simian

I fail to see how a human egg does not meet the criteria you state.

Criteria #1 - a human egg is alive.

Criteria #2 - obviously a human egg is "human rather than some other species."

At least state a set of criteria that actually support what you are saying.

Simian

CJD

Que sera, sera?


If you agree that the state should not outlaw abortions, I am happy . . .

"Happy"? A bit promiscuous, no?

. . . although I don't like your agonizing over the imaginary life of an embryo.

Your over-rationalizing for the sake of cognitive rest is becoming increasingly evident. I agonize over this whole issue as one that manifests our flippancy toward the sanctity of life--not over the "imaginary life of an embryo" (scientifically speaking).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toto wrote: After all, what is a greater threat to humanity as a whole - a woman's decision to abort one pregnancy, allowing her the option to get pregnant later when she can handle parenthood responsibly, or the current situation imposed by anti-choice zealots that has led to overpopulation and social breakdown?

CJD wrote: This is a bit short-sighted, don't you think, Toto?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toto replied: No. It's being realistic.


No, it is shortsighted, if you honestly think that overpopulation and social breakdown are direct results of a lack of abortions. I read this, Toto, and I have to admit, I think What a monster. Little different than fascism. As far as I can tell, however, you're not that way. It just reads that way from my perspective.

Also, this is where my quote from Berry's essay comes in: given that you have concluded that we are in the midst of social breakdown and overpopulation, "what further inhumanities will be justified by that diagnosis?" I can think of one: abortion as a means of solving problems. We never once consider the fact that irresponsible copulation is a direct cause of unwanted pregnancies. At least the Pill, condoms, depo, whatever, are good faith attempts to act responsibly.

I agonize over your callousness regarding the sanctity of life, and you call it being "realistic." Hmph.

CJD

yguy

Don't be absurd. A human egg is human, but it is not a human, as evidenced by its inability to mature into an adult human. It is no more a human being than is a skin cell.

And if you intend to bring up the cloning issue, remember that implicit in the definition of a human being to date has been the fact that it is a product of bisexual reproduction. That criterion cannot be lightly tossed aside.

cheetah

I always hate this oversimplification by pro-lifers, not to mention the inherent misogyny of this statement. It reveals that many pro-lifers are simply eager to punish women for having the freedom to have sex. Now, I won't project that for sure on Vylo, but anyone that sees having a baby as a proper punishment for sex must have a pretty dim view of women having sex. In human society, sex has always been recreational in addition to procreative and if someone wants to have recreational sex who are we to punish them?

Secondly, a sweeping statement like that is gross oversimplification. What if the woman did make good faith attempts to prevent pregnancy during her recreational sex (not to even consider that there was a male involved that may or may not have done the same)? Does that responsibility she took redeem her from the potential "punishment" or is abstinence the only proper way to take responsibility? And if so, how does that fit with human's desire and need for recreational sex? I mean, idealistically many people say that sex should only be in marriage or for procreation or whatnot, but we need to be realistic if this discussion is to go anywhere, and realistically, recreational sex is a natural impulse that cannot be eliminated through legal or social mores.

Additionally, abortion out of convenience really isn't an issue for so-called "partial birth abortions." Many doctors claim they do not exist and the term was made up by pro-lifers. This argument is a straw man to get people on the pro-life bandwagon. If women are having abortions of convenience, it is 99% more common for them to happen within the 1st two trimesters.

Finally, I don't know why people don't see abortion as taking responsibility for actions. Abortion is emotionally tough, expensive, frowned upon by many, and can cause health complications (sounds almost like carrying a pregnancy to term in fact!) and the woman is taking all those things on, and would hopefully learn a lesson from that. Is that not the point? To many pro-lifers: no. The point is to punish the woman for sex, but in a true moral system taking responsibility is about learning from your actions. And who, IRL, has to have abortions every year because they never learn their lesson? Believe me, as dumb as some pro-lifers may think women are, most of us realize that it is eminently easier and cheaper to use various methods of protection than to have abortions. If some women do not realize this, it's because they have not been taught anything about reproduction and sex, and I would argue, as I always do in abortion threads, that pro-lifers ought to direct their resources to where it will make a difference, which is not to outlaw abortions, but increase education and prevention of unplanned pregnancies, which will diminish the need for and desire for abortions. But, alas, the true pro-life agenda shows when they continue to fight against abortions and not unplanned pregancies. After all, if they fight unplanned pregnancies, they will be less able to vilify women for having sex, as they won't show the signs of having had that sex. And gosh darn it, when they can't vilify women and "make them take responsibility" for having unwed sex or unprocreative sex or whatever that sects particular hang-up is, what will they do with their time and money??

cheetah

That criterion is one I have never heard of. Would you kindly produce the source of this criterion?

yguy

You gotta be kidding. When was there ever a human being who was not the product of bisexual reproduction, other than Christ?

cheetah

I'm not saying I dispute that humans can be born of bisexual reproduction, I am saying I dispute that that was ever part of the formal definition of a human being. From this latest reponse, though, I get the impression that you are once again passing off what you believe to be true as absolute fact.

You see, it does not matter that humans are born of bisexual reproduction. It matters that you insinuated that the formal definition disallows humans not born of bisexual reproduction (cloning). If there is actually no formal definition of humans that allows only those of bisexual reproduction, then you stated something with no validity simply to avoid a rebuttal that you knew would destroy your entire argument.

So, one more chance. Are there any widely accepted formal definitions of "human being" that explicitly state that the organism must be a product of bisexual reproduction? Then again, if you are only going to claim that "it is obvious" that humans have to be a product of bisexual reproduction, don't bother. You state that that has previously been implicit in the definition of humans. Well, it no longer is. The definition of humans is not so set in stone as to be able to avoid expanding that definition when new situations arise. Or are you simply setting the stage to deny cloned humans any rights in order to protect our moral infrastructure? bottom line, for this discussion, you are simply out of hand outlawing any discussion that might endanger your precious argument.

yguy

Produce any accepted "formal definition" and I will show you that it rests on the idea of humans being reproduced bisexually, whether it is acknowledged or not.

Whether anyone has observed this or not is of no great interest to me, as the question was irrelevant until the pro-death crowd started trying to rationalize the killing of unborn children.

That's what it is.

Formal definitions do not confer humanity on anyone, as I've said many times. Otherwise any minority could be defined out of the human race by the majority.

Indeed, I'm sure we can look forward to the day when scientists produce human-crocodile hybrids which must be granted human rights on account of their human genetic component.

How on earth can I outlaw discussion even if I want to?

cheetah

yguy,
thanks for confirming you are just passing off your beliefs as truth. You are trying to outlaw discussion by a priori claiming someone cannot use it as an argument. nice try.

Well, I thought there was an interesting discussion going on here before yguy joined in, and I'll just look forward to more of that.

Toto

This use of the word promiscuous is seriously weird. I am happy that we can at least agree on something.

Quote:

. . . although I don't like your agonizing over the imaginary life of an embryo. Your over-rationalizing for the sake of cognitive rest is becoming increasingly evident. I agonize over this whole issue as one that manifests our flippancy toward the sanctity of life--not over the "imaginary life of an embryo" (scientifically speaking). . . . No, it is shortsighted, if you honestly think that overpopulation and social breakdown are direct results of a lack of abortions. I read this, Toto, and I have to admit, I think What a monster. Little different than fascism. As far as I can tell, however, you're not that way. It just reads that way from my perspective. Also, this is where my quote from Berry's essay comes in: given that you have concluded that we are in the midst of social breakdown and overpopulation, "what further inhumanities will be justified by that diagnosis?" I can think of one: abortion as a means of solving problems. We never once consider the fact that irresponsible copulation is a direct cause of unwanted pregnancies. At least the Pill, condoms, depo, whatever, are good faith attempts to act responsibly. I agonize over your callousness regarding the sanctity of life, and you call it being "realistic." Hmph. CJD

Irresponsible copulation? Is that related to unbridled lust? Is this the root cause of your concern?

Let's look at reality. Who bans abortions? Generally dictators. The bizarre Romanian Communist dictator Ceaucescu banned abortions, and subjected women to monthly pregnancy tests (the only realistic way of preventing abortions.) I see no respect for the sanctity of life there.

Who legalizes abortions? Countries that respect the equality of women. (Also countries like China with overpopulation problems.)

Since I do not consider an embryo or a 3 month fetus a human being, I find your attempt to invest them with "sanctity" to be imaginative and ahistorical, a desparate attempt to find some rationale for forbidding abortions.