Abortion

[TomC]

Human beings are primates of course but that has nothing to do with when life begins.

Do you know what life is?

Could you explain it?
With clarity.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I will assume that you are referring to human life: Most biologist say that life begins at fertilization, when a sperm penetrates and egg allowing it to form a zygote which will continue to grow and divide and differentiate--assuming that it implants properly and that nothing goes wrong, i.e. prevents the continued development of a zygote into an embryo into a fetus into a human child.

But a lot of things can and do go wrong. Not every union of a sperm and oocyte will result in a viable zygote, much less a viable embryo. Many do not develop to the blastocyst stage where it might implant in the uterus. Or fallopian tubes. That happens as well, and as you know, such an embryo will never survive to become a fetus and the mother will also die unless there is medical intervention to preserve the mother's life. The embryo cannot survive this.

After implantation in the uterus, many other things can happen that cause a spontaneous abortion, or as most people know it: miscarriage. Most often, this has to do with abnormalities within the developing embryo but can also happen if the mother has an unknown infection or has undergone some other trauma. It is estimated that 1 in 4 pregnancies (that is, the blastocyst has implanted in the uterus) ends in spontaneous miscarriage, mostly in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and often before the woman knows she is pregnant. In fact, she may never know that she miscarried. In the second trimester, perhaps 5 percent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, i.e. miscarriage, again usually because of fatal anomalies within the developing fetus but also because of an illness or trauma or even malformation of the uterus. Very occasionally, in the third trimester, there will be some event: an accumulation of abnormalities, a trauma or accident, an illness of the mother, placental tears or other issues will cause a spontaneous abortion/premature labor. Sometimes, the fetus can be saved but often not and often, only with a great deal of medical intervention resulting in months of hospital stays, surgeries, many procedures, with sometimes the best outcome being the child has lifelong dire medical and/or developmental issues. Sometimes, parents will decide to terminate a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester precisely because they learn that the fetus has so many abnormalities that it cannot live independently of the mother, or that it will live only a short, and painful time--hours or days. Rarely, weeks. This is not a procedure a pregnant woman can simply go to a hospital and demand. It's typically done when it is deemed to be the most compassionate outcome for the fetus and medically better for the mother. No one wants this. No one. Ever.

Sometimes a fetus will be delivered early if the mother has pre eclampsia or eclampsia, a potentially fatal condition that can only be cured by delivery of the fetus. Some doctors prefer to deliver a fetus early if the mother has a history of c-sections. Or for a variety of medical reasons for the benefit of the mother or the baby and occasionally, for the doctor. (less common than in days gone by)

Of course, we all know that there are still births, and sometimes mothers lose their lives during pregnancy or childbirth. Too many women in the US die in the weeks following childbirth--often because they are sent home too early, without enough support and/or because medical professionals do not listen to them when they describe symptoms.

This, of course, is more information than you asked for but saying that 'life begins at conception' is really only conditionally true. A baby will result from the union of a sperm and an oocyte--if everything goes right or right enough. A lot can and does go wrong, often before the woman is even late for her period.

It is possible to cause human cells, say, scraped from inside a cheek, (or other animal cells) to grow and divide in a petri dish. Some babies begin their life in a petri dish. I have cultured cells that will never and could never develop into a living human being. I've made chick embryo cells beat as a heart beats, on their own. It's a neat trick if you can get your chick embryo at the right age and can get the cells to grow properly in medium in the petri dish. But those cells will never become a chick; those beating cells will never become a chick.

 

[Toni]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.

I don't agree. A fetus is not a virus or a bacteria or a cancer. Or a parasite, by definition.

An embryo, a blastocyst, a fetus are all a living organism at a particular stage of its development. Totally dependent upon another human being for every function in its body. If she agrees to it.

She has every right to not agree to it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Most actual biologists will be the first to explain this to you.

Show me an actual biologist that will explain that human beings aren't primates, so the cycle of life doesn't apply.

Doubtless you could find some on "AnswersinGenesis.
Tom

Find me an actual biologist who thinks is calling a thing "primate" has any effect on what it is or is not, or one who thinks calling something alive makes any difference to what it is?

Again, I bet you can find plenty on AiG.

The thing here is, while there is a life cycle, there are no hard and fast boundary points in it, there's no crisp start, even when reduced to an egg fusing to a sperm. At best there are process choke points where things, not even all at once, change. There are generalities, and generalizations available but those are again just generalizations.

