Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Mr. Big]

Marilyn,

Laws reflect rights, but its important to recognize a difference between legal rights and metaphysically objective rights. If the only rights you were citing were legal rights, then you have to show why the law should determine (or solve) moral issues instead of just reflecting moral issues and convictions. If you were talking about metaphysically objective rights, then you need to find an argument for your claim.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Mr. Big So we're in agreement, life begins before conception.

Did you only read that up until the first comma, and then still completely misunderstand it?
language games That is what your stance is and nothing more. Do try to grasp the idea that your use of the word life is completely inappropriate to the discussion of this thread and very tedious of you keep bringing back up.

metaphysically objective

Is an oxymoron. Another word game.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe That's true if she doesn't abort it first. The fetus does have some rights when killed by someone reckless, like a careless or negligent driver, not the mother, if she makes the abortion choice. Now if a woman stabbed herself in the stomach, not sure how the law would look at that. The law can seem somewhat contradictory, depending on how you look at it.

Seems to me, either the fetus should be a legal non-entity, and you can do whatever you want to it, or it should be protected, no? How is harming it with drugs any worse than killing it?

[Mr. Big]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Seems to me, either the fetus should be a legal non-entity, and you can do whatever you want to it, or it should be protected, no? How is harming it with drugs any worse than killing it?

I think you're confusing two points: what is legally allowed, and what is moral. The two are not the same. Also, immorality of an act does not imply that it should be made illegal. I think in this case, what we're trying to argue is whether killing a fetus is moral or not, not whether it should be legal or not.

[Gods_Mercenary]

As am I, I'm just pointing out that there seems to be an inconsistancy.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Morality Games I'm getting extremely sick of this topic, so I will keep the admonishment light: unless you can demonstrate the fetus is human in a significant sense, which all of the many appeals of pro-lifers have failed to do in decades, then there are no grounds for illegalizing abortion. That's not how principled, constitutional law works. There is a certain logic involved, and part of that logic is that regulating public relations revolves around evidence. Until such a time as a fetus can be indisputably, beyond all contest and without any recourse to faith of any type, be demonstrated a human being in a significant sense, it is not possible for there to be a justified law which restricts abortions.

If you've been reading my posts, I have yet to make reference - at all - to faith and religion. My argument is strictly agnostic. Here's why a fetus is human:

A fetus is human because it is chromosomally human, and chromosomes are like biology's name tag ("hi, I'm human!"). From the point of conception, the cell produced bears human chromosomes and begins a developmental process that continues for the duration of our lives.

But the truth of the matter is that, Constitutionally, the onus is not on me to prove a fetus human. If anything, the more logical assumption is that a fetus is human - because all humans were fetuses. So perhaps the weight of evidence is on you. But you know what, we'll never know the truth, because we are not Gods, so considering our imperfect perception of the matter, the best choice is to devolve the decision making to the states so that localized cultural currents can make the choice rather than Kritocrats in the SCOTUS.

Restricting people's activity in a democracy with a constitution is never a matter of opinion.

Neither is restricting life. What we have here is what some abortion scholars call a "clash of absolutes".

You need to prove a fetus is human in a very concrete and firmly established way that does not depend on the "out there" logic of essentialism pro-lifers have used to bolster their argument (which has been deemed an unacceptable rationale under Constitutional Law by courts throughout the land, including the one that really counts (U.S. Supreme Court), because it is too fantastic and crazy). You have to do it in the same way we know gravity and motion are real. A/N: Science has proven you will never be able to do that (we know very much what a fetus is, and it is not human in any significant sense, no matter what weird abuses of language pro-lifers employ), so it is basically hopeless unless some kind of populism or theocracy triumphs over the rule of reasoned law.

You seem very dismissive of something that isn't so cut-and-dry, but that's understandable because you opened by saying that you're frustrated with the topic, a sentiment with which I agree - it's hard to debate this one very long because both sides have their arguments perfected and there really is no chink in either set of armor.

What isn't understandable is your assertion that science has proven that you'll never be able to "prove" a fetus is human. It's easy to prove a fetus is human, and I do so without employing anything but basic science.

Perhaps a fetus can't see, feel, think, or whatever, but that isn't what gives us our right to life. What gives us our right to life is the fact that we exist.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Why should humans be bound by instinctual design. We have developed a brain, seems a waste not to use it.

We shouldn't be bound by instinctual design. As I've already stated, people have sex for reasons other than procreation - but that doesn't change the fact that sex exists for the purpose of procreation. Sex always bears a risk of producing offspring - no amount of freedom from instinctual design changes that.

But they do provide an alternative. Why should we not use it?

Yes, there are alternatives. I can list more than a hundred ways for a loving couple to get off without vaginal intercourse.

We have the ability to decide if a pregnancy should continue or not, through contraception or abortion. And you suggest we throw that technology away because of a base instinct?

No, I suggest we throw that away because the conception of a fetus puts another human life into the equation.

So your suggesting we artificially over ride our basic instinct to procreate in order to accommodate our basic ability to procreate.

No. You're suggesting that I'm suggesting that.

[Morality Games]

A fetus is human because it is chromosomally human, and chromosomes are like biology's name tag ("hi, I'm human!"). From the point of conception, the cell produced bears human chromosomes and begins a developmental process that continues for the duration of our lives.

Okay, so you use the word 'human' because you feel as though chromosomes are the defining feature of being part of the species. Actually feeling emotions, thinking, creativity, and things like are just hanger-on's. Decent, but now you need to prove your use of the term is cosmically validified, that is reinforced by a power greater than your own will and consensus with people who think the same way.

But the truth of the matter is that, Constitutionally, the onus is not on me to prove a fetus human. If anything, the more logical assumption is that a fetus is human - because all humans were fetuses.

And all humans were ape-type beings, but that doesn't mean we must assume all ape-type beings are humans.

So perhaps the weight of evidence is on you.

It isn't, because I'm not advocating a constitutionally unfounded, legal regulation of someone's activity.

But you know what, we'll never know the truth, because we are not Gods, so considering our imperfect perception of the matter, the best choice is to devolve the decision making to the states so that localized cultural currents can make the choice rather than Kritocrats in the SCOTUS.

According to the logic of the Bill of Rights, no. And abortion is not cited out as something special in the Constitution, therefore it is just one of many particular instances where the abstract laws of the document apply.

[SoylentGreen]

GloriousCausebut that doesn't change the fact that sex exists for the purpose of procreation.

And the fact that we have sex for pleasure.

Sex always bears a risk of producing offspring - no amount of freedom from instinctual design changes that.

We can reduce the risk through contreception or have an abortion.

Yes, there are alternatives. I can list more than a hundred ways for a loving couple to get off without vaginal intercourse

Your right to choose that method. But still not a reason to push it on others.

No, I suggest we throw that away because the conception of a fetus puts another human life into the equation.

Your opinion not a fact. If you want to believe it fine , but still not a reason to push it on others.

No. You're suggesting that I'm suggesting that

Then what are you suggesting?

[inri]

This always strikes me as kind of a silly question....of course at conception there is a 'form' of life present, but is it a human life that constitutues protection and equal rights comparable to another human being who undoubtedly and unmistakeably does exists as an established being?...I don't think so.

We do not call a chickens egg a chicken or a cherry blossom a cherry. Yes, both are on their way to 'becoming' the latter, however I don't think anyone would ever think to actually agrue that because they have a very strong likelihood of becoming the end resuslt, that they therefore "ARE".

In my opinion, it's a mute point anyway. If you are absolutely intent upon deeming a fetus as being a human being, surely it's not possible to overlook the fact that this 'human being' has no ability to sustain it's life form outside of the body of another. It requires another's body and moe importantly, another's co-operation in the culmination and sustenance of it's growth and ultimate ability to eventually live free of the body of this 'host'.

[Jinei]

Hi, I'm new.
I figured the best way to get to know you guys was through the juiciest thread!
I don't know if someone else has had this opinion but here goes; tell me what you think:

I chose "other, explain" in the poll because I don't think human life begins in right at conception or even at birth. I suppose the following viewpoint is a mix of pro-life and pro-choice, but I want to be sure to steer clear of those extremes as they only serve to redefine the opponent; as if pro-choicers are anti-life and pro-lifers are anti-choice.

I'm sorry that I didn't read too much into what's been said here as the topic is VERY lengthy, but I recall someone saying something along the lines of human DNA determining what is human and I want to address that.

It's true that fetuses have human DNA. But moments after conception, can we call a fetus "humanly alive?" (I know there's no such term, but for the sake of argument...) I mean, every one of my blood cells contains complete nucleic instructions on how to make every part of me. Those are human instructions. But does simply having human DNA make you humanly alive? There's no doubt that blood cells are biologically alive, but what I'm driving at is what makes us uniquely human.

So it's my belief that aborting a newly conceived fetus is a killing (as it is biologically alive), but not a murder. I don't think that it's any different than killing a blood cell. And I don't see that there's any point in calling a fetus a "potential human." In that case, individual sperm and eggs are potential humans. The DNA from my blood can be used to fertilize an egg. Should we expand human rights to individual sperm, egg, and blood cells?

And it doesn't matter that the fetus has lungs and other organs. Other animals have lungs but that doesn't give them human rights. What I think sets us apart from other animals is thought in general and the cerebral cortex of the brain in particular. No other animal has brains such as ours. If I had to define what gave someone human rights, I would have to say a human mind.

That being said, I would consider abortion in after the second trimester murder because that is when the brain begins complex functions. EEG (Electroencephalogram) readings can be used to detect the brain waves of a fetus in the third trimester. As long as the seat of our humanity is busily humming away in the heads of unborn children, I believe they should inherit human rights.

ok that's it
Jinei
^
Not Jenie

[edit: As The Bacon Guy points out, RBCs don't have DNA. Instead, I use skin cells as examlpe]

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: jinei I mean, every one of my blood cells contains complete nucleic instructions on how to make every part of me.

You couldn't have picked a worse example to use. Red blood cells are the only human cells that actually contain no DNA at all.

But I see your point. And welcome to Volconvo.

[Jinei]

Thanks for the correction and the welcome. I knew I had screwed up somewhere. I used skin cells when I wrote this in my journal.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I wasn't aware your skin cells were capable of creating an entirely complete and functional individual without interference.

A fetus is not comparable to any other cells or organs in the human body. It is genetically an individual and, along with the mother, holds all the potential for a human person in every sense. Sperm and eggs in themselves hold no potential for life, inside or outside a human body, it is only when they are joined that that potential is realized. I agree, however, that abortion increases in seriousness as the term goes on, to the point where late term might as well be cutting up a baby.

[Jinei]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I agree, however, that abortion increases in seriousness as the term goes on, to the point where late term might as well be cutting up a baby.

Good, that was my whole point.

Oh yeah, and about the thread question, "Does life begin at conception;" I would modify to say, "Do human rights for a human being begin at conception," in which case I would answer no. The answer to the original question is yes, but only because I believe the threader was referring to biological life. The two, I maintain, are not the same.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Merc. I wasn't aware your skin cells were capable of creating an entirely complete and functional individual without interference.

They're not. But then neither is a zygote.

Quote by: Merc. A fetus is not comparable to any other cells or organs in the human body. It is genetically an individual and, along with the mother, holds all the potential for a human person in every sense. Sperm and eggs in themselves hold no potential for life, inside or outside a human body, it is only when they are joined that that potential is realized.

I think a sperm can be pretty well analagous to a zygote. It's true that a sperm can't develop into a baby unless the mother gives it something from her body (an egg). But then it's also true that a zygote can't develop into a baby being unless the mother gives it something from her body (food, oxygen etc.).

The only difference is that a sperm and a zygote differ in genetic makeup. However, the way I see it, that's just another thing the mother provides for the potential baby. Providing the egg is done at her discretion, so why shouldn't provision of food and oxygen be the same?

I know ten people are going to reply saying that the cell doesn't become genetically a human until it's fertilised. And that's why this debate has gone nowhere in about three years: people insist on trying to use science to define a social concept.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Why shouldn't science apply to social concepts?

[The Bacon Guy]

Why should it? How does the number of chromosomes something has relate in any way to its social standing? In order to decide what we should consider human life, you need to think why we value human life in the first place. It’s not for the number of chromosomes we have.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Unless you assert that all life should have the same value, you already base value on genetic makeup. Species has everything to do with Society. We value human life because we are human, and arbitrary treatment of human life is not helpful to the survival of the species. We value individual humans that we know because of their personal qualities, thoughts, emotions, etc., but morality cannot be scaled for our personal feelings for a particular person, it is about every human being, regardless of their relation to us, or our interaction.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Merc. Unless you assert that all life should have the same value, you already base value on genetic makeup. Species has everything to do with Society. We value human life because we are human, and arbitrary treatment of human life is not helpful to the survival of the species. We value individual humans that we know because of their personal qualities, thoughts, emotions, etc., but morality cannot be scaled for our personal feelings for a particular person, it is about every human being, regardless of their relation to us, or our interaction.

But that's an utterly arbitrary and meaningless distinction to make. So why make the distinction between human and non-human a matter of genetics and why not make it one of self-sufficiency, or brain waves, or the ability to feel pain? What makes genetics any more of a deciding factor?