Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Legalise abortion

1…1718202223…40

Comments

  • #572
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Wicknight wrote: »
    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
    Of course the idea that it has separate (more correctly 'unique') genetic material is not what is important to the definition, which I already gave is that under normal circumstances and in the right environments develop to become a functional and distinct Homo Sapien. It does not need to fuse with anything else and can do so in itself, and while it may need a uterus for a while, any uterus-like environment will do.

    You'll note no mention of unique DNA there - the only reason I raised unique DNA is that with humans this is what marks the difference between possessing that individuality to develop and not.

    If we go into the realms of xenobiology and science fiction and consider human cloning and human asexual reproduction, then unique genetic material would no longer cut the mustard, but it would make no difference to my original definition.
    But again to me that is irrelevant, since they are not designed to be "on their own".
    Kind of my point.
    But would anyone consider destroying both the sperm/egg pairing a fraction of a second before conception to be murdering a child?
    Logically not. To murder you need to kill somebody. If that somebody does not exist yet, then I don't think that is possible. Then again who knows - if you went back in time and prevented Stalin's mother from meeting his father, would you be guilty of Stalin's murder?
    But nature doesn't make this distinction, it is a human enforced concept. Nature doesn't give a rats ass.
    Sure, but so is morality, as best as I know. We can just throw that out the window too and adopt a view similar to femalemarxist's then?

    I understand where you are coming from, but I've never said this was a definitive definition, only the best one I have come across to date. Every other definition I've ever encountered either falls into vague philosophical concepts of sentience that require multiple caveats, without which we would be exterminating anyone with an IQ under 80, and/or biological definitions that have been constructed to facilitate abortion rather than to define humanity.

    The question is when does a human become individual? The best answer is when they start on the developmental road of becoming one without any outside dependencies (bar the right environments). As long as you can keep a zygote alive, it will become an adult human. It needs no additional genetic material, not even either of its two progenitors, only an environment to survive. As an infant it will require another environment, as a child another again, until adulthood. However, it will automatically, and without any additional interference develop if it has those environments. Sperm, an egg, an elbow, and so on, will never develop in this manner (unless we become like earthworms, in which case we would need to reassess the morality of amputations).

    In effect, the zygote the point at which it becomes an individual. It might be an incredibly primitive individual, but one nonetheless.


  • #573
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Of course the idea that it has separate (more correctly 'unique') genetic material is not what is important to the definition, which I already gave is that under normal circumstances and in the right environments develop to become a functional and distinct Homo Sapien. It does not need to fuse with anything else and can do so in itself, and while it may need a uterus for a while, any uterus-like environment will do.

    You'll note no mention of unique DNA there - the only reason I raised unique DNA is that with humans this is what marks the difference between possessing that individuality to develop and not.

    Sorry I got confused by the "fuse with something else" part, I thought that was a reference to the unique DNA.

    See I wouldn't consider the egg or sperm to be "something else". If you think of the egg and sperm as a single "thing", simply separated by distance, then conception is simply a rather exotic form of cell division.


    The sperm/egg pair don't need anything else, but they do need each other.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Logically not. To murder you need to kill somebody. If that somebody does not exist yet, then I don't think that is possible.

    That wasn't quite my point. My point is people considering the sperm/egg pairing as a single thing when they fuse, but is it not equally logical to consider them a single thing a second before they fuse?

    Instead of just considering the sperm on its own, or the egg on its own, consider the sperm/egg pairing together. What is the difference between that pair before and after conception if the point is that a human being is a self sustaining entity.

    The sperm/egg pair are together self sustaining. So are they, together, not a human being?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    As long as you can keep a zygote alive, it will become an adult human.

    Do you not agree though that as long as you keep a sperm and egg pair alive, and the machinery of nature works as it is supposed to, it will become an adult human?


  • #574
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    WK,

    I didn't make head or tales of your penultimate post.

    But a clone of you would have the same rights as you. No reason why he wouldn't.


  • #575
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That wasn't quite my point. My point is people considering the sperm/egg pairing as a single thing when they fuse, but is it not equally logical to consider them a single thing a second before they fuse?
    Hence my Stalin example. If we know that life will form with certainty, then I suppose we are committing some form of homicide.
    Instead of just considering the sperm on its own, or the egg on its own, consider the sperm/egg pairing together. What is the difference between that pair before and after conception if the point is that a human being is a self sustaining entity.
    We're attempting to define an individual though, not a pair. As individual entities they will never become human adults regardless of the environment. Post fertilization, egg and sperm cease to be and are replaced by a new, single entity which will become a human adult with the right environments.


  • #576
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    WK,

    I didn't make head or tales of your penultimate post.

    But a clone of you would have the same rights as you. No reason why he wouldn't.

    Well yes, that is the point. So what does "unique" genetic material have to do with individuals and rights.