The one thing that is not a generalization is when something is alive or  dead on account of identifiable chemical processes ceasing or being altogether, and as has been discussed, we don't exactly care much about that distinction philosophically speaking, nor any of the distinctions you could draw if you were to give any definition of "human" or "primate" in general.

You would have to step into  my arena of science, information science if you want to discuss things to the point where "we" be one "us", and that doesn't happen until the neural graph network happens, and doesn't happen meaningfully or usefully or interestingly until long after that, even.

What I can ascertain is that if something is going to live and grow into such a thing, in this world with no afterlife:

1: they have a right not to be maimed.
2: they have a right to learn any objective fact about the general function of our universe.
3: they have a right to seek to actualize of themselves the life they find and which their own madness drives them too.
4: they have a right to be judged on the same intrinsic qualities of the self their madness drives them to be as they happen to be, free of their parents but rather upon their own merits, on the basis of their contributions and achievements of these things.
5: they have a field of responsibility generated around them directed at those who accept these rights, to teach them how to coexist with the rest of us.
6: they have a responsibility to coexist with us such as we also have a right to 1-4.

Parasitism is not coexistence, by definition here it is purely dependent existence.

Until it is not operating parasitically, it is not doing the bare minimum to earn 1-4.

Fortunately, and of myself as well, this mercy is something we freely and happily accept to give. It is fundamentally good to give this mercy, assuming doing so doesn't rob someone else of these rights.

But I don't expect people to be good. I merely expect them to not be evil. Anything else is being a moralizing piece of shit.

 

[Jarhyn]

And frankly, I do not accept that any person who does not FIRST do everything to guarantee the life and welfare of every child regardless of origin and station of birth is well taken care of and provided with all those rights I list is pro-life.

Don't come to me with a piece of legislation, or a lawsuit, or a ban on abortion -- it cannot possibly be considered in good faith -- before you come to me with bills that guarantee the upbringing and education of every child you would force into the world.

 

[TomC]

Find me an actual biologist who thinks is calling a thing "primate" has any effect on what it is or is not,

Sorry to interfere with your world view by bringing up science.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Find me an actual biologist who thinks is calling a thing "primate" has any effect on what it is or is not,

Sorry to interfere with your world view by bringing up science.
Tom

The fact is that you wish to say the fact that you wish as much as Metaphor might wish to proclaim that his definition of some fuzzy thing "the start of life" or "man and woman" or any other masturbatory bit of philosophical drivel that utterly does not matter to the subject at hand.

It is pure sophistry in fact, not even philosophy to discuss "when does life begin".

Life began some 4 billion years and has not since stopped. There are a lot of imaginary lines we draw, but they are imaginary.

 

[Toni]

Find me an actual biologist who thinks is calling a thing "primate" has any effect on what it is or is not,

Sorry to interfere with your world view by bringing up science.
Tom

Jahryn is correct: Whether or not we call an animal a primate has zero effect on what it is or is not.

Naming things, using descriptive terms and words to help us define things, beings, the universe is what humans do in order to try to understand things. It does not matter to the tree whether we call a tree a tree or a fern. The tree is a tree is a tree and will keep on being a tree even if we only understand it as some kind of fern. And so it is with people. People are who they are no matter how we categorize them or how we name them.

 

[bilby]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

Life Cycle of a Primate is elementary science. But when science interferes with somebody's world view they don't understand it. Talking to feticide rights people about science is like talking to YEC people about science.

As long as science supports their opinions it's fine. When it doesn't it becomes incomprehensible. Suddenly, they don't understand the difference between "life", "being alive", "an individual live", and "a human life".

Really. It's right there in this thread.
Tom

Well as long as you persist with it, that’s not going to change, is it.

 

[Toni]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

Life Cycle of a Primate is elementary science. But when science interferes with somebody's world view they don't understand it. Talking to feticide rights people about science is like talking to YEC people about science.

As long as science supports their opinions it's fine. When it doesn't it becomes incomprehensible. Suddenly, they don't understand the difference between "life", "being alive", "an individual live", and "a human life".

Really. It's right there in this thread.
Tom

I have no idea what relevance the life cycle of a primate has to this discussion. It's not elementary science. Life cycles of all species, eukaryote and prokaryote exist whether or not we describe them in whatever terms we choose, whether we choose to apply logical, consistent terminology as we understand various stages of a life cycle.

You have a tendency to throw various terms about as if they are somehow relevant to the discussion and as though you have any real understanding of what they mean. With respect to science, you seem to lack some very basic understanding of mammalian development and you seem to pull terms out of some right to life website or pamphlet as though those terms were cogent to the argument you seem to want to make and as if you actually understood the terms. That or you are just throwing things out there to distract from failures in your logic and argument. I don't know which.

I don't write this to be mean to you. I am 100% certain I am completely ignorant and stupid about whatever field it is where you have made your career. But then, I'm not pretending to understand things I know that I don't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff.

This sums it up.
"Responsibility" is ridiculous. Entitlement Rulz!
Tom

"Responsibility" means you did something wrong. It's a pro-punishment position, not a pro-life position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff.

This sums it up.
"Responsibility" is ridiculous. Entitlement Rulz!
Tom

Self-autonomy isn't entitlement. Slavers felt as you do.

Self-autonomy isn't the right to kill human beings you find inconvenient either.

Slavers did, however, decide for themselves which human beings were persons and which were not. Didn't bother with science or such nonsense, it was all about their rights. They decided which human beings mattered, and which were dispensable.
Like you do.
Tom

Ova are people. Every effort must be made to save them. Quit saying they don't matter because they don't have a sperm yet.

 

[bilby]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

I disagree. To me it is when people think they have the right to manage the private affair of an individual. In this case, you feel that using "-cide" makes it okay for you to intervene in the life of any woman that manages to get pregnant, and tell her that she shall give birth. Sorry for the inconvenience.

You disagree with elementary science if it interferes with your world view.

A fetus is no more a developed human being than a caterpillar is a butterfly.

I didn't say that.

Wanna respond to anything I actually did say?

That'll be tough. You aren't actually saying much.

Human beings aren't bugs.

People feeling entitled to choose death for other human beings is a moral issue.
Bugs, not so much.

Tom

People feeling entitled to impose upon other human beings is also a moral issue.

You are not entitled to demand that someone else gives the use of their body to save the life of a third party, no matter how valuable that third party might be to you.

You cannot demand that I donate a kidney to save the life of your eight year old daughter.

There’s no debate whatsoever about whether your eight year old is alive, or human, or a life, or an individual. None. Yet you may not demand that I donate an organ to save her life.

Equally, you may not demand the continued use of a uterus to save the life of a third party. ONLY the owner of that uterus is morally allowed to make that decision.

For anyone else to impose that decision is deeply immoral. Exactly as immoral as harvesting a kidney from a living person without their consent.

This is not a difficult concept. Though I do recognise that grasping it will play havoc with your self image as a good person. Because right now, you are embracing some seriously evil ideas.

 

[Worldtraveller]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

As an analogy, it's perfectly reasonable.

 

[Politesse]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

As an analogy, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do explain. Be sure to include the science part.

 

[Toni]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

As an analogy, it's perfectly reasonable.

I absolutely reject that as a reasonable analogy.

A fetus might continue to grow and develop and be born as a fully realized human being. A virus or a bacteria may not. Fun fact: human cancers arise from human cells. Yet, they will never become a human being. Another fun fact: Under certain conditions, human cancer cells may become immortal. Human beings are not.

A woman may choose to have an abortion, ridding her body of the human zygote/embryo/fetus residing within her body. Even though it is fully human. She may choose to have an abortion for reasons you or I might consider reasonable or even noble. Or for reasons we might consider trivial. But our consideration does not play any meaningful role in her decision making. She may make this choice because it is her body and her choice to make. Full stop.

 

[Toni]

Since some people are going all in on woo, I thought I'd include this poem. I think about my mother often whenever I come across it. I think it contains some kernels of exactly why some people have such difficulty considering that women should have the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. The fact is, no matter what kind of relationship we have/had with our birth moms, no matter how shitty a mom they are/were, all of us owe our moms a debt we can never quite repay. I also will say that this is absolutely not the way that I feel about my own children. I feel as though I also owe them a debt I can never repay. Having a child is both a burden and a blessing. Sometimes the burden is too heavy to bear and we really should never judge anyone for that. Instead, we should all work as hard as possible to make as fair and just a society as possible, one that serves the needs of the most vulnerable and supports parents and other people rather than coroporations.

Anyway, here's the poem:

The Lanyard​

BY BILLY COLLINS
The other day I was ricocheting slowly
off the blue walls of this room,
moving as if underwater from typewriter to piano,
from bookshelf to an envelope lying on the floor,
when I found myself in the L section of the dictionary
where my eyes fell upon the word lanyard.

No cookie nibbled by a French novelist
could send one into the past more suddenly—
a past where I sat at a workbench at a camp
by a deep Adirondack lake
learning how to braid long thin plastic strips
into a lanyard, a gift for my mother.

I had never seen anyone use a lanyard
or wear one, if that’s what you did with them,
but that did not keep me from crossing
strand over strand again and again
until I had made a boxy
red and white lanyard for my mother.

She gave me life and milk from her breasts,
and I gave her a lanyard.
She nursed me in many a sick room,
lifted spoons of medicine to my lips,
laid cold face-cloths on my forehead,
and then led me out into the airy light

and taught me to walk and swim,
and I, in turn, presented her with a lanyard.
Here are thousands of meals, she said,
and here is clothing and a good education.
And here is your lanyard, I replied,
which I made with a little help from a counselor.

Here is a breathing body and a beating heart,
strong legs, bones and teeth,
and two clear eyes to read the world, she whispered,
and here, I said, is the lanyard I made at camp.
And here, I wish to say to her now,
is a smaller gift—not the worn truth

that you can never repay your mother,
but the rueful admission that when she took
the two-tone lanyard from my hand,
I was as sure as a boy could be
that this useless, worthless thing I wove
out of boredom would be enough to make us even.

 

[Bronzeage]

So, when is it okay to kill someone?

IMO it is never OK to kill somone except in self-defense.

Note that the meaning of “someone” is a person. A zygote, an embryo and a first-trimenster fetus are not “persons” under any reasonable defintion of the word.

If conception had not occurred, would the zygote or the fetus exist?

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

That said, the next bit of clarity is, so what.

As a society, we kill people all the time. State sanctioned homicide, not related to warfare, has been a part of every human culture since we decided sleeping in the rain was a dumb idea. It's never been consistent from group to group, or even within a group. Consistency has never been a real consideration. The only consistent factor in when we decide to kill someone is how much trouble they cause. This is always a practical consideration and measuring trouble requires double entry book keeping.

The trouble principle applies to abortion and Capitol punishment. It's only in the recent century there has been any debate about state sanctioned homicide and that's mostly because we're not very good at identifying the real trouble makers.

That's not a problem with abortion. The troublemaker is identified and we know exactly where they are. Since we're dealing with humans, there's no reason to expect logic or reason to be applied to this problem.

Why can that be stated with clarity?

Because it is a simple declarative statement. You will note the absence of the words probably, might, maybe, perhaps, and sort of.

Do you declare something true because you say it is?

Life does not being at conception. Life began 4 billion years ago , and it is merely the continuation of it.

Potentially, that zygote will become something other than a clump of cells at implantation into the womb. 1/2 of all zygotes get flushed out with something known as 'menstruation'.

The clarity is in the statement. You do not seem to have trouble understanding it, so it must be clear enough.

Your statement equivocates "life" and "a life". This discussion is about human life, so we can disregard asexual reproduction.

We were all once zygotes and before that, we did not exist. As for the zygotes who did not manage to grab hold, they died very young. The question for discussion is, "When is it okay to kill someone?" Since we can't kill a person who does not exist, we need a starting time. Conception is a defined point in a person's life, so it's as good as to start the clock.

I've met people who claim a clump of cells is not a life and use this to justify destroying them. When pressed, none of them had a clear demarcation between lifeless clump and living thing, so I choose conception, just for the clarity of it.

So, when is it okay to kill someone?

And, what do you mean by 'a life'. Give a better definition. A fetus is alive, but it is not 'a life'. yet. The earliest that happens is viability, about 24 weeks.

As I asked Pood, "If conception had not occurred, would the zygote or the fetus exist?"

The viability line, is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it too(the editorial you, not actually you), in that its a convenient way to deny killing someone because there was nobody there.

 

[ramoss]

As I asked Pood, "If conception had not occurred, would the zygote or the fetus exist?"

The viability line, is just an attempt to have your cake and eat it too(the editorial you, not actually you), in that its a convenient way to deny killing someone because there was nobody there.

No, it would not, but that doesn't matter one bit.

And, no, the viability is very important to the definition of possible human being. You can use your emotional 'killing' all you want, but I don't buy the line of reasoning.