrying a life sentence. There isn't really any way to kill a cow that's considered murder, just maybe unnecessarily cruel

rockmongrel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well you see a distinction between abortion right up until birth and murder. The only difference between killing a foetus by sucking it out of the womb and killing it by surgically removing it and breaking its neck is the method used to kill it so why is one ok but not the other?

So you're ok with, as Dades says, seeing a cow bludgeoned to death, having its throat slit and bled to death or having its legs broken and starving?
There is a clear moral issue on the method something is killed.

Sam Vimes

rockmongrel wrote: »

So you're ok with, as Dades says, seeing a cow bludgeoned to death, having its throat slit and bled to death or having its legs broken and starving?
There is a clear moral issue on the method something is killed.

Were not talking about a cow here and you're not talking about the humaneness of the method. Let's use a humane method of killing it instead to eliminate this confusion:

Why is sucking it out ok but surgically opening the womb, cutting the umbilical cord and giving it a fatal but not painful dose of anaesthetic murder?

edit: there is also a method of abortion where a hooked shaped knife is inserted that cuts the foetus to pieces. Surely that's less humane than a dose of anaesthetic?

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Were not talking about a cow here and you're not talking about the humaneness of the method. Let's use a humane method of killing it instead to eliminate this confusion:

Why is sucking it out ok but surgically opening the womb, cutting the umbilical cord and giving it a fatal but not painful dose of anaesthetic murder?

That's a very good question. But would you not agree that there is a huge difference between a human being ready to be born and some tissue only beginning the process of becoming that baby ready to be born? One isn't as bad as the other and they're not the same thing surely?

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That's a very good question. But would you not agree that there is a huge difference between a human being ready to be born and some tissue only beginning the process of becoming that baby ready to be born? One isn't as bad as the other and they're not the same thing surely?

No one is not as bad as the other. Just like anaesthetising someone before cutting their throat is more humane than chopping them up while they're awake. Neither is ok though

rockmongrel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Were not talking about a cow here and you're not talking about the humaneness of the method. Let's use a humane method of killing it instead to eliminate this confusion:

Why is sucking it out ok but surgically opening the womb, cutting the umbilical cord and giving it a fatal but not painful dose of anaesthetic murder?

You seem to be just disregarding every argument I put forward?...

It is murder, as if the child is far enough along to survive, it has effectively been born. Premature, through ceasarian section, but born none the less. It is aware of its surroundings, aware of other people.

But, if the fetus is not capable of being aware, too premature and unable to survive outside the womb, then no, its not murder, as its not a developed life, it is incapable of surviving.

Sam Vimes

rockmongrel wrote: »

You seem to be just disregarding every argument I put forward?...

It is murder, as if the child is far enough along to survive, it has effectively been born. Premature, through ceasarian section, but born none the less. It is aware of its surroundings, aware of other people.

But, if the fetus is not capable of being aware, too premature and unable to survive outside the womb, then no, its not murder, as its not a developed life, it is incapable of surviving.

Children born at 6 months have survived but you said that abortion is ok right up to birth. A foetus is aware from about 8 or 9 weeks. You can't see that they are aware without a sonogram but you not being able to see it doesn't mean it's not the case. Do you want to revise your statement that abortion is ok up until birth since you're now adding the caveat "when it's aware", which places the cut off point at about 8 weeks?

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No one is not as bad as the other. Just like anaesthetising someone before cutting their throat is more humane than chopping them up while they're awake. Neither is ok though

Why? Is it because the earliest stage has the possibility/potential to become aware? That's another bad analogy because tissue with the potential to become a human or someone who can experience the humane is not the same as a human who can appreciate humane treatment before getting its throat cut.
I wonder how you feel about morning after pills?

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why? Is it because the earliest stage has the possibility/potential to become aware?

Awareness is not an issue for me, it's only brought in by pro-choice people because they think it makes a difference. For me it's enough that it's a human life

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wonder how you feel about morning after pills?

Conception doesn't actually take place for quite a quite after sex. The correct name for the morning after pill is the emergency contraceptive pill. It prevents conception rather than flushing out a foetus. There's a separate abortion pill for that

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I like a good steak myself, but I'd prefer the cow died humanely rather than being beaten to death with a bar of soap in a sock.

Not a bad idea -- I think the meat would be quite tender after however long that took.

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Awareness is not an issue for me, it's only brought in by pro-choice people because they think it makes a difference. For me it's enough that it's a human life....

But Sam similarly I could say that you only think it doesn't make a difference. Maybe awareness should be an issue for you. If I was struck down with Alzheimer's tomorrow and wasn't self aware (and all the burden that entails for those who may or may not be willing to take care of me) then killing me is fine contravening my rights because I have no awareness. Rights mean nothing in that case. The rights protecting an individual are gone because I'm no longer me or I.

With all due respect what your saying sounds almost dogmatic that there is no wiggle room whatsoever and something that cannot be challenged.

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But Sam similarly I could say that you only think it doesn't make a difference. Maybe awareness should be an issue for you. If I was struck down with Alzheimer's tomorrow and wasn't self aware (and all the burden that entails for those who may or may not be willing to take care of me) then killing me is fine contravening my rights because I have no awareness. Rights mean nothing in that case. The rights protecting an individual are gone because I'm no longer me or I.

With all due respect what your saying sounds almost dogmatic that there is no wiggle room whatsoever and something that cannot be challenged.

Sorry we're getting our wires crossed here. Awareness is one of those things that people tack on because they want abortion to be ok that doesn't really apply to any other circumstances. It's one of the "linguistic somersaults" I've been talking about. For example if there was a baby was born in a coma and was not aware but there was a treatment coming on the market next month that would cure him you can bet your ass you'd get objections if you tried to pull the plug, even though he's currently not aware. I'm extremely surprised to see you say it's ok to kill a person with Alzheimer's tbh. Do you really think that?

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry we're getting our wires crossed here. Awareness is one of those things that people tack on because they want abortion to be ok that doesn't really apply to any other circumstances.

Says you. I never said I want abortion to be okay I'm just exercising avenues for why it may be acceptable in certain cases.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's one of the "linguistic somersaults" I've been talking about. For example if there was a baby was born in a coma and was not aware but there was a treatment coming on the market next month that would cure him you can bet your ass you'd get objections if you tried to pull the plug, even though he's currently not aware.

I completely agree.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm extremely surprised to see you say it's ok to kill a person with Alzheimer's tbh. Do you really think that?

No Sam not quite, what I'm trying to do is challenge the black and white nature of your argument. If I had Alzheimer's or knew I was going to get it my wish would be to have my life ended once I became a drooling mess and a burden. If someone said to me "I ended one of my parent's life because in reality what was left was a shell" I would not judge them as murderers.