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    We're attempting to define an individual though, not a pair.

    Yeah but "you" are about 50 trillion individual cells, acting together in a common purpose to live and grow.

    Why would you not be "you" when you are two cells acting together in a common purpose to live and grow?


  • #578
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yeah but "you" are about 50 trillion individual cells, acting together in a common purpose to live and grow.

    Why would you not be "you" when you are two cells acting together in a common purpose to live and grow?
    I am a multi-cellular organism designed to grow, survive, feed and procreate; eggs and sperm are single cells with one defined task - to deliver/receive a genetic payload. They survive only in so far that they can carry out their one task, they do not grow, they do not feed, they do not procreate and recreate themselves (sperm don't give birth to little sperm). They are not a multi-cellular organism, but two distinct uni-cellular organisms, originating from two distinct multi-cellular organisms.

    I understand what you are getting towards, but you're not getting much traction here.


  • #579
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I am a multi-cellular organism designed to grow, survive, feed and procreate; eggs and sperm are single cells with one defined task - to deliver/receive a genetic payload. They survive only in so far that they can carry out their one task, they do not grow, they do not feed, they do not procreate and recreate themselves (sperm don't give birth to little sperm).

    Again, "you" are a collection of cells, and each cell has a specific task that combined with the other cells in your body keeps you ticking over.

    The sperm and egg pair are no different. To say that they survive only to form the zygote is some what irrelevant since the zygote survives only to produce the embryo and the embryo only to produce the foetus.

    The actual zygote's existence is short and sweet.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    They are not a multi-cellular organism, but two distinct uni-cellular organisms, originating from two distinct multi-cellular organisms.

    Why are they not a multi-cellular organism, given that the definition of a multicellular organism is a collection of cells operating together?

    Is it simply that they are not touching each other?


  • #580
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No. Perhaps you should read my definition again.
    Do you propose the first spark of neurological activity as a cut off for abortion?
    Your point was I can't win the argument because I'm wrong.
    No it wasn't. Perhaps you should read my point again.
    Like I said with logic skills like that you should be out solving crimes :rolleyes:
    No need to be rude.


  • #581
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well yes, that is the point. So what does "unique" genetic material have to do with individuals and rights.
    I dont know. It's not my argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Are you saying that your definition only applies to fetuses?

    Fetuses.Pro-abortionists' favourite word.Makes the baby sounds less human for you doesn't it?


  • #583
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    RepublicanEagle wrote: »
    Fetuses.Pro-abortionists' favourite word.Makes the baby sounds less human for you doesn't it?
    No more so than adolosent make a teenager sound less human, or child makes a minor sound less human.

    It's a word, any feeling you have towards it is your own.


  • #584
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    RepublicanEagle wrote: »
    Fetuses.Pro-abortionists' favourite word.Makes the baby sounds less human for you doesn't it?

    Er, you are the only one who seems to have problem defining what is or is not human.

    I've no issue with the fetus being human. The sperm is human, the egg is human, the zygote is human, the embryo is human, the fetus is human, the newborn is human, the infant is human, the child is human, the teenager is human, the young adult is human, the middle-aged adult is human, the old-aged adult is human, the corpse is human.

    By the way you didn't answer my question ...


  • #585
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    ...and you didn't answer mine!


  • #586
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Zulu wrote: »
    Do you propose the first spark of neurological activity as a cut off for abortion?

    Possibly yes, though my understanding is that the first sparks of neurological activity in higher functions (which we associate with human traits such as consciousness, memory, emotion etc) happens at a detectably later stage.

    That to me would be the cut off for abortion.
    Zulu wrote: »
    No it wasn't. Perhaps you should read my point again.

    Ok, sorry, your point was that I can't win because the counter argument is correct. :rolleyes:

    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
    Zulu wrote: »
    No need to be rude.

    Oh sure there is, since you first started discussing this with me you have become increasingly belligerent, cumulating in that nonsense post quoted above where you asked for my opinion while simulationously informing me it isn't going to convince anyone of anything.


  • #587
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok, sorry, your point was that I can't win because the counter argument is correct. :rolleyes:
    ...from their point of view.
    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
    Perhaps the "in their opinion" wasn't clearly implied, but it doesn't really make a difference. You clearly have no wish to discuss this in a civil manner.
    Oh sure there is, since you first started discussing this with me you have become increasingly belligerent, cumulating in that nonsense post quoted above where you asked for my opinion while simulationously informing me it isn't going to convince anyone of anything.
    You think being rude is smart or productive? Good luck with that.


  • #588
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I've no issue with the fetus being human.

    I was not referring to you specifically.

    What question have I not answered?


  • #589
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Zulu wrote: »
    ...from their point of view.
    :confused:

    Seriously Zulu read back over what you posted

    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.

    There is only way one way to read that. If that isn't what you meant to say that isn't really my problem. I'm not a mind reader.
    Zulu wrote: »
    You clearly have no wish to discuss this in a civil manner.

    If someone is civil to me I'll be civil back.

    I have no strong urge to be civil to someone who is being belligerent to me.


  • #590
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    RepublicanEagle wrote: »
    I was not referring to you specifically.

    What question have I not answered?

    Does your definition of a human being only apply to fetuses?


  • #591
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    If you can't understand the point (or refuse to acknowledge it as I suspect), that's fine - I'll leave you to your crass posting, and circular arguments.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    jimmyendless
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 651 ✭✭✭jimmyendless


    It seems like 9 times out of 10 these debates just turn into slagging matches.

    As far as what is a person and what isn't and therefore is ok to abort, I think it would just be easier to have no time-line definitions, as no one has the right to make the call imo.


  • #593
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Does your definition of a human being only apply to fetuses?

    Fetuses are only unborn infants,hence, yes I regard them as human beings,just as much as you and me.

    Now I am finished with this thread.I have made and clarified my points I bid you all adieu.


  • #594
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    jimmyendless wrote: »
    It seems like 9 times out of 10 these debates just turn into slagging matches.

    As far as what is a person and what isn't and therefore is ok to abort, I think it would just be easier to have no time-line definitions, as no one has the right to make the call imo.

    Given that life never stops time-line definitions seem to be a requirement. Otherwise we should be locking up people who destroy sperm.


  • #595
    jimmyendless
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 651 ✭✭✭jimmyendless


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Given that life never stops time-line definitions seem to be a requirement. Otherwise we should be locking up people who destroy sperm.

    Sounds like a good start. Life never stops? My understanding was that sperm and eggs are just instructions more than anything, Is that fair? When they join they start something that will become a person.


  • #596
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    jimmyendless wrote: »
    As far as what is a person and what isn't and therefore is ok to abort, I think it would just be easier to have no time-line definitions, as no one has the right to make the call imo.
    I have to agree, it always seems to be dragged to a point where people are trying to determine where a person becomes a person, and noone can prove this categorically.

    An expectant mother who has been trying for a child would have a very different take on this point than say someone who's eager to abort.

    Simply put, people who would support abortion appear to avoid the concept that the majority of abortions (if legalised) will be carried out as a form of contraception, because a child/pregnancy would be inconvenient. This is the stumbling point for those that would oppose it, so refusing to address it means the topic is deadlocked.


  • #597
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The sperm and egg pair are no different. To say that they survive only to form the zygote is some what irrelevant since the zygote survives only to produce the embryo and the embryo only to produce the foetus.
    You're confusing cells with an organism. The latter is any living system "capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole".

    Sperm and eggs are not organisms; any more than blood cells are. Like blood cells, however, they have a job and once done produce a zygote. This is recognised as "the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction".

    So, I'm afraid you're mixing oranges with apples.
    RepublicanEagle wrote: »
    Now I am finished with this thread.I have made and clarified my points I bid you all adieu.
    Oh dear, he's broken.


  • #598
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    jimmyendless wrote: »
    Sounds like a good start. Life never stops? My understanding was that sperm and eggs are just instructions more than anything, Is that fair?

    It depends. You are "just instructions" when you get down to it. You are a way for the genetic material in your cells to replicate themselves.

    The sperm/egg pair are not more or less than you are from the point of view of the basic purpose of life, replication.

    There is no logical reason to hold the zygote (fertilised egg) as some how alive yet the sperm/egg pair not alive. It is just different stages of a very complex chemical reaction.


  • #599
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You're confusing cells with an organism.

    No I'm not. An organism is a collection of cells, or even just one cell.

    The sperm/egg pair are an organism. They fit all the definition you just gave that the zygote fits.

    The sperm itself isn't an organism, the egg itself isn't an organism. The two together are. It doesn't matter if they are a couple of centimeters apart of joined together as in the case of the zygote. The only difference is time.


  • #600
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Jesus christ. This is high school biology. Next you'll ask us to prove a cactus isnt a chicken.


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No I'm not. An organism is a collection of cells, or even just one cell.
    When they are a collection of cells, a multicellular organism, they are a collection of cells in that organism.
    The sperm/egg pair are an organism. They fit all the definition you just gave that the zygote fits.
    Nope. If you are suggesting they are, as a pair, a multicellular organism, then no they are not. They're not even two cells from a multicellular organism, but from two multicellular organisms. The pair are not one unit.
    The sperm itself isn't an organism, the egg itself isn't an organism. The two together are. It doesn't matter if they are a couple of centimeters apart of joined together as in the case of the zygote. The only difference is time.
    Time alone will not make any difference. As much as it pains me to say it, my sperm and Heidi Klum's eggs will never meet.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement