Abortion is murder

Zombrex · 21-10-2005 9:13pm

AndyWarhol wrote:

So you agree that it is impossible to know when a foetus goes from non-person to person status.

I would imagine so, with the medical knowledge at the moment. But it is possible to know when the feotus could not possibly be a conscious human being. I have already said this but you seem to be ignoring it. Are you being argumentative on purpose or do you honestly not get the point I am making?

Do you not agree at some point the sperm/cell/feotus is not a person? You seem pretty sure the sperm or female cell is not a person. How do you know that for sure?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Effectively you have when you talk about this thing of consciousness that somehow enters the foetus after some arbitrary length of time. Maybe you're trying to say consciousness is a physical thing? The result of a couple of chemical reactions after a period of time? Consciousness grows in the foetus?

It doesn't "enter" anything, consciousness is a product of the human brain, it develops in humans when the brain develops. Consciousness is a term to describe the self-awareness we experience while are brain is firing billions of neurons.

AndyWarhol wrote:

My fingernails have my DNA (the genetic material for human life) in them. Fingernails are not human life. What sex are fingernails?

Ok first of all, every cell in your body has the same sex depending on their chromosones, either XX (female) or YX (male). Your "sex" is determined by the development of these cells depending on their chromosones control organ development. If you are man (YX chromosones in their cells) your cells develop into male organs (penis, adams apple etc), if you are female (XX chromosones in their cells) you develop female organs (breasts, vagina etc). Every single cell in your body has the same sex

Secondly, e-coli and all bateria (afaik) are a-sexual, in that the species is not divided into male or femal.

Thirdly, this has nothing to do with classification of "life"

Fourthly, you ignored the point, what is the difference between a sperm a cell and zygote cell? Both have the potential to develop into a fully formed human being, where as your finger nails don't. So why is it masterbation to release and kill sperm cells but abortion to kill a zygote cell?

AndyWarhol wrote:

You won't be convinced by what the Church says so how about if I told you that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. You'd find it hard to find a credible and reputable doctor/scientist who will say otherwise.

I would be very surprised to find a doctor or biologist who would give such a ambiguious definition in the first place. The biologist's first question would probably what do you mean by "human life"

In reality if you ask a biologist what "conception" is you will get an answer such as

"Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization."

Both the sperm and egg cell are completely "alive" before and during conception.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Is the operation of an internal combustion engine well understood by scientists/engineers? Yes you might say. You can explain its operation in terms of pistons, spark plugs, exhaust outlets and air inlets etc. You can even describe its operation in terms of the chemistry of fuel and thermodynamics. We manipulate the laws of physics to our advantage, but nobody can say precisely and fundamentally why this engine works.

What?

Yes the can, in a lot of detail actually

AndyWarhol wrote:

The same can be said about the moment of conception. Just as the combustion engine is a miracle of nature, so too is the moment of conception and so too is consciousness.

I think you are using the word "miracle" a little lose and free there :rolleyes:

The word "mircle" implies either one or both of the following

An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God

The joining of a sperm and an egg to form a zygote is no inexplicable by the laws of nature, in fact it follows the laws of the physical world very closely, it can be predicted and modelled.

One that excites admiring wonder

It is true that is excites wonder if you don't understand what is happening, but you don't have to "wonder" much as the natural processes of conception are quite well understood and can be explained. You don't even have to know much about biology to understand them.

AndyWarhol · 21-10-2005 9:15pm

black_jack wrote:

This one

Fairly unambigious claim by your good self, care to provide a statistic, or independent medical journal review article (not a article on godhatesabortionists.com or any biased site) to back up that claim.

I'm challenging him to show me a credible/reputable doctor scientist who will say that life does not begin at the moment of conception.

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point constitutes a termination of human life" Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrom chromosome).

"Each individual has a very neat beginning; at conception" Prof. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view, a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception" Dr. Landrum Shettles, discoverer of male and female producing sperm.

"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception" Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic.

"The exact moment of the beginning and of the human body is at the moment of conception" Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and professor of law at the University of Tennessee.

Anyway, are you trying to argue that life doesn't begin at the moment of conception?

AndyWarhol · 21-10-2005 9:16pm

black_jack wrote:

Fairly unambigious claim by your good self, care to provide a statistic, or independent medical journal review article (not a article on godhatesabortionists.com or any biased site) to back up that claim.

Thank you for clarifying that. I'm challenging him to show me a credible/reputable doctor scientist who will say that life does not begin at the moment of conception.

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point constitutes a termination of human life" Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrom chromosome).

"Each individual has a very neat beginning; at conception" Prof. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view, a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception" Dr. Landrum Shettles, discoverer of male and female producing sperm.

"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception" Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic.

"The exact moment of the beginning and of the human body is at the moment of conception" Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and professor of law at the University of Tennessee.

Anyway, are you trying to argue that life doesn't begin at the moment of conception?

Zombrex · 21-10-2005 9:23pm

AndyWarhol wrote:

Anyway, are you trying to argue that life doesn't begin at the moment of conception?

Sigh ... :rolleyes:

What do you mean by "life", because your definition is not what most of the quotes you mention are talking about.

The people you have quotedn are talking about a new individual life form. It is new and indvidual because the sperm and egg join to form a new DNA sequence. The zygote is now a different cell from its parents' cells, and as such a new life form. But the sperm and egg cells are also "life". Or put it another way, do you think the sperm and egg cells dead before conception.

I would also point out that this is the same process that happens in pretty much every other biological life form on the planet. You still have failed to state why human life is different from animal life (apart from the religious idea of a soul, which we don't seem to be talking about anymore).

AndyWarhol · 21-10-2005 9:34pm

Wicknight wrote:

It doesn't "enter" anything, consciousness is a product of the human brain, it develops in humans when the brain develops. Consciousness is a term to describe the self-awareness we experience while are brain is firing billions of neurons.

Do you not agree at some point the sperm/cell/feotus is not a person? You seem pretty sure the sperm or female cell is not a person. How do you know that for sure?

Right, you believe that consciousness grows in the human brain. So at what point is consciousness fully grown? When is it half grown, and at what point does it begin to grow? Why is a quarter-grown conscience not life and the consciousness of a third trimester baby is?

And yes, I agree, sperm is not human life. For you to classify sperm-cell-foetus as being equivalent is quite ridiculous and you'd struggle to find credible medical/scientific opinion that would classify all three in the same category. If a foetus is not the beginnings of a new, unique human being, then what is? The foetus is a new person. From the moment of conception, the foetus has two unique parents, skin colour, sex, eye colour, hair colour etc., etc.

black_jack · 21-10-2005 9:41pm

AndyWarhol wrote:

Right, you believe that consciousness grows in the human brain. So at what point is consciousness fully grown? When is it half grown, and at what point does it begin to grow? Why is a quarter-grown conscience not life and the consciousness of a third trimester baby is?

And yes, I agree, sperm is not human life. For you to classify sperm-cell-foetus as being equivalent is quite ridiculous and you'd struggle to find credible medical/scientific opinion that would classify all three in the same category. If a foetus is not the beginnings of a new, unique human being, then what is? The foetus is a new person. From the moment of conception, the foetus has two unique parents, skin colour, sex, eye colour, hair colour etc., etc.

Ah but foetus isn't created at the moment of conception. It's a collection of cells

And I'll ask you for links, not quotes. I'd curious to see the philsophical attitude a professor of law in Tenesse.

I'd also refer you to your quote

how about if I told you that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg.

You've provided, Five. Now either we have six doctors on the planet, or you can provide a link to support the almost all part.

Zombrex · 21-10-2005 9:48pm

AndyWarhol wrote:

Right, you believe that consciousness grows in the human brain.

No, the human brain "grows" ... consciousness isn't a physical thing, it is a name given for the state of being self-aware. It is like "thinking" ... "Thinking" doesn't grow in the brain, thinking is a description of what the brain does, of what state it is in (ie you are thinking right now, you are also self aware and conscious of your own existance).

AndyWarhol wrote:

So at what point is consciousness fully grown? When is it half grown, and at what point does it begin to grow? Why is a quarter-grown conscience not life and the consciousness of a third trimester baby is?

No idea what you are talking about.

The human brain grows, and I have been very careful not to state at what point in the development of the human brain does it begin to be conscious, because I don't know. But if you don't have a brain to begin with it is pretty hard to imagine consciousness can be going on in the cells.

AndyWarhol wrote:

And yes, I agree, sperm is not human life. For you to classify sperm-cell-foetus as being equivalent is quite ridiculous and you'd struggle to find credible medical/scientific opinion that would classify all three in the same category.

It is human life, it is just not a new individual human life. But the sperm is certainly alive, as alive as any other cell in your body.

AndyWarhol wrote:

If a foetus is not the beginnings of a new, unique human being, then what is? The foetus is a new person.

True, but the sperm is part of an old person. Whats the difference?

AndyWarhol wrote:

From the moment of conception, the foetus has two unique parents, skin colour, sex, eye colour, hair colour etc., etc.

And sperm cells ... are they not alive?

AndyWarhol · 21-10-2005 9:49pm

Wicknight wrote:

Sigh ... :rolleyes:

What do you mean by "life", because your definition is not what most of the quotes you mention are talking about.

The people you have quotedn are talking about a new individual life form. It is new and indvidual because the sperm and egg join to form a new DNA sequence. The zygote is now a different cell from its parents' cells, and as such a new life form. But the sperm and egg cells are also "life". Or put it another way, do you think the sperm and egg cells dead before conception.

I would also point out that this is the same process that happens in pretty much every other biological life form on the planet. You still have failed to state why human life is different from animal life (apart from the religious idea of a soul, which we don't seem to be talking about anymore).

You give a crash course in zygotes and DNA sequences and all that. This still does not explain exactly how a new human life comes about (or in your case, prepares come about). You seek logical answers for everything in the world and you seem unsatisfied without proof. In that case, you will forever be unsatisfied and miserable.

Your definition of 'life' as being consciousness seems all rather arbitrary to me. It's a convenient definition because nobody actually knows what consciousness actually is and you are using this as a means to justify early-term abortions. If you cannot see that life begins at conception, then we must agree to disagree.

The reason why human life is different to animal life is ensoulment. Without a sense of soul (indeed for non-believers, an acknowledgement that human life is special), there is no difference between killing a cow in a field and killing a man on the street. Is this your justification for killing an innocent baby?

Closing Doors · 21-10-2005 9:49pm

Wicknight wrote:

But if they never were aware of existance in the first place, then what are they missing.

I'm not sure how to respond to that - it's ridiculous. It's ok to kill them because they don't know what they're missing?

Wicknight wrote:

Every sperm in your body has the potential if given the oppertunity, to live for 100 years as a conscious human being. Is it wrong to deny them that oppertunity?

I could spend the rest of my life having sex with every woman in sight trying to give every sperm in my body that oppurtunity....and kill billions of sperm while I was at it. I am incapable of giving every last one of them that oppurtunity and so is every other man on this planet. Sperm is a neccessary ingredient for human life, but left alone it will not develop into a child...

black_jack · 21-10-2005 10:01pm

Closing Doors wrote:

I'm not sure how to respond to that - it's ridiculous. It's ok to kill them because they don't know what they're missing?

Well the argument is that a collection of non sentitent cells could be terminated by the sentitent human being who feels unable or unwilling, to cope with them when they develop into a sentitent lifeform.

I could spend the rest of my life having sex with every woman in sight trying to give every sperm in my body that oppurtunity....and kill billions of sperm while I was at it. I am incapable of giving every last one of them that oppurtunity and so is every other man on this planet. Sperm is a neccessary ingredient for human life, but left alone it will not develop into a child...

And the aside from third trimester foetus (who possibly might survive), all aborted foetus will not and can not survive. The suggestion of survival as a defining principle of when it is right to abort, means that it is acceptable to carry out most abortions because they could not survive outside the womb.

Zombrex · 21-10-2005 10:04pm

AndyWarhol wrote:

This still does not explain exactly how a new human life comes about (or in your case, prepares come about).

Yes it does ... a man and a woman have sex ... the man releases sperm cells into the utherius of the woman. If one of the millions of sperm cells manages to get to the current egg cell released by the woman during ovulation, the sperm cell dives through the other wall of the egg. The DNA of the sperm cell is released and combines with the DNA of the female egg, producing a new stand of genetic material. This new genetic material is used during cell division to produce new cells based on the new genetic map.

Now that is quite high level, what I remember from biology. But the actually process at each stage is quite well known and understood.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You seek logical answers for everything in the world and you seem unsatisfied without proof.

And ....

AndyWarhol wrote:

In that case, you will forever be unsatisfied and miserable.

I am actually quite happy at the moment thank you very much. :rolleyes:

AndyWarhol wrote:

Your definition of 'life' as being consciousness seems all rather arbitrary to me. It's a convenient definition because nobody actually knows what consciousness actually is

What? As opposed to the human "soul" ... Yeah cause thats well understood ... :rolleyes:

AndyWarhol wrote:

and you are using this as a means to justify early-term abortions.

Yes I am ... isn't that the point of this discussion?

AndyWarhol wrote:

If you cannot see that life begins at conception, then we must agree to disagree.

Mate I don't even know what you mean when you say "life" ... at no stage in the entire process of sex, conception, feotus development and birth is anything dead or not alive.

AndyWarhol wrote:

there is no difference between killing a cow in a field and killing a man on the street.

Actually yes there is, it just doesn't need, or involve, the idea of a "soul". As I pointed out (a few times) people were not killing each other long before the Judism/Christian churches invented concept of the "soul"

AndyWarhol wrote:

Is this your justification for killing an innocent baby?

Is what my justification?

Closing Doors · 21-10-2005 10:04pm

black_jack wrote:

The suggestion of survival as a defining principle of when it is right to abort, means that it is acceptable to carry out most abortions because they could not survive outside the womb.

You're suggesting it - not me.

black_jack · 21-10-2005 10:08pm

Closing Doors wrote:

You're suggesting it - not me.

No I did not you did

I could spend the rest of my life having sex with every woman in sight trying to give every sperm in my body that oppurtunity....and kill billions of sperm while I was at it. I am incapable of giving every last one of them that oppurtunity and so is every other man on this planet. Sperm is a neccessary ingredient for human life, but left alone it will not develop into a child...

Left alone is the important part. A foetus removed from the womb will not develop into a child, it requires the womb to live up until the last few months where it has the potential to survive provided dramatic measures are undertaken.

Zombrex · 21-10-2005 10:11pm

Closing Doors wrote:

I'm not sure how to respond to that - it's ridiculous. It's ok to kill them because they don't know what they're missing?

Well you do it all the time ... bateria are not self aware so it is ok to kill them, even though they are very much alive. Whats the difference?

Closing Doors wrote:

I could spend the rest of my life having sex with every woman in sight trying to give every sperm in my body that oppurtunity....and kill billions of sperm while I was at it. I am incapable of giving every last one of them that oppurtunity and so is every other man on this planet.

No actually what you are supposed to do is not have sex unless and only if, you are trying to produce a baby ... any takers? anyone?

Closing Doors wrote:

Sperm is a neccessary ingredient for human life, but left alone it will not develop into a child...

Well "left alone" neither will a zygote. There are still a large number of stages that need to take place before you get a baby, but they take place inside the woman so people don't notice. But if they were interupted it would probably be called abortion.

The thing to remember is that before human beings developed control over their instincts, "sex" was just another stage of the long process of the production of a human being, starting with the development of a sperm cell and ending with the birth of a child.

We believe that conception is a choice but once that has happened things are on automatic. But in nature everything is on automatic, everything is an automatic stage. So why is an interuption at one stage (masterbation) not a crime yet an interuption at a later stage after conception is abortion and wrong?

AndyWarhol · 21-10-2005 11:43pm

Wicknight wrote:

Yes it does ... a man and a woman have sex ... the man releases sperm cells into the utherius of the woman. If one of the millions of sperm cells manages to get to the current egg cell released by the woman during ovulation, the sperm cell dives through the other wall of the egg. The DNA of the sperm cell is released and combines with the DNA of the female egg, producing a new stand of genetic material. This new genetic material is used during cell division to produce new cells based on the new genetic map.

Now that is quite high level, what I remember from biology. But the actually process at each stage is quite well known and understood.

This is a descriptive explanation of what's going on. Scienctific deduction is the observation of natural phenomena, the organisation of the collected phenomena and its summarisation in a conclusion. Can you tell me not only how, but why a sperm penetrates an egg exactly? Some spontaneous occurance of nature? What is the cause of the spontanaeity in the first place? If you keep asking 'why', you will eventually get to something which neither you nor any scientist can answer. This is the miracle of human life.

Wicknight wrote:

And ....

in that case, you will never be satisfied.

Wicknight wrote:

I am actually quite happy at the moment thank you very much. :rolleyes:

I'm sure you think you are. I wonder what you'll be like when death is hanging over you on your death bed. What logical explanation will you come to then?

Wicknight wrote:

What? As opposed to the human "soul" ... Yeah cause thats well understood ... :rolleyes:

Logical explanation only gets you so far. Human reason is a gift from God and can get us to God, in the sense that human reason can find the fact of God's existence through rational argument such as the one we're having now.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes I am ... isn't that the point of this discussion?

You still have not even begun to address the arbitraryness of concsiousness being a prerequsite for human life.

Wicknight wrote:

Mate I don't even know what you mean when you say "life" ... at no stage in the entire process of sex, conception, feotus development and birth is anything dead or not alive.

Life in this context means human life. Lets differentiate between something that is living and human life. How about we detract for a moment, and talk specifically about human life and ponder 'Killing a foetus is not denying human life?' A sperm/egg is not a human life, nor will it ever grow into a human being. It is a living organism, yes, but cannot become human life until it meets an unfertilised egg. This is when human life begins, at the moment of conception, and I cannot understand why you cannot see this.

Wicknight wrote:

Actually yes there is, it just doesn't need, or involve, the idea of a "soul". As I pointed out (a few times) people were not killing each other long before the Judism/Christian churches invented concept of the "soul"

So why (assuming you reject the concept of soul) do you refrain from killing other men? Do you place some special value on human life over say the life of the cow that you ate in McDonalds?

Wicknight wrote:

Is what my justification?

Ok let me clarify what I was trying to get at. I am trying to ascertain if you value human life as special above that of cows, insects, plants etc. If the world we live in is some kind of continuom and human life is not special, then why not allow the killing of men just as we kill animal/plants on a daily basis? An extension to this is, why not justify the killing of unborn feotus's? Is this how you justify abortion?

AndyWarhol · 22-10-2005 12:04am

black_jack wrote:

Ah but foetus isn't created at the moment of conception. It's a collection of cells

And I'll ask you for links, not quotes. I'd curious to see the philsophical attitude a professor of law in Tenesse.

I'd also refer you to your quote

I've quoted them. Their names are beside each quote. I've laid the challenge. You do the research. You disprove me.

black_jack wrote:

You've provided, Five. Now either we have six doctors on the planet, or you can provide a link to support the almost all part.

No there are not 6 doctors on the planet: stop being ridiculous. Yes, I've provided 5 quotes. Again, the names are there and you can research away. I find it hard to believe that you're still trying to argue that human life does not begin at the moment of conception.

Vangelis · 22-10-2005 12:32am

AndyWarhol wrote:

..it is impossible to know when a foetus goes from non-person to person status

Yes, and that is why we should be careful with saying when we can and when we cannot kill/remove/exterminate the embryo/foetus.

I am a Christian, but I'm interested in discussing abortion from a humanistic view using scientific facts because it will give me greater understanding of life.

What if I said: DNA. The DNA is there from the conception, the very beginning, and will play a major role in developing the individual. All individuals. But we develop throughout our lives and we change, so who can say that DNA is the only thing that creates an individual? On the other hand, it gives a "framework" for the development of any individual. And without genes, you will have no characteristics, physical or mental. So the DNA is important for all life, it is an individual recipe, and each individual has its own UNIQUE genetic code which is there from the very beginning. This is to me a very valuable point to include. So: Would there be a person without genes? No.

This DNA isn't very visible, is it? No. But it exists and it will keep multiplying and specialising within the cells of the foetus. How can we then disregard the existence of this vital and significant substance?

One more thing... Seeing that there would be no person without genes is fine. So there must be social and environmental conditions that create OR influence a human individual through life. And so you can say that a person is not static: it changes - is dynamic. It seems that a person in this debate is depicted as a static, neverchanging creation. It is not. And we all know.

So if you think that the DNA is the beginning of an individual, a person indeed, and that the term person is too limited and cannot be defined - because then it is confined..

..how can you then justify abortion? Isn't dynamic development also part of personhood? How can you then define personhood as starting from so and so many weeks and ending when dead?

I hope I have expressed myself clearly enough.

Zombrex · 22-10-2005 12:51am

AndyWarhol wrote:

Can you tell me not only how, but why a sperm penetrates an egg exactly?

Yes because its designed by nature (evolution) to do just that.

AndyWarhol wrote:

If you keep asking 'why', you will eventually get to something which neither you nor any scientist can answer.

Not really, only if you assume there must be intelligence behind everything that happens in the universe. The truth is the universe manages quite fine without the need for intelligence reasoning behind every action.

AndyWarhol wrote:

in that case, you will never be satisfied.

Isn't that the point of science, and some would say the point of life, the continous exploration and attempt to understand of our universe? What would we do if we all had an answer to every question? Probably retire to Florida, grow oranges and wait to die :rolleyes:

AndyWarhol wrote:

I'm sure you think you are. I wonder what you'll be like when death is hanging over you on your death bed. What logical explanation will you come to then?

Well if death is hanging over my bed I would probably ask to be moved to a different bed ... fecking health service ... :rolleyes:

AndyWarhol wrote:

Human reason is a gift from God

If you say so ... who gave him his ability to reason btw?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Lets differentiate between something that is living and human life.

Please do, it is kinda the whole point of this discussion ...

AndyWarhol wrote:

A sperm/egg is not a human life, nor will it ever grow into a human being.

What is then? How many cells/organs/ etc do you need before a human cell containing human DNA turns into a human being. If a single cell sperm is not "human life" then why is a single cell zygote a "human life"?

AndyWarhol wrote:

It is a living organism, yes, but cannot become human life until it meets an unfertilised egg.

True and a zygote cannot become a fully formed human baby until aload of other stages are completed. Put it another way, if you killed a sperm and a female egg just before they were about to join are you committing abortion? You know they will develop into a feotus if left alone, but they are still just one sperm and one egg ... would it be any more less wrong to stop that happening than to say stop a zygote multipling, or the feotus attacting to the wall of the womb?

AndyWarhol wrote:

This is when human life begins, at the moment of conception, and I cannot understand why you cannot see this.

Well you haven't even properly attemped to define the term "human life" so it is hard to see what that is the start of something that isn't even defined ....

AndyWarhol wrote:

So why (assuming you reject the concept of soul) do you refrain from killing other men?

Because I believe it is morally wrong to do so, for a number of reasons, the primary one being I don't want anyone to kill me so I assume most other people don't want me to kill them either. And before you say it a feotus with no brain doesn't "want" anything for itself because it is not conscious of its own existance.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Do you place some special value on human life over say the life of the cow that you ate in McDonalds?

Yes, humans are conscious and self-aware.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Ok let me clarify what I was trying to get at. I am trying to ascertain if you value human life as special above that of cows, insects, plants etc.

It is, but not just because. It is for a number of reasons

AndyWarhol wrote:

Is this how you justify abortion?

I justify early term abortions because you are not killing a sentient conscious self aware entity you are killing a collection of human cells.

Zombrex · 22-10-2005 1:00am

Vangelis wrote:

What if I said: DNA. The DNA is there from the conception, the very beginning, and will play a major role in developing the individual.

It is also there before conception, in the sperm and egg cells of the parents, and for that matter in every cell in their body. You see the dust on the desk beside you. 90% of that is human skin, and every single skin cell in there contains the complete DNA makeup of you

Vangelis wrote:

How can you then define personhood as starting from so and so many weeks and ending when dead?

Because I define the fundamental characterist of a "person" to be their consciousness and personality. That is what is lost when someone dies. No one cries because a person loses a kidney, or has a finger chopped off (well they cry a little), because these are just cells and organs. But a person loses higher brain functions, even if every other organ in their body is still functioning we consider them as good as death.

The thing to remember is a zygote cell (the first cell that makes every other cell) is pretty much like every other cell in your body. But it isn't murder when your skin cells flake off and become dust, because you skin cells do not hold the qualities that we has humanity cherish and define ourselfs as. And i believe neither does a zygote cell.

AndyWarhol · 22-10-2005 2:11am

Wicknight wrote:

Yes because its designed by nature (evolution) to do just that.

So you see evolution as a way of interpreting the world around you. Interesting outlook.

Wicknight wrote:

Not really, only if you assume there must be intelligence behind everything that happens in the universe. The truth is the universe manages quite fine without the need for intelligence reasoning behind every action.

The way you look at life, I'd imagine that's what you'd conclude.

Wicknight wrote:

Isn't that the point of science, and some would say the point of life, the continous exploration and attempt to understand of our universe? What would we do if we all had an answer to every question? Probably retire to Florida, grow oranges and wait to die :rolleyes:

No, I would not say the point of life is continual questioning of what we can never know.

Wicknight wrote:

Well if death is hanging over my bed I would probably ask to be moved to a different bed ... fecking health service ... :rolleyes:

mmm.

Wicknight wrote:

If you say so ... who gave him his ability to reason btw?

You'll have to reason with him one day.

Wicknight wrote:

What is then? How many cells/organs/ etc do you need before a human cell containing human DNA turns into a human being. If a single cell sperm is not "human life" then why is a single cell zygote a "human life"?

Are you trying to suggest that if we selected the various atoms from the periodic table of elements, that we could some how contruct human life?

Wicknight wrote:

True and a zygote cannot become a fully formed human baby until aload of other stages are completed. Put it another way, if you killed a sperm and a female egg just before they were about to join are you committing abortion? You know they will develop into a feotus if left alone, but they are still just one sperm and one egg ... would it be any more less wrong to stop that happening than to say stop a zygote multipling, or the feotus attacting to the wall of the womb?

If the sperm does not enter the egg, life is not created. I'm sure lots of sperm reach the egg but just one of them suceeds in penetrating.

Wicknight wrote:

Well you haven't even properly attemped to define the term "human life" so it is hard to see what that is the start of something that isn't even defined ....

I have laid my cards on the table. You know that Catholics believe human life begins from the moment of conception. Now please address the arbitraryness of concsiousness as being a prerequsite for human life. You are human life, I am human life, a baby is human life, a 3rd trimester baby is human life, a 2nd trimester baby is human life (I hope we agree on all these). Now please tell me how a concieved foetus is not human life? You are saying it is not against the vast majority of medical opinion. How are they wrong?

Wicknight wrote:

Because I believe it is morally wrong to do so, for a number of reasons, the primary one being I don't want anyone to kill me so I assume most other people don't want me to kill them either. And before you say it a feotus with no brain doesn't "want" anything for itself because it is not conscious of its own existance.

Ah so you have morals. I'm glad to hear it, for otherwise you'd be locked up in prison. You say you don't want other people to kill you. What if someone decided one day to kill you in the womb? This would be immoral according to your framework as you place special empasis on the life of humans. How do you know a feotus does not want (as you put it) to be killed? Maybe because you can't remember being a foetus?

Wicknight wrote:

It is, but not just because. It is for a number of reasons

Interesting. I'd love to know the reasons why you value human life above all other forms.

Wicknight wrote:

I justify early term abortions because you are not killing a sentient conscious self aware entity you are killing a collection of human cells.

You're talking as if conception were somehow an idea of mankind and makes perfect scientific sense. Getting back to my combustion engine analogy, it works, nobody can say fundamentally why it works, it just does. The same can be said for the conception of a child, there are mechanisms to its taking place, but nobody can explain fundamentally why it occurs. The engine operating is miraculous, so too is the child being concieved. The fact that we place special emphasis on human life, is what makes the meeting of the egg and the sperm such a miraculous wonder of nature.

black_jack · 22-10-2005 2:14am

AndyWarhol wrote:

I've quoted them. Their names are beside each quote. I've laid the challenge. You do the research. You disprove me.

You've provided names and quotes you've not provided context, links, or where you drew them from, or anything of the sort you've not provided a single verivible link to prove your assertion. All you've done is provided a series of unsubstaniated quotes. I'd like to know where these quotes came from and what context. Something I've stated since my first post and something you've ignored.

No there are not 6 doctors on the planet: stop being ridiculous. Yes, I've provided 5 quotes. Again, the names are there and you can research away. I find it hard to believe that you're still trying to argue that human life does not begin at the moment of conception.

