Legalise abortion

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is why I said "the right environments". Humans need the right environment to survive - we get hardier as we grow older, but ultimately without oxygen, water and food, you'll find that we don't survive very long even as adults.

This is also the case with a foetus; all it needs is the environment. It's not even dependant on the mother if another environment can be found (e.g. a surrogate), and genetically it is independent, as is it's development.

Explain how that is different for an egg/sperm pair?

The Corinthian wrote: »

No I meant what is the difference between a person and a corpse or some random human meat? Unless you can do that, then all you are proffering is a fuzzy definition of a 'person' and asking people to take your word on it.

A human corpse has ceased all biological functions,a human being has not.

metrovelvet wrote: »

No,evidently not.

Well luckily I'm here to teach you.

You can't define a human being as the thing that is a human being, which is what both you and RepublicanEagle are doing

Wicknight wrote: »

Brilliant, what is a human being

A human being is a living member of the human race,be they man,woman or infant.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well luckily I'm here to teach you.

You can't define a human being as the thing that is a human being, which is what both you and RepublicanEagle are doing

Thats fantastic. How exactly does that serve to progress the topic? Or is your intention simply to disrupt the thread?

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

A human being is a living member of the human race,be they man,woman or infant.

Ok, is a brain dead patient kept alive on life support a human being, and thus it is murder to kill him?

Is a sperm (which is a living cell and a member of the human species) a human being, and thus it is murder to kill it?

Zulu wrote: »

Thats fantastic. How exactly does that serve to progress the topic? Or is your intention simply to disrupt the thread?

You don't think people stopping for a second, having a bit of a think, and coming back with a definition of human being that isn't either complete nonsense (because it includes things like dead people) or completely circular (because it is defined based on itself, ie a human being is someone who is a human being), wouldn't progress the topic?

Wicknight wrote: »

You don't think people stopping for a second, having a bit of a think, and coming back with a definition of human being that isn't either complete nonsense or completely circular, wouldn't progress the topic?

It's completly circular when people demand they do as opposed to offering them the benifit of not have to do so.
If you require a concise defination, I suggest you provide it to prevent a circular argument.

Unless the intention is to wait in the long grass for an unworthy defination, and then attempt to discredit any salient point on the back of that?

<edit>Is it? I hope not.</edit>

Wicknight wrote: »

Well luckily I'm here to teach you.

You can't define a human being as the thing that is a human being, which is what both you and RepublicanEagle are doing

Thanks but no thanks.

Zulu wrote: »

It's completly circular when people demand they do as opposed to offering them the benifit of not have to do so.
If you require a concise defination, I suggest you provide it to prevent a circular argument.

Unless the intention is to wait in the long grass for an unworthy defination, and then attempt to discredit any salient point on the back of that?

<edit>Is it? I hope not.</edit>

I'm the one being shouted at for being a child murderer by people who can't seem to even figure out what exactly they are upset about ... I know exactly my own definition of a human being, so far no one has asked for it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, is a brain dead patient kept alive on life support a human being, and thus it is murder to kill him?

We are discussing abortion,not medical patients in a vegetative state,that is a completely different topic.Stay on topic.

Wicknight wrote: »

Is a sperm (which is a living cell and a member of the human species) a human being, and thus it is murder to kill it?

????? PMSL

Ahem..........I suggest you google Sexual Reproduction.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm the one being shouted at for being a child murderer by people who can't seem to even figure out what exactly they are upset about ... I know exactly my own definition of a human being, so far no one has asked for it.

Who has called you a child murderer,stop with the theatrics.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm the one being shouted at for being a child murderer by people who can't seem to even figure out what exactly they are upset about ... I know exactly my own definition of a human being, so far no one has asked for it.

You're the only one equating **** with having an abortion.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

We are discussing abortion,not medical patients in a vegetative state,that is a completely different topic.Stay on topic.

No, we are discussing your definition of what a human being is, and why it has rights.

Are you saying that your definition only applies to fetuses?

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Ahem..........I suggest you google Sexual Reproduction.

I suggestion you Google "biological process"

Or perhaps you want to explain to me at what point the sperm is either not human or not a biological chemical reaction (ie dead)

nicola09

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

We are discussing abortion,not medical patients in a vegetative state,that is a completely different topic.Stay on topic.

????? PMSL

Ahem..........I suggest you google Sexual Reproduction.

A sperm is a gamete therefore it contains only half of the genetic information required to form a "human being" as pro-life people call it, or a zygote as pro-choice people/biologists would prefer. I prefer to err on the side of zygote myself as I'm of the opinion that it takes more than biological factors to constitute classifying something as a "human being". But then again, it is a universally contested concept.:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

Explain how that is different for an egg/sperm pair?

Already have. A sperm will never become a functional human being under normal circumstances and in any environment. Neither will an egg. Ever.

Fused together they might, but we're not discussing that, we are discussing what these things are in themselves.

Zulu wrote: »

Unless the intention is to wait in the long grass for an unworthy defination, and then attempt to discredit any salient point on the back of that?

He's actually only doing what I did earlier to Nozz, who was coming forward with a very fuzzy and contradictory definition of a 'person', and in fairness I think he is right to do so.

The problem with topics such as abortion is people tend not to think them through, and so we end up with emotive cliché's that don't stand up to much testing.

Simply saying that a person is a biological entity is insufficient, as this covers someone who is brain dead and on life support - just as much as Nozz's earlier arguments that a person is defined by their ability to conceive rights, as it would not cover infants.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You're the only one equating **** with having an abortion.

Well yes, that is the point.

People work hard to define a human being as the zygote but not the sperm/egg pair, yet they end up doing this by coming up with some arbitrary and completely irrelevant reason.

Pointing out that no one cares if you kill the sperm/egg pair a millisecond before conception simply highlights the flaw in this thinking.

Biological the are simply different stages of the same long process. At no point is a sperm or egg not alive and to say they can't grown on their own is irrelevant since nature never meant them to be on their own.

The sperm/egg pair are the first two cells of a new life form.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Already have. A sperm will never become a functional human being under normal circumstances and in any environment. Neither will an egg. Ever.

How did we get here then?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fused together they might, but we're not discussing that, we are discussing what these things are in themselves.

But you can't discuss what these thing are in themselves without discussing what they can do. A zygote is after all just a clump of carbon and water. Surely it is what it can do that is important, rather than what it is at that specific moment.

This is the bit I don't get.

People seem to remove all of natures machinery from the sperm/egg scenario and treat them simply for what they are at that specific moment.

Yet they do the exact opposite when discussing a zygote.

A sperm is not a homo sapiens. Neither is an egg. A homo sapiens is a species, ours, part of the animal kingdom.

metrovelvet wrote: »

A sperm is not a homo sapiens. Neither is an egg. A homo sapiens is a species, ours, part of the animal kingdom.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

People seem to remove all of natures machinery from the sperm/egg scenario and treat them simply for what they are at that specific moment.

Yet they do the exact opposite when discussing a zygote.

That is simply because a zygote is the first point genetically when we have a genetically separate individual, which should go on to maturity only given the right environment. It stops being part of an existing person and genetically becomes one in its own right.

Wicknight wrote: »

I know exactly my own definition of a human being, so far no one has asked for it.

I just have; care to share this then, in the interests of progressing the topic?

It seems to me, perfectly clear, that no one has a problem destroying sperm. Some people do however have a problem destroying fertilised eggs. Why then derail the topic with discussing that which no one has a problem with? Because someone hasn't the ability to articulate a definition to your own standards is hardly cause to derail a topic?

The topic is abortion, some people have a problem with this as a form of contraception - others don't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that’s the crux of the issue. Why not address that directly?

And, yes, I know – if one can convince another that a foetus isn’t an actual person at 5 weeks through rhetoric & superior logic, and then they’ll accept abortion. Surely. Huzzah. Except that won’t happen, will it? If a person has decided that a foetus is a person, you won’t convince them through prose otherwise, because they are correct. That foetus, given the right environment, will become a person.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is simply because a zygote is the first point genetically when we have a genetically separate individual, which should go on to maturity only given the right environment. It stops being part of an existing person and genetically becomes one in its own right.

Two points with that.

If it wasn't genetically different we would still say it is a new human being. For example if I cloned a new person from one of my stem cells this human would have the exact same DNA as me, yet we would not consider that life form to be the same as me.

Because of this I cannot see unique DNA as having any bearing on individuality. Plenty of species don't mix up their DNA, and thus their children are genetic clones of their parents.

Secondly both the sperm and the egg (but particularly the sperm) are designed, by evolution, to survive independently of the parent. They are not simply part of the existing person. They are cells that break off and form a new being.

Some seem to want to treat the sperm/egg in this journey as if they are in some kind of limbo period, not dead but not alive. I think that is greatly misjudged. They are doing what they have designed to do. which is join with each other and continue growing. Not start growing, but continue growing.

If you think of asexual reproduction the "new" life form is the first cell that breaks of from the "old" life form. Sexual reproduction is simply a refinement of this process where a mix up of genetic material is introduced from a second cell. But the process is very similar. I don't see a reason to consider the sperm and egg part of the parent while zygote isn't, or not a new life form but the zygote is.

Hope that explains my point of view with regard to the sperm and egg. I don't think killing a sperm is destroying a person but then neither do I think destroying the zygote is either.

Zulu wrote: »

I just have; care to share this then, in the interests of progressing the topic?

I define a "human being" or a "person" as the neurological patterns of their brain.

Zulu wrote: »

It seems to me, perfectly clear, that no one has a problem destroying sperm. Some people do however have a problem destroying fertilised eggs. Why then derail the topic with discussing that which no one has a problem with?

What sort of a nonsense argument is that?

Zulu wrote: »

And, yes, I know – if one can convince another that a foetus isn’t an actual person at 5 weeks through rhetoric & superior logic, and then they’ll accept abortion. Surely. Huzzah. Except that won’t happen, will it? If a person has decided that a foetus is a person, you won’t convince them through prose otherwise, because they are correct.

Well Batman with rock solid logic like that I wonder if there is any point trying to engage you in debate, your skills are far superior to mine :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

If it wasn't genetically different we would still say it is a new human being. For example if I cloned a new person from one of my stem cells this human would have the exact same DNA as me, yet we would not consider that life form to be the same as me.

An interesting point in that it raises questions on whether in the future one could own one own's clone. Nonetheless, this cannot happen outside of clones (or twins), and the answer of what differentiates a zygote from an egg or sperm remains the same.

Secondly both the sperm and the egg (but particularly the sperm) are designed, by evolution, to survive independently of the parent. They are not simply part of the existing person. They are cells that break off and form a new being.

Yes, but on their own, they will never develop into a new person. A sperm (again outside of science fiction) will not develop full genetic code and grow to become an adult unless it fuses with an egg and becomes a zygote.

If you think of asexual reproduction the "new" life form is the first cell that breaks of from the "old" life form. Sexual reproduction is simply a refinement of this process where a mix up of genetic material is introduced from a second cell. But the process is very similar. I don't see a reason to consider the sperm and egg part of the parent while zygote isn't, or not a new life form but the zygote is.

The process may be very similar, but that does not mean that it is the same. We ultimately do not reproduce asexually and both inputs are needed before the new genetic code is complete.

Hope that explains my point of view with regard to the sperm and egg. I don't think killing a sperm is destroying a person but then neither do I think destroying the zygote is either.

Destroying the zygote may not be destroying a person, but not for any reasons you have raised so far, from what I can see. The definition for a person I gave earlier is, AFAIK the best one out there to describe where - at least biologically an independent human being first forms in theory. I'd prefer a better, cleaner definition, but every other definition I've ever encountered relies far too heavily on fuzzy philosophy and caveats.

Of course, just because it is a person, does not automatically mean abortion is immoral, but that is another discussion, which given the political importance of defining a foetus as a person or not, we are unlikely to ever get to.

wk-Why wouldnt a clone replica of you have the same rights as you?

Wicknight wrote: »

I define a "human being" or a "person" as the neurological patterns of their brain.

So anything with a neurological pattern is human? No?

What sort of a nonsense argument is that? ... Well Batman with rock solid logic like that I wonder if there is any point trying to engage you in debate, your skills are far superior to mine :rolleyes:

Fine, ignore the salient point, and derail the thread. You can never have enough circular threads on abortion. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

An interesting point in that it raises questions on whether in the future one could own one own's clone. Nonetheless, this cannot happen outside of clones (or twins), and the answer of what differentiates a zygote from an egg or sperm remains the same.

Well lots of things about the physical structure of a sperm or egg differentiate it from a zygote, as a zygote is physically different to an embryo.

The question is why are those differences more significant in terms of classifying a new life form or a human being

The idea that it has separate genetic material doesn't stand up because plenty of species reproduce without producing separate genetic material and we consider them distinct life forms, and because this is even possible with humans in the form of cloning and I don't think anyone, if they thought about it, would consider two human clones the same being

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, but on their own, they will never develop into a new person.

But again to me that is irrelevant, since they are not designed to be "on their own".

I think it is as pointless to look at the sperm and egg individually as it is to look at two embryonic cells individually. The sperm and egg that produced you were not "on their own", that is in fact how you were produced.

But would anyone consider destroying both the sperm/egg pairing a fraction of a second before conception to be murdering a child?

Humans have this desire for things to be neat and easy to understand. We find the zygote easy to view because it is one thing. We find the idea of the sperm/egg pairing as a "life form" less easy because they are not physically attached to each other. And to us "individuals" are single blobs of stuff.

But nature doesn't make this distinction, it is a human enforced concept. Nature doesn't give a rats ass.

If you view life as a series of very complex chemical reactions (which is basically is) at no point does this process stop. Where we choose to assign "This is a life" or "This is not a life" is rather arbitrary. And we force this on nature, rather than looking at what nature is telling us.

Zulu wrote: »

So anything with a neurological pattern is human? No?

No. Perhaps you should read my definition again

Zulu wrote: »

Fine, ignore the salient point, and derail the thread.

Your point was I can't win the argument because I'm wrong.

Like I said with logic skills like that you should be out solving crimes :rolleyes: