USSC, Partial Birth Abortion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Because my liver is not a stage in the human (species) life (distinct organism) cycle. I suppose you could bring up using a liver cell to clone an entire human, if you must. But that argument fails on it’s own merits. The liver line of argument is too silly to start a side line debate over.[/quote]

So what? It changes nothing to the fact that the embryo has nearly everything in common with a bunch of liver cells, and nearly nothing in common with an adult (or even a baby.) At that stage, they differ mostly by function.

102

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sperm and egg have the potential for creating a human life. The embryo is the life created.

pookie:
There’s no “creation” of life. It’s a continuation of life. The sperm and ovum are living, before, during and after fertilization. Life started about 4 billion years ago and has continued on since.
[/quote]
Which is why we’ve been discussing an individual life. Or, as you admitted, a distinct life (organism). Or, if you want, a unique life. You’re omitting rather important qualifiers.

The embryo is a human being (remember the distinct human life?). The potential is for that human being to grow and develop it’s capacities. Again, sperm and egg has the potential to create a human being (distinct human life). The embryo is already a set phase in a human being’s developmental cycle. The human being has already appeared and is now developing it’s capacities. Period. The embryo is not on the outside of a distinct human being’s life cycle and development.

103

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because my liver is not a stage in the human (species) life (distinct organism) cycle. I suppose you could bring up using a liver cell to clone an entire human, if you must. But that argument fails on it’s own merits. The liver line of argument is too silly to start a side line debate over.

Pookie wrote:
So what? It changes nothing to the fact that the embryo has nearly everything in common with a bunch of liver cells, and nearly nothing in common with an adult (or even a baby.) At that stage, they differ mostly by function.[/quote]

So what? My god man…The embryo is a stage in a human being’s growth and development. Further, it’s a distinct human organism (life) from the mother and father. The liver is neither, period. Those alone demonstrate an immense chasm of difference. Stop ignoring such fundamental and enormous facts.

  1. Is the liver a distinct organism from the person? If you answer no, your point with that alone dies.

  2. Is one part of a human being’s development (which an embryo is) is an existence as a liver in the mother’s womb? That is, does it exist as the mother’s own organ in her womb? No, as you’ve admitted it’s a distinct organism.

Now, if you want to try using the liver cell cloning to human argument, do so. I 'll tackle that. But, stop using the liver in this way.

104

pookie, I applaud your patience and style of argument.

I think a big problem many people have is that there is no way to clearly say when an embryo becomes a more viable “human being” and hence should not be aborted.

When does human life become a human person? gives an compact overview. I, personally, like the idea of 20-22 week limit for abortion: Ethical views on abortion that are neither pro-life or pro-choice
It also seems to precede the earliest time when a fetus can survive outside of th womb.

I don’t understand the arguments of those who want to prohibit “abortions of convenience”. Unless a baby threatens mother’s life, either a baby can be aborted “morally” (regardless of the reason) or not.

105

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Which is why we’ve been discussing an individual life. Or, as you admitted, a distinct life (organism). Or, if you want, a unique life. You’re omitting rather important qualifiers.[/quote]

You’re putting words in my mouth again. It’s a distinct organism. It’s not an individual life.

You can’t cut and paste my words together and then argue those.

You’re cutting and pasting again.

Let me put it another way: The embryo is not a life because it’s not independently alive.

It’s basically dead, being kept artificially alive by the mother’s womb.

It’s a cruder argument, but apparently subtlety is preventing you from understanding my previous arguments.

It’s still just potential, just like the sperm and ovum. Complete human being is far from a foregone conclusion. In fact, most of the time, embryos never make it. Like most sperm and ovum, most embryos end up as waste.

Wrong. There is no human being. I know why you avoided most of my 2nd to last post - you can’t refute any of the points I made about what we consider “human beings” and “persons.” A group of embryonic stem cells certainly doesn’t qualify.

It’s also why the liver analogy bothers you so much. You can’t refute that, scientifically, the embryo is simply a clump of cells nearly identical with any other lump of cells. Be they liver, kidney, skin, whatever. There is no person, no “being,” no individual.

You imagine “a person” being there. Objectively, there is nothing. You anthropomorphize the embryo in some defenseless toddler - which it can potentially become, given time and nature willing - but at that time (the embryonic stage) there is no individual being with a personality present. Period.

So? Sperms and ovum are also part of the development cycle… Should we save them all because of potential? There is a lot more of them wasted.

Why pick fertilization as the moment personhood begins? Statistically, most never make it. Why not implantation? It increases the odds, although not by much.

What about when the brain has developed? Isn’t that a prerequisite for everything we associate with a person - thoughts, feelings, emotions?

Why not birth? Nature’s clear demarcation line of when the new baby becomes physiologically independent from it’s mother?

Not only is your choice of fertilization entirely motivated by feeling and emotion, there is nothing to back it up scientifically. You project the potential of the embryo in the future and defend that. At the embryonic stage, there is factually no person, no being. There is only a small grouping of cells being maintained alive by the womb and the mother.

As for the liver, I’ll give it a rest. Today’s organ is the kidney.

106

[quote]Sloth wrote:

  1. Is the liver a distinct organism from the person? If you answer no, your point with that alone dies.[/quote]

No, but that is exactly my point. Take the mother away and the embryo dies. Exactly like any other organ.

The embryo is no more independently alive than any of your organs are.

We consider adult humans alive because they’re composed of a whole system of organs that, taken together, allow the ensemble to survive on it’s own. An embryo, again, meets none of those criteria.

If you want to look at it as an organ, fine. It’s an organ whose function is to eventually produce a new human being. It is not at that point, a human being. It is a grouping of human cells, obviously, but extremely similar in every aspect but a few to other organs of the mother.

And it is only alive to the extent that the mother does it’s living for it. Take away the mother, it dies. Any living it does is by borrowing from the mother’s life for a fairly extended period. If that wasn’t the case, they’d be not abortion debates. You could simply take out embryos and fetuses and let them develop externally.

107

[quote]skor wrote:
pookie, I applaud your patience and style of argument.[/quote]

If only they were convincing…

[quote]I think a big problem many people have is that there is no way to clearly say when an embryo becomes a more viable “human being” and hence should not be aborted.

When does human life become a human person? gives an compact overview. I, personally, like the idea of 20-22 week limit for abortion: Ethical views on abortion that are neither pro-life or pro-choice
It also seems to precede the earliest time when a fetus can survive outside of th womb.

I don’t understand the arguments of those who want to prohibit “abortions of convenience”. Unless a baby threatens mother’s life, either a baby can be aborted “morally” (regardless of the reason) or not.[/quote]

Good points. It’s very difficult to place the line to everyone’s satisfaction. Picking birth seems to late, and, of course, fertilization is much too early.

Still interesting to discuss it, anyway.

108

Pookie,

I think a major problem here is that when a woman gets around to having that “oh shit” moment and realizes that she’s pregnant, it’s already a developing fetus.

Also when we’re talking about the viability of any developing human being and it’s ability to survive without it’s “host”. Is a newborn child considered viable? Because it’s sure as hell depending on his/her host to take care of it.

A newborn child certainly cannot survive on it’s own. You might think that I’m splitting hairs here, but I think this is an important point to consider.

109

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I think a major problem here is that when a woman gets around to having that “oh shit” moment and realizes that she’s pregnant, it’s already a developing fetus.[/quote]

Many of the previous points still apply; although as weeks pass we get into a greyer and greyer zone.

The best solution is probably to avoid those “oh shit” moments as much as possible. Sexual education, birth control (including emergency “next day” birth control) and similar policies should be adopted and encouraged.

Unfortunately, we find that many of the staunchest opponents to abortion are also against birth control and sexual education. “Total Abstinence” is their only solution, even though it’s been shown again and again to not work.

Being against everything that could help prevent those “oh shit” moments and then insisting those unwanted children be carried to term and supported seems contradictory to me.

It depends on someone taking care of it, but it’s not a host. It could be placed in an orphanage and cared by the staff and would survive just fine. Quality of life might not be optimal, but it’ll live. You can’t do that with an embryo or a fetus.

I have considered that point. I have even seen pro-choice proponents (the lunatic fringe, IMHO) use the same argument to justify infanticide for a certain number of months. Birth is simply a natural, easy place to put the line that determines when “personhood” begins.

110

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So what? It changes nothing to the fact that the embryo has nearly everything in common with a bunch of liver cells, and nearly nothing in common with an adult (or even a baby.) At that stage, they differ mostly by function.[/quote]

Not to change the subject, but just to point out that you are arguing that stem cells taken out of a liver are the same as embryonic stem cells.

The comparison is horseshit anyway. The each of the cells in an embryo has a specific purpose according to it’s genetic information. As they continue to divide, the be come increasingly more specialized. Liver cells have one purpose, to be a liver.

The problem with your arguments is that you are defining what is human by it’s physical properties. A human organism is greater than the sum of it’s parts. Just because something doesn’t look human, doesn’t mean it isn’t.

111

[quote]pookie wrote:
skor wrote:
pookie, I applaud your patience and style of argument.

If only they were convincing…

I think a big problem many people have is that there is no way to clearly say when an embryo becomes a more viable “human being” and hence should not be aborted.

When does human life become a human person? gives an compact overview. I, personally, like the idea of 20-22 week limit for abortion: Ethical views on abortion that are neither pro-life or pro-choice
It also seems to precede the earliest time when a fetus can survive outside of th womb.

I don’t understand the arguments of those who want to prohibit “abortions of convenience”. Unless a baby threatens mother’s life, either a baby can be aborted “morally” (regardless of the reason) or not.

Good points. It’s very difficult to place the line to everyone’s satisfaction. Picking birth seems to late, and, of course, fertilization is much too early.

Still interesting to discuss it, anyway.
[/quote]

Arguing is one thing, but do you honestly think you have a chance at changing anyones mind? The only way your going to do that is to prove irrefutably at what point a human life starts. So far, no go.

Actually, if you were able to do that you’d certainly be getting a Nobel prize. I am not under the impression, I will change your mind either. You are to emotionally wound up in your beliefs to accept any argument, not matter how well made.

112

[quote]pat36 wrote:
The problem with your arguments is that you are defining what is human by it’s physical properties.[/quote]

What properties would you propose we use?

How so? Please explain.

We agree then that an embryo doesn’t look human.

Now, if it has nearly nothing in common with what we think of when we say “human” (ie, an adult specimen), how human can it really be? It is composed of human cells, but so are every organs in your body.

Why should something that has 95% commonality with organs and nearly none with an adult human be granted all the rights and privileges of an adult? Especially if that means trumping the rights and privileges of another actual adult who does look, act, think, feel, etc. like a human?

Why does the small thoughtless organic mass of human cells get to override the desire of the thinking adult?

113

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Arguing is one thing, but do you honestly think you have a chance at changing anyones mind? The only way your going to do that is to prove irrefutably at what point a human life starts. So far, no go.[/quote]

People can only change their own minds, I can’t change it for them.

I still enjoy discussing these topics and seeing how others, who arrive at the exact opposite conclusion I do, rationalize their positions. Whether you’re pro- or con- a certain position, you’ve got reasons for it. And generally, a lot of info, research, URLs, etc. is involved so that even if everyone stays on their position, many people are better informed about the facts involved in the issue.

As for when life starts, I’m find more interesting discussing when “being a person” starts. As far as I’m concerned, life started billions of years ago and has continued on since.

Phrases like “all life is sacred” lead to weird illogical conclusions as bacteria, animals, plants etc. are also alive. People who’ve had severe brain trauma and are being kept alive in hospital beds are, by definition, alive. They’ve stopped being persons, though, except in the memories of those who knew them.

Odd, I’ve generally been accused of being cold and detached when it comes to that question. Emotional and wound up is a new one.

As for accepting well made arguments, I’d certainly like to try. Would someone from your side care to present one?

114

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By the way, in reading through the various arguments here, this thread is a perfect demonstration why the issue of abortion should be a political question left to the back-and-forth of state legislatures, and not the province of nine lawyers on a bench in Washington D.C.[/quote]

Great point. When Roe gets overturned, and we’re left with the country actually putting the question to a debate, we’ll all be better off, wherever that leads.

Though I tend to think most states would settle on leaving first trimester abortions legal, with restrictions, some would ban it, hopefully.

115

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Pookie,

I think a major problem here is that when a woman gets around to having that “oh shit” moment and realizes that she’s pregnant, it’s already a developing fetus.

Also when we’re talking about the viability of any developing human being and it’s ability to survive without it’s “host”. Is a newborn child considered viable? Because it’s sure as hell depending on his/her host to take care of it.

A newborn child certainly cannot survive on it’s own. You might think that I’m splitting hairs here, but I think this is an important point to consider.[/quote]

Or someone in an iron lung or on life support. The “survive on its own” argument justifies euthanasia as well as abortion, cousins that they are.

116

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
The problem with your arguments is that you are defining what is human by it’s physical properties.

What properties would you propose we use?

[/quote]
That didn’t come out right, me thinks. You are defining what a human is by listing certain parts of a human. Developed organs, personality, functioning apendages, etc. By that definition, my dog is human.

You have all the parts I have. That doesn’t make you me. I all or most of the parts most other males have, but I am not them and they are not me. The parts list for a Ferrari and Nissan may look very much the same, but they are totally different even though they are both cars. Your genetic properties are what made you and your environmental properties are what molded you.

I have seen fully formed human beings that arguably, don’t look human.

Are you saying that evey cell in the human body is the same?
The embryo is autonomous of the organs in your body. It is a separate being. You kill off a few brains cells and they’ll regenerate and you wouldn’t know the difference. You kill off an embryo and that unique invidual will never be again.

Even children don’t have the same rights as an adult. I am not arguing we give embryos suffrage rights. I am saying they have a right to live.

You have asked a bucnch of questions now it’s my turn. Were does a human life begin? You’re hell bent it doesn’t occur at conception and you don’t seem to believe that it happens only when the child has exited the pussy, so where is it?

117

[quote]pat36 wrote:
You have asked a bucnch of questions now it’s my turn. Were does a human life begin? You’re hell bent it doesn’t occur at conception and you don’t seem to believe that it happens only when the child has exited the pussy, so where is it?[/quote]

I don’t think there is a clear answer to that question partially because it’s not well defined. A possible answer is that human life have always existed and a new person is just a new manifestation of it.

If the question is what should be a cut off point for abortion (or in other words, when a human personhood starts), it’s unclear. Somewhere inbetween conception and birth. Maybe at week 22 when brain activity starts (Ethical views on abortion that are neither pro-life or pro-choice).

For other points of view, read Pro-choice beliefs about personhood during pregnancy.

A quote from the last link: “For much of its history, the Christian religion believed in this delayed-ensoulment principle and allowed abortions up to 90 days into pregnancy.”

Just like the definitions of “death” have changed, definitions of “life” have changed and will change with developing technology.