Secular_World

Interesting. I just see a diploid cell. I don't see a person anywhere, as being a person necessitates things such as an independent circulation system and ultimately an independent brain, as it's the behaviour (controlled by the brain), that makes a bunch of cells a person. It's the unique, independent behavior that makes a person (and that makes twins two persons). Both sperm/egg and zygote have the potential to become a person, with the difference being about an inch or so, and both sperm and egg are as unique as the zygote.

Would those be acceptable for you then? Where do you draw the line? And who gets to decide which children live and which die?

This is where I wholeheartedly disagree. They both have exactly the same potential to become a person. Just because they haven't fused yet doesn't make a difference.

But what I would really like to know is whether you have corroborating evidence for your position, and if not, if you would agree that it's a matter of opinion.

That's what bugs me most about the whole abortion discussion (and to bring it back into IIDB territory ), the fact that many people just state their opinion as the only correct one (often followed by "because god told me so") and stop thinking at this point. If we can agree that there is no fixed point where to draw the line, discussion and conflict resolution is at least possible, but on this issue this seems to be too much to ask from many people.

Columbus

What LWF asked is why you think that murder is wrong. You didn't answer. If you agree that it is wrong to kill an adult, how do you distinguish murder from "disposing of a tiny life form"? If I decided that my decision to "dispose of a negro life form" was none of your business would that be the "end of story"?
Family Man
Why, exactly, do you make this distinction? At no point in the process does the baby suddenly become different.
Please try to understand this. I am not unsympathetic to the disaster of an unplanned pregnancy. Since almost all of my friends are "Pro-Choice" it would be much more convenient for me to agree with them. However, it seems obvious to me that it is not OK for anyone to choose to destroy someone else's life. There is no line between a zygote and an adult where a human is created. There are rare instances when abortion is the lesser of two evils. Usually it is someone willing to kill someone else because they don't want the consequences of their behaviour. Simply put: murder.

Tom

Family Man

Why shouldn't I? Why does the fact that the fetus changes gradually change things? There are a lot of moral issues that are a bit difficult, and abortion is one of them. So what?

Oh, so you're so sympathetic that you accuse those who disagree with you with murder. That sounds more like crocodile tears than real sympathy.

I don't think you'll find too many people agree with you. I think you'll find that, faced with convicting a woman with murder for aborting a fetus, you're in a very small majority. It's not murder just because we share 46 chromosomes. It's only murder when a clear majority agrees it's murder, and that consensus doesn't exist.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions I'm fully with you. If you want to declare it to be murder, I think not only are you whacked but you're hurting the very cause you're trying to promote. It certainly turns me off.

maurile

At no point between zygote and octogenarian does a person suddenly become different. Is it therefore ridiculous to say that a nine-year-old shouldn't be allowed to drive, but a thirty-year-old should? At what point is there a sudden difference that justifies letting someone drive?

Just because there's no sudden difference doesn't mean we can't draw lines. It doesn't mean we have to treat zygotes and accountants the same -- for driving purposes or for any other purpose.

Mr. Aardvark

So if someone is holding a fertilized human egg in a petri dish and has a gun pointed to the head of, say, a 22-year-old adult, and this person would say to you one of them have to die but you must choose, you would be in a quandary about the decision?

Not me, not even for a second. I know eaxactly who the person is in the choice. The egg is toast.

Karalora

To say that a human zygote/embryo/fetus deserves the right to life simply because it is genetically human begs the question of why human life is worth protecting in the first place. I am not questioning whether human life is worth protecting, only why...so that we can reasonably draw lines.

I disagree with the contention that a zygote's potential to be a full-fledged person means that it is worthy of personhood status now. If we are to grant rights based on potential, even probable potential, then every medical student, no matter how far along she is in her studies, should be handed a license to practice medicine. But we grant rights according to what things and people actually are, not what they have the potential to become.

Hawkpeter

What they said. Right on Karalora.

The abortion debate has evolved a long way since red hot pincers were used to rip off the breats of women who self induced abortions.

Ok abortion is murder. What kind of ripple effect will this have on society? Couples and suddenly backyard doctors facing murder charges?

Personally, not because its "right" or "okay" but because if it was deemed murder our societies around the world would lurch into a miriade of problems that would effect every aspect of life.

While some out there are worried about how abortion is morally difficult I'll be thankful that the laws are what they are instead the social unrest resulting from the conversion to the alternative.

To be honest I dont weep over aborted foetuses. And I didn't think anything more this week than, "shit, I'm glad that wasn't me on one of those beaches". But for some reason even the thought of enduring a conversion of society towards making abortion illegal really gets my goat over what the results will be and how far reaching.

Columbus

Why do you think human life is worth protecting? Arguments for protecting adult lives and not pre-born lives all revolve around the usefullness of the person. Human life is not protected, human usefullness is being protected.

A right to life is not comparable to a license to do something requiring training and judgement like driving or practicing medicine. It is the most fundamental right of all. We do not "grant" life. Niether you nor anyone else has the right to destroy one.

I am all about everyone's right to choose, before their choice involves someone else. No-one on this forum has come up with anything resembling a division between adults and zygotes that stands up to scrutiny. The divisions are all arbitrary, based on somebody's convenience. "A woman's right to choose" is like "separate but equal", a ploy to make the illicit seem reasonable.

Tom

Karalora

This is sadly true. Our current government administration, although staunchly anti-abortion, has no qualms about killing foreign adults and born children provided they can convince themselves that these people are more useful to them dead than alive. Perhaps you and I can agree that we as a society can do better.

This only begs the question of which beings have this supposedly inherent right and why they have it. I will agree that a right to life (as opposed to a privilege to practice medicine) may not be withdrawn--that is, after all, what a right is. But I do not agree that human zyogtes, embryos, and fetuses before a certain stage possess nor deserve this right.

As am I, but a zygote is not "someone." It is "something"--hence our use of the pronoun "it", rather than "he" or "she", to refer to it.

I have one, but before I set it on the table I need to know if we're on the same page regarding why human life is worth protecting in the first place.

So, what are your reasons? I will hazard a guess that it boils down to a utilitarian argument on some level.

Columbus

[QUOTE]My right to life principles are universal. I oppose capital punishment and "pre-emptive" war and environmental degradation and every other instance of someone deliberately choosing someone else's death, whether directly or indirectly. Not only can we agree that society can do better, but I think that if we don't society will come to an end in the foreseeable future.


But why is that? At what stage does a person acquire this right? If different stages of human life get different levels of protection, why not different genders or races?



I don't generally use the pronoun "it" to refer to a human. When I'm refering to someone whose gender I am unsure of I use "they". A zygote has a gender, but it's hard to tell which. So using the pronoun "it" is understandable. Nevertheless, using a pronoun usually applied to the non-human doesn't change the reality of the situation. Would Hitler refering to a Jew as "it" have changed anything?



[QUOTE]You will be wrong. As a white middle-class American gay male I have no particular use for the vast majority of the humans on this planet. It's pure faith. I prefer to believe that each and every human being has an inherent value, so I do. I have absolutely no empirical evidence for this proposition. I find that my own life is better because of this belief of mine.

Let me tell you the story about when I came to my belief about the immorality of abortion. Since I am gay, you might find it hard to believe. But it is absolutely true.
When I was 20 I had a girlfriend who was 19. J (my girlfriend) was as regular as a clock, menstrually speaking. One day she mentioned that she was "late". We didn't like the implications, but weren't worried particularly. A week later we started worrying. A week after that we were sweating bullets. We were trying to figure out what we should do. Get married? Put the child up for adoption? Get an abortion? How would our very conservative Catholic families react? What the fuck do we do now? It was hell.
A week after that J's period came, suddenly and violently. Obviously she'd had a mis-carriage. We were off the hook. Whew! But I couldn't stop thinking about what had happened. There is no honest way to avoid the conclusion that I had become a parent. But I wanted my child to die, and was glad when he/she did. Guilt had nothing to do with it. Niether J or I had anything to do with the death. But there is no doubt in my mind that my child died at the age of one month.

I can easily create a batch of utilitarian arguments for my Right to Life beliefs. Everyone who dies takes with them the contributions they'd have made if they'd lived longer. If you can kill someone else, you can kill me. Etc. But these arguments only support my belief, they are not the foundation. I want to live in a world where each and every human is valued, without exception. This cannot ever be true if I don't value each and every human myself. So I do.

Tom