No, and thats not my argument I'm asking you to prove your comment. Waving at the internet after you make an claim and saying "meh you prove it", is just pathetic

if I told you that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. You'd find it hard to find a credible and reputable doctor/scientist who will say otherwise.

No you've claimed that pretty much every doctor on the planet agrees with you, therefore the onus is on you to prove that assertion.

If I claimed that the majority of doctors on this planet thought that granite rocks were a good source of calcium for growing children, and when you challenged my assertion, I demanded that you prove that I was lying, that'd be bull****.

You've made the assertion that the majority of doctors on this planet agree than human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, then it is up to you to prove your assertion. You've failed to do so.

I'm not arguing that human life begins at conception, you are, demanding that I go and prove your research is lazy shoddy pathetic arguing, and exposing your inability to make a point.

nesf · 22-10-2005 2:31am

AndyWarhol wrote:

So you see evolution as a way of interpreting the world around you. Interesting outlook.

Um you do realise that the whole sperm egg thing isn't unique to humans and that it happens with a lot of other species don't you?

black_jack · 22-10-2005 2:44am

nesf wrote:

Um you do realise that the whole sperm egg thing isn't unique to humans and that it happens with a lot of other species don't you?

He can't here you he's listening to the greatest hits of the "La's"

AndyWarhol · 22-10-2005 2:45am

black_jack wrote:

You've provided names and quotes you've not provided context, links, or where you drew them from, or anything of the sort you've not provided a single verivible link to prove your assertion. All you've done is provided a series of unsubstaniated quotes. I'd like to know where these quotes came from and what context. Something I've stated since my first post and something you've ignored.

I made the claim that

AndyWarhol wrote:

You won't be convinced by what the Church says so how about if I told you that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. You'd find it hard to find a credible and reputable doctor/scientist who will say otherwise.

You responded with

black_jack wrote:

Then I'm sure you'll find it very easy to find a plethora of sources to back up your claim.

I gave you five quotes that I have collected over the last while with along with name and place of work/study of the respective doctor/scientist.

Are you finding it hard to find a reputable doctor/scientist to say otherwise?

How about I give you a few more, fully referenceable links (unbiased, not ripped off godhatesabortionists.com as you might like to think). Will this satisfy your academic rigour?

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.
Quote: "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
Quote: ""In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic"

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
Quote: ""Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

black_jack wrote:

No, and thats not my argument I'm asking you to prove your comment. Waving at the internet after you make an claim and saying "meh you prove it", is just pathetic

I've more than met your challenge. I'd love to know how you deduce that human life does not begin at the moment of conception.

black_jack wrote:

No you've claimed that pretty much every doctor on the planet agrees with you, therefore the onus is on you to prove that assertion.

See above links.

black_jack wrote:

If I claimed that the majority of doctors on this planet thought that granite rocks were a good source of calcium for growing children, and when you challenged my assertion, I demanded that you prove that I was lying, that'd be bull****.

You've made the assertion that the majority of doctors on this planet agree than human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, then it is up to you to prove your assertion. You've failed to do so.

I'm claiming that the vast majority of reputable doctors agree that human life begins at the moment of conception. I backed up this with 5 quotes. I've given you another 3 of greater rigour. Ball's in your court.

black_jack wrote:

I'm not arguing that human life begins at conception, you are, demanding that I go and prove your research is lazy shoddy pathetic arguing, and exposing your inability to make a point.

Well this is an abortion debate. We've come to the point where some will tolerate abortion only 'in the early stages'. I would have thought the moment of conception was crucial to the question of whether such killings were not actually killings?

You did make the outrageous claim:

black_jack wrote:

Ah but foetus isn't created at the moment of conception. It's a collection of cells

I'd like you see how you can justify this stance.

black_jack · 22-10-2005 2:58am

AndyWarhol wrote:

I made the claim that
You responded with
I gave you five quotes that I have collected over the last while with along with name and place of work/study of the respective doctor/scientist.

Are you finding it hard to find a reputable doctor/scientist to say otherwise?

How about I give you a few more, fully referenceable links (unbiased, not ripped off godhatesabortionists.com as you might like to think). Will this satisfy your academic rigour?

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.
Quote: "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
Quote: ""In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic"

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
Quote: ""Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

I've more than met your challenge. I'd love to know how you deduce that human life does not begin at the moment of conception.

See above links.

Those aren't links, I want to know the site the above came off, where are you references

I'm claiming that the vast majority of reputable doctors agree that human life begins at the moment of conception. I backed up this with 5 quotes. I've given you another 3 of greater rigour. Ball's in your court.

No it's not.

You've now got eight. This isn't

Andy Warhol wrote:

if I told you that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. You'd find it hard to find a credible and reputable doctor/scientist who will say otherwise.

Every doctor.

You've again not provided the link for the above quotes and you've not provided a link for the almost all doctors

Well this is an abortion debate. We've come to the point where some will tolerate abortion only 'in the early stages'. I would have thought the moment of conception was crucial to the question of whether such killings were not actually killings?

Well the medicial debate a foetus is a foetus is created at the 8th week, so what is it before then?

I mean what is the difference between a condom, the mornining
after pill, and a early term abortion?

I mean andy, you've never provided a single example to prove your claim about all (most) doctors believe life begins at conception

You did make the outrageous claim:

I'd like you see how you can justify this stance.

This claim?

Ah but foetus isn't created at the moment of conception. It's a collection of cells

It's not an outrageous claim it's a medical fact.

In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed), until birth. Fetus, in Latin, literally means 'young one'. When speaking in the most rational of terms, a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetus

AndyWarhol · 22-10-2005 3:17am

black_jack wrote:

Those aren't links, I want to know the site the above came off, where are you references

No it's not.

You've now got eight. This isn't

Every doctor.

You've again not provided the link for the above quotes and you've not provided a link for the almost all doctors

Well the medicial debate a foetus is a foetus is created at the 8th week, so what is it before then?

I mean what is the difference between a condom, the mornining
after pill, and a early term abortion?

I mean andy, you've never provided a single example to prove your claim about all (most) doctors believe life begins at conception

This claim?

It's not an outrageous claim it's a medical fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetus

Oh dear, I'm laughing out loud at that response.

First of all the references I gave you above are from actual medical text books from highly reputable publishing houses. They are academic references, not arbitrary websites that can change over time.

I never claimed that all doctors claimed abortion begins at the moment of conception (as you incorrectly point out), although you'll find it hard to find many.

Ok, foetus may be 8 weeks, perhaps I should have said zygote?

The difference between a condom, the morning after pill and abortion?! Is this one of those verbal reasoning tests for spotting the odd one out? Lots of issues there mate. In summary, Condom=contraception, pill=poisoning a foetus, abortion=killing foetus.

I've given you 3 medical text book examples above. If you don't want to address the point nor the references, then don't. I can therefore conclude that you can't/are incapable/won't address the issue.

Wikipedia!? Are you joking? It's 3 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Have you been drinking or something? Have you ever looked up homosexual, free mason, feminist, KKK on wikipedia? Wikipedia is a battle ground for rival extremist groups with the definition of what you looked up in the first place changing like the weather particularly with regards highly sensitive topics such as abortion. I don't think I'd be quoting from Wikipedia now were I submitting my ethics thesis.

black_jack · 22-10-2005 3:34am

AndyWarhol wrote:

Oh dear, I'm laughing out loud at that response.

First of all the references I gave you above are from actual medical text books from highly reputable publishing houses. They are academic references, not arbitrary websites that can change over time.

Then you'll be able to provide references to where you garnered those quotes.

I never claimed that all doctors claimed abortion begins at the moment of conception (as you incorrectly point out), although you'll find it hard to find many.

Shift the goal post much? I never said you said all, I pointed out your claim,

if I told you that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. You'd find it hard to find a credible and reputable doctor/scientist who will say otherwise.

You've yet to provide a single post to support your claim almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg

Ok, foetus may be 8 weeks, perhaps I should have said zygote?

Well there is a world of difference

A zygote is

A zygote (Greek: ζυγωτόν) is a cell that is the result of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells—usually (but not always) a sperm cell from a male and an ovum from a female—merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote (or zygocyte).

while a foetus is

In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed), until birth. Fetus, in Latin, literally means 'young one'. When speaking in the most rational of terms, a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.

If you're going to start asking us when the deinition of life occurs the onus is on you to support your claim. But hey you like making incoherant unsubstantitated claims.

The difference between a condom, the morning after pill and abortion?! Is this one of those verbal reasoning tests for spotting the odd one out? Lots of issues there mate. In summary, Condom=contraception, pill=poisoning a foetus, abortion=killing foetus.

Ah but you claim. life begins at conception so why is there any confusion for you? You've already admited some confusion between a zygote and conception. So you're okay with terminations before the first eight weeks? Why?

I've given you 3 medical text book examples above. If you don't want to address the point nor the references, then don't. I can therefore conclude that you can't/are incapable/won't address the issue.

No you've claimed most doctors agree with you the onus is on you to support your assertion. Otherwise, I submit the majority of doctors submit Andy Warhol rapes donkeys, and the onus is on you to discredit this claim.

Wikipedia!? Are you joking? It's 3 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Have you been drinking or something? Have you ever looked up homosexual, free mason, feminist, KKK on wikipedia? Wikipedia is a battle ground for rival extremist groups with the definition of what you looked up in the first place changing like the weather particularly with regards highly sensitive topics such as abortion. I don't think I'd be quoting from Wikipedia now were I submitting my ethics thesis.

I've got Wiki, you've not provided a single link to support your claims yet you're refuting mine? In fact you've gone two days without a reputable link to support your claims yet refute mine? Christ theres something about he who without sin cast the first something, but it's, damn, i had it, maybe i'll get it back.....

nesf · 22-10-2005 3:51am

AndyWarhol wrote:

First of all the references I gave you above are from actual medical text books from highly reputable publishing houses. They are academic references, not arbitrary websites that can change over time.

Really? Your understanding of academics, and science in particular, is lacking if you think that anything published in an academic textbook is true and without bias. Throwing up academic sources is easy, do you have either the knowledge or training to say you understand what is being discussed? Or the possible biases involved?

Are you a doctor or medical researcher? Do you know what a respected publishing house is in that field? Do you know the academic record of the writers? Were they well recognised for contributions to the field? How many peer-reviewed articles have they published on it in respected journals? Hmm?

Apologies for being harsh, but I get annoyed when I see people throwing up cherry picked "academic sources" while showing that they've little to no understanding of the field. Plus, if you knew much about medicine and science, then you would know that this question is something that neither medicine or science have no good answer for. It isn't even a particularily well phrased question in the first place. What defines human? More importanly, what defines humanity in a measureable and consistent fashion? It's easy to pick a side of the fence and sit on it and many people in science and medicine have done this. This does not make either side any more right than the other.

I agree that websites can be poor sources but you are overestimating your own. It is quite easy to find academic sources for either side of this debate. Whether one chooses to look at a foetus as human or not is a very subjective manner. What is the criteria? A member of the Homo Sapien species would probably be the most sensible one in my mind. Then there's the question of where the line is drawn between conception and birth regarding where we award membership of that species.

Personally, I like the idea of viability as being a good starting point to build an argument from. You can expand in either direction from it if you so wish.

AndyWarhol wrote:

Wikipedia!? Are you joking? It's 3 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Have you been drinking or something? Have you ever looked up homosexual, free mason, feminist, KKK on wikipedia? Wikipedia is a battle ground for rival extremist groups with the definition of what you looked up in the first place changing like the weather particularly with regards highly sensitive topics such as abortion. I don't think I'd be quoting from Wikipedia now were I submitting my ethics thesis.

Wikipedia has it's uses. I would be slow to dismiss it absolutely.

It's validity here is questionable. It's as questionable as your references above. The only way to know either information is reliable would be to have enough knowledge of the field to be able to understand whats been said. If you did know that then you would have a plethora of references to choose from.

Although, tbh, I don't think any of this is worth saying to you. You seem impervious to reason or common sense.

AndyWarhol · 22-10-2005 3:55am

black_jack wrote:

Then you'll be able to provide references to where you garnered those quotes.

I have given you references to three medical text books. Comprende?

black_jack wrote:

Shift the goal post much? I never said you said all, I pointed out your claim,

You've yet to provide a single post to support your claim almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg

As you point out, I've stated that almost all doctors agree that human life begins at the moment of conception. This is what I said. Who are you to say otherwise?

black_jack wrote:

Well there is a world of difference

A zygote is

blah, blah, blah...

while a foetus is

blah, blah, blah...

If you're going to start asking us when the deinition of life occurs the onus is on you to support your claim. But hey you like making incoherant unsubstantitated claims.

What unsubstantiated claim might that be? That I should have used the word zygote instead of foetus? Anyway they're both human and I don't think the essence of my argument was affected. Stop being so pedantic.

black_jack wrote:

Ah but you claim. life begins at conception so why is there any confusion for you? You've already admited some confusion between a zygote and conception. So you're okay with terminations before the first eight weeks? Why?

What are you talking about?! Have you read what I have been saying? Excuse me, but where did I say I was 'okay with terminations before the first eight weeks'?

black_jack wrote:

No you've claimed most doctors agree with you the onus is on you to support your assertion. Otherwise, I submit the majority of doctors submit Andy Warhol **** ^^^^, and the onus is on you to discredit this claim.

To address your analogy with one of my own: I submit that the majority of doctors agree that human life begins at the moment of conception, I give three references, the onus is on you! to discredit this claim. Are you sure you're not drinking or taking something else?

black_jack wrote:

I've got Wiki, you've not provided a single link to support your claims yet you're refuting mine? In fact you've gone two days without a reputable link to support your claims yet refute mine? Christ theres something about he who without sin cast the first something, but it's, damn, i had it, maybe i'll get it back.....

I'll tell you what. Why don't you look up 'Zygote' on Wikipedia. You will read about 10 lines down that

Wikipedia) wrote:

(as at 22nd October 2005, 3:50 am)
The vast majority of reputable medical opinion concurrs that the human zygote, from the moment of conception, is human life in its earliest form.

(and no, I didn't put this here)

AndyWarhol · 22-10-2005 4:27am

nesf wrote:

Really? Your understanding of academics, and science in particular, is lacking if you think that anything published in an academic textbook is true and without bias. Throwing up academic sources is easy, do you have either the knowledge or training to say you understand what is being discussed? Or the possible biases involved?

Tell you what right? Seeing nobody here wants to do the research for themselves, why doesn't somebody type in the book titles into google (or amazon) and see what they come up with.

The point about bias is understandable. The references are popular medical texts and were there strong bias, I seriously doubt they'd be used extensively in their fields/used much.

nesf wrote:

Are you a doctor or medical researcher? Do you know what a respected publishing house is in that field? Do you know the academic record of the writers? Were they well recognised for contributions to the field? How many peer-reviewed articles have they published on it in respected journals? Hmm?

No I'm not a medical researcher nor a doctor. Do I somehow not have an opinion all of a sudden? If you'd like to know about the background of the respective writers, why don't you find out for yourself. It's all there on the amazon site. Perhaps you'll spot something?

nesf wrote:

Apologies for being harsh, but I get annoyed when I see people throwing up cherry picked "academic sources" while showing that they've little to no understanding of the field. Plus, if you knew much about medicine and science, then you would know that this question is something that neither medicine or science have no good answer for. It isn't even a particularily well phrased question in the first place. What defines human? More importanly, what defines humanity in a measureable and consistent fashion? It's easy to pick a side of the fence and sit on it and many people in science and medicine have done this. This does not make either side any more right than the other.

If you get annoyed, then disprove them. btw I've a master of science degree. Science does not have an answer for the moral issue that is abortion, it does say, however, that human life begins from the moment of conception. Who are you to say otherwise?

nesf wrote:

I agree that websites can be poor sources but you are overestimating your own. It is quite easy to find academic sources for either side of this debate. Whether one chooses to look at a foetus as human or not is a very subjective manner. What is the criteria? A member of the Homo Sapien species would probably be the most sensible one in my mind. Then there's the question of where the line is drawn between conception and birth regarding where we award membership of that species.

I'm really getting sick of justifying my sources when they've yet to be disproved, indeed addressed. I'd really prefer if people just addressed the point.

Interesting that you define human life as a being a member of the homo sapien species. You have some arbitrary cut-off point then that decides when one foetus is a homo sapien and the other is not? Interesting. Perhaps you can say more on this?

nesf wrote:

Personally, I like the idea of viability as being a good starting point to build an argument from. You can expand in either direction from it if you so wish.

Viablity? Viabliity is about the capability for life, development, or growing under favorable conditions. All zygotes are capable of becoming foetus's-babies-children-adolescents-adults, to deny them this is murder.

nesf wrote:

Wikipedia has it's uses. I would be slow to dismiss it absolutely.

Good for info-tainment. That's about it. As I said, I wouldn't go referencing from it in my ethics thesis (were I writing one).

nesf wrote:

It's validity here is questionable. It's as questionable as your references above. The only way to know either information is reliable would be to have enough knowledge of the field to be able to understand whats been said. If you did know that then you would have a plethora of references to choose from.

My references questionable? What kind of questions?

nesf wrote:

Although, tbh, I don't think any of this is worth saying to you. You seem impervious to reason or common sense.

I'll tell you what I certainly am impervious to: that is, the notion that killing a baby in the womb is some how, not murder. This is a warped reasoning and certainly makes no common sense as far as I can see.

Abortion is murder

Comments