Puck

I am amazed at all the talk of zygots and oak trees and what have you.

I am an adult woman. It's no body's business how I got pregnant. It's nobody's business why I don't wish to host a glob of cells in in my body. You can argue the 'right and wrong' all day and night long, but, it's still none of your business.

Who is going to query me as to how I got pregnant? What gives them the right to question something so very personal? The only position I can see is a parental attitude towards me, the moral police, if you will. I'm an adult, I have my reasons, and it's none of your business.

I can just see it now. I, an adult woman, find myself pregnant and wish not to carry or give birth to a child. I walk into an abortion clinic:

Puck, so you wish to have an abortion? We must ask you some questions first. How did you come to be pregnant?

(Puck is going to think, what business is that of yours?)

Puck: By what authority do you have the right to ask such a personal question?

Puck, why do you wish to abort?

Puck: Again, what right do you have to question my personal motives?!

Just who gets to decide anything in this issue? It's all a matter of personal beliefs, religous or not, it doesn't matter. No one else's personal belief should be imposed upon me in such a personal way. Rape or consentual sex, it doesn't matter, and who is going to be in charge of policing it?

Don't talk to me of personal responsibility, either. Because it goes back to who is going to police it?

I should have to explain to anyone how I came to be pregnant?

Yes, there are moral issues involved. I should not have casual sex and run to abortion clinics whenever that sex results in pregnancy. When a fetus is viable outside womb, I think anyone who would abort it for other than medical reasons is an ass.

But I'm sorry, you are not going to impose upon me your personal beliefs. You think a zygot is fully human because of it's potential human-ness, fine. Your business. I don't think it is. My business. As long as you don't try to legislate your belief over mine, no problem.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Elaborate:
<strong>It would be up to her doctor's acvice. </strong>

So, what happens, if, for example, the doctor says that she has "only" a 30% chance of dying, but the woman considers that too great a risk? Again, who gets to decide when the risk is too great?

<strong>30% was a guess. I apologize for not explaining in advance.</strong>

Thank you.

<strong>If there is such a difference between the two opinions, I would suggest a third. I you could not afford a third, go with the most realistic.</strong>

What is "the most realistic" and who gets to define it - you or the pregnant woman? How is a woman supposed to choose between two conflicting medical opinions?

<strong>A doctor. </strong>

Does a doctor's opinions or judgement on what "extreme sickness" is always trump those of the pregnant woman, who is the person actually suffering the "extreme sickness"?

<strong>She bears the child if she can do so safely. No reason the child should die.</strong>

Previously you have stated that women should be made to bear children they do not want because they have been "irresponsible" by not using birth control. Now, we have the case of a woman who does use birth control, but gets pregnant anyway because the rapist fails to be nice and use a second method. You state that the woman should be forced to bear the child anyway. How can you claim that you are "advocating personal responsibility", when you think women should be forced to bear children whether they have been responsible or not?

Also, you are defining a fertilized egg as a "child". Not all women do the same, and I see no reason why your definition should trump theirs.

<strong>There isn't anything she can do at that point. </strong>

So you think that if a teenager is prevented from using contraceptives and is then raped and becomes pregnant, that's just her bad luck and she should be forced to undergo pregnancy and labor anyway?

<strong>Yes. </strong>

That's one of the most repulsive attitudes that I've ever encountered, smacking of The Handmaid's Tale.

<strong>What do you think she has to do? Bear the child.</strong>

Basically, she is made a slave to her uterus and the decisions of other people regarding it. No doubt this results in a larger population, since women are forced to deliver children whether they like it or not, but I see no other benefits to it.

<strong>I don't know about other people, but I would not let my thirteen year old child even be in a situation that could result in rape. </strong>

And what kind of situations would those be? Would your hypothetical thirteen year old never go to school, never go to the park, never venture outside the house?

<strong>Actually, mace and/or stun guns work rather well.</strong>

Perhaps, if you see the rapist coming and are in a position to defend yourself. Of course, all women can afford these, and they work especially well against rapists armed with guns or knives.

<strong>She should abstain from sex,</strong>

This no doubt improves her marriage big time.

<strong> and learn, say, judo. And carry mace.</strong>

Her husband probably appreciates those being used on him to dissuade him from attempting intimate relations with her.

<strong>Certainly, if tshe can afford to work relief in Afghanistan, she can afford an implant.</strong>

What if, despite your confidence regarding her finances, she cannot afford such an implant? What if she is held for long enough for the implant to stop working?

<strong>Yes, that is my definition. You asked for it. That is what I think is a resonable definition of improper.</strong>

Why should anyone else be compelled to follow your definitions?

<strong>They bear the, and give it up for adoption. </strong>

So responsibility has nothing to do with it, then - despite your former posts. Women should be forced to bear children they do not want whether they have been responsible regarding contraceptives or not.

<strong>The father helps pay.</strong>

What if the father cannot be found? What if he's dead or in jail for rape?

<strong>She isn't being held responsible, </strong>

She is being held responsible if she is forced to undergo pregnancy and labor. That is one of the consequences of being fertilized due to a rape.

<strong>she is refraining from killing a child that did not ask to be created.</strong>

As opposed to, say, a child that did ask to be created?

<strong>Yes, I do.</strong>

Why should any woman follow your definition, especially since you provide no backup or reasoning for it?

<strong>Put more simply than I did before, yes.</strong>

Once again, a completely unsupported assertion.

<strong>Well, I don't see much point in continueing an exercise in futility. Do you? </strong>

I think it's interesting to see how unrealistic and dehumanizing towards women your views are.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Mr Polo, sir:

If you are accepting my argument, then you must agree with me that the potential to become human is not sufficient to grant rights to an object. If you do not, then this argument is far from over.

You're kidding? So you really think that park rangers in national parks should be policing for the destruction of acorns with as much fervor as they police the destruction of whole trees? Perhaps you should inform them of their new responsibilities, and their new-found power to enforce fines against an acorn killer.

Surely, surely you can see that eating an apple is not the came as destroying an orchard? Your argument is being reduced into puddles of absurdity all around you, and your world is suddenly a strange place where environmentalists take people to court for the crime of deforestation at the drop of a seed.

Long-winded:

There are two ways to refute a logical argument. YOu may prove that it is invalid (In the technical sense, meaning that the premises do not support the conclusion), or unsound (again, technically this refers to showing that some or all premises are untrue). You want to restrict the conversation to the former, but it is always neccesary to focus equally on both.

True, the analogy is not the argument, but what I have done (I assume we are talking about the oak tree thing?) is show that your analogy is not an acceptable analogy, and in fact it supports my case more than yours. Destroying an acorn is not felling a tree, and should not be met with a hundred thousand dollar fine.

Have you seen a zygote? Its a cell. It is a bunch of bacterial organelles, some proteins, lipid membranes and amino acid/sugar chains. It is not more than the sum of its parts. There are no emergent properties, as in thinking humans, which are as much a product of mixing truth, beauty, honor, love, and justice as we are a mix of DNA. Add to this this important fact: a zygote can NOT BE CONSIDERED AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN! Why not? Because the zygote is capable of twinning. It is entirely possible that the zygote may eventually become eight different individuals. How, then, can it be an individual human?

You can't have one. As nice as it would be, it is not a possible thing to do. Sorry, but it can never ever be.

By the way, this idea of gradual development is not 'my argument', it is well known science. Ask any developmental biologist when the things that make you you show up. They will tell you there is no moment when a developing foetus 'wakes up' and becomes an individual. All things that make an individual who they are develop slowly over time. It can't be avoided. You get no line.

Here:
You have shot yourself in the foot. You say conception begins an individual, and then you say a seed is not a tree. Bong! A seed IS a conceived embryo. Therefore your logic suggests that it IS a tree. When you eat an apple you have obliterated an orchard. When you burn an acorn you have felled an oak. If you do it in a national park you should be arrested. We are living in the twighlight zone.

But brain dead people do not. While it is true that the family of the brain dead must be respected, it is perfectly acceptable to donate the organs of a brain dead person. You keep wanting to put the distinction of humanity at the species, of all things. I can't tell you how absurd that is from the perspective of biology. You want a grey area? Look up the definition of species, and good luck finding two biologists who will agree on it.

I find it perfectly rational, primarily dur to the fact that I have a fair Idea what makes me me.

I will rephrase my earlier question: what is it about you that, if removed, would mean you are no longer you? Is it the DNA in your cells? (hint: it really, really isn't that). What is it? obviously when you're dead you are not you, so what is it? I say: it is your thoughts, what do you think it is?

long winded fool

"...you are not going to impose upon me your personal beliefs. You think a zygot is fully human because of it's potential human-ness, fine. Your business. I don't think it is. My business. As long as you don't try to legislate your belief over mine, no problem."

But anti-abortionists ARE trying to legislate their beliefs over yours. What makes this wrong? If I decided to stop feeding my seven-year-old child because he's mine and I'm the one who pays for him to live, are you going to tell me it's wrong? If I mistreat my slaves that I've paid for and that I own, are you going to try to legislate your beliefs over mine? You obviously don't have to, they are already legislated. Your beliefs are right and mine are wrong in both of these cases. In the case of pro-abortion, you are the one who is redifining already legislated laws to suit your personal opinions. I am showing that you DON'T have the freedom to legislate who has human rights and who doesn't. By law, morality is NOT subjective. No honest person in this country believes that it truly is. If I poke you in the eye you are going to have a problem with it. If you can't figure out whether or not a given human being should have rights or not, you MUST give it rights until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a human being with no rights. You MUST err on the side of caution when dealing with human lives. To do otherwise is criminal negligence. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant because the laws are in place.

All human beings (zygotes through the brain-dead elderly) have value for the exact same reason. They are our species and we can't have members of our own species arbitrarily destroying others in order to facilitate a better life for themselves. The willful destruction of a member of our own species must be done in self-defense or defense of another or else it is wrong. You can call this subjective morality if you wish, but this is logical and this is law. America is not a nation of conquerers. We go to war as a last resort and we kill our citizens as a last resort. Law is not subjective to the individual who wishes to break it. Your right to a "child-free" life doesn't supercede your child's right to life. Once you are the mother or father of a human, that is, once you concieve another human being, you do not have the right to end the life of that human being, even if it means sacrificing your health. Until the child poses an immediate threat to your life, it is protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. The life of a human being you concieve is NOT solely your business. If the government has a responsibility to protect the wellfare of human beings within the borders of its country, then the government CAN and SHOULD restrict what you can do with the mass of cells in your body that make up a human being. (since the definition of a human being includes zygotes as I have shown in my previous post.) One of the primary purposes of the Constitution is to ensure that human rights aren't decided on an individual case-by-case basis. The only way for a human being in this country to surrender any of its rights is to commit a crime. And even then they have the right to life unless their crime is treason or pre-meditated murder, both of which a fetus in incapable of.

The fact that abortion is legal has no bearing on the argument that it should not be legal. The law is being short-cut by a portion of the population who dislike the responsibilty that intercourse imposes on a woman. Sometimes unfortunate things happen. This gives NO ONE the right to commit murder, or even criminal negligence. Two wrongs don't make a right. By forcing a 14-year-old rape victim to carry her unwanted human and give birth to it, one is protecting the LIFE of one human by sacrificing the happiness of another. This is a right thing to do. Being unhappy is not a lawful reason to murder the human that is making you unhappy, even if said human is purposely making your life a living hell. If you are on an airplane with someone who is physically abusing you, you obviously must deal with him until you land and the police can cart him away. You can NOT kill him until your life is in mortal danger. In the case of the rape victim, she has approximately 9 months to endure her unhappiness and bodily abuse. This is an unfortunate accident of fate and is in no way her fault, but this can never give her the right to commit murder. She is stuck on the plane so to speak and must deal with her pain and frustration. She shouldn't legally have an easy way out in the form of murder, however much she wishes she did.

One of these days, this civilization is going to have to wake up to the objectiveness of reason, the inevitable consequences of self-absorption, and the necessity of personal responsibility, otherwise it will suffer the same fate as every other civilization that has ever existed on Earth. While death is a fair estimate of the future of this civilization, you don't have to condone the actions which will ultimately lead to it out of "compassion" for those who value their feelings more than the lives of others. As atheists would appreciate, logic and reason alone are ultimately the only hope for mankind. Nothing else can possibly save us. As theists would appreciate, God himself even said, "Come, let us reason."

MarcoPolo

You can call me Marco.

I said I understand your argument. I don't accept it. I simply see the futility in continuing this discussion. We could go on and on and we would never agree on the 'potential' argument.

Do you understand me better now? I agree that it's not over. I also understand that it will never be over.

Here we go. I said as long as we don't make the value of the acorn/zygote the same, the comparison works. (You got that from before didn't you?) You do understand the difference between a tree and a human don't you?

No. The value of an acorn is no where near the value of a zygote.

You've built yourself a nice little straw man here. (Probably made from an acorn tree you cut down!!) I stipulated from the beginning that I would agree as long as the value wasn't included in the argument.

Of course I can. And stop calling me Shirley. (Sorry, Leslie Neilsen moment there...)

Only because I allowed you to take the value of a zygote/acorn out of the equation. Put the value back in and it's a different story.

DD, don't get me wrong with what I'm trying to do. I love debating like this. It's just I can also rationally see when there isn't going to be an end to it. If we could come to some agreement on some starting point, then we could build from there.

We disagree on our definitions of where 'potential' begins. Right?

You want potential to mean all the ingredients are there and they just need to be mixed together.

I want potential to mean all the ingredients have already been mixed together.

The whole debate hangs on which definition we use.

Can we agree on my characterization of our arguments for potential? If so, then you have to agree that we're just butting heads and won't be getting anywhere anytime soon.

LordSnooty

Why? You keep repeating how wrong it is to kill a human, but I see no reason why it's so bad in the circumstances we've outlined. Naturally, killing a human being is terrible. But a shapeless blob? A braindead human (a breathing corpse)?

I have to say, you are doing the old Christian jig here. The old Religious Riverdance. You're doing the same things they do - yanking out the same tired old arguments, providing no supporting evidence, and ignoring questions that are too dangerous or difficult.
In your strange opinion, but most certainly not in mine. What you say is true of humans capable of thought and emotion, but not of the unthinking. When pushed, you cannot state why you are right and we are wrong. Upon what do you base your morality? Certainly not upon human dignity, happiness or respect, and most certainly not upon kindness.
A zygote is not a child.
The law is being threatened by a portion of the population who dislike women having sex.
How noble. It must be wonderful to be able to tell child rape victims how they should behave. I'd love to see you try and tell a girl that her life and future happiness are less important than a single-cell organism that's gotten into her belly as the result of a violent sexual assault.

What a true gent you are!

Don't get me wrong, you may be a fine chap in every other regard, and I do not wish to attack you personally. But when the only people that agree with you on any particular issue are conservative Christians, you know you've got something to worry about.

I shall sign off with one of your own statements, that sums up my feelings nicely:
Paul

Doubting Didymus

Of course. I never said otherwise. In my national park example, the value of an acorn is to the full grown tree as the human zygote is to the full grown human. I am not saying that trees are equal in value to humans at all. I am saying quite simply that IF a human embryo is a person, then the same logic dictates that an acorn is an oak tree. Therefore, if the same right to life exists in the embryonic form of things as in the adult, destroying a human zygot is murder AND destroying an acorn is illegal forestry.

By 'zygote', I assume you mean human zygote? Trees have zygotes too, and they are inside seeds. I never said that destroying an acorn is as bad as killing a man. I simply say that destroying an acorn must be as bad as cutting down a tree. I draw no parralells between the respective value of humans and trees. I am simply applying your logic to a different circumstance to highlight its absurdity. Please not that we have progressed past the potentiality argument. In both scenarios, we are dealing with fertilised zygotes.

What value, exactly? Its not a straw man at all, the acorn scenario is an exact paralell of your human zygote argument. Watch:

1) Zygotes have the same value as their adult forms.
2) Destroying a zygote is therefore an equal crime as destroying the adult form of the zygote.
3) therefore aborting a human zygote is the same as murdering a human.

Is this, or is this not an accurate representation of your argument? If not, please present how you think your argument should read. If this IS an accurate representation, than simply applying the very same premises to an acorn (which is a tree zygote), and an adult tree gives you the conclusion that destroying an acorn is precisely equal to cutting down a tree.

Where is the straw?

Okay, then put the value in for me. If the value of a human life makes abortion murder, then the value of an oak tree makes acorn destruction forestry. If performing abortion should be punished by murder charges, then crushing an acorn in a national park is illegal forestry. I am not making any unjustified paralells between human and tree values.

I was fairly certain that we had left the potentiality argument behind. We are now dealing with the same object: fertilised zygotes. I am granting for the purpose of this debate, that potential begins at the zygote, and showing you how that argument does not work whan applied to real-life situations.

Fine! Granted! Potential begins at the zygote, and the rights of the adult are extended to it. Thus: abortion is murder and fruit eating is orchard destruction. You can't have it both ways. Either both abortion and seed destruction should be punished as though it were the respective destruction of human/tree, or neither abortion OR seed destruction are equal crimes to human/tree destruction. Remember that I make no paralells between human and tree value. I will spell this out for you:

EITHER:
Abortion = murder
AND
Acorn destruction in a national reserve = illegal forestry

or NEITHER of these is true. You can not have
Abortion = murder
BUT
Acorn destruction in a national reserve IS NOT illegal forestry.

... Because any argument that gives a human zygote the rights of a human also gives a tree zygote the rights of a tree.

MarcoPolo

Thank you! At least we have a starting point now.

Technically correct. You are destroying the 'seed' of life in either case. The same goes for chicken eggs too. You eat an egg, you've destroyed a chicken.

All technically correct.

Yes you can. Because HUMAN life is much more valuable than PLANT life. (You accept that human life is more valuable don't you?)

I would say it's like this chart I just made. (My wife thinks I'm nuts doing stuff like this, and she's probably right, but I didn't know how to describe this better than the chart.)



(Notice I said 'relative age' and not actual age.)

Would you agree with this chart?

A 10,000 year old tree isn't as valuable, although 'technically' the same, as an acorn.

A 100 year old man is exactly as valuable as a zygote.

Shadownought

This is something that has always irritated me. Opponents of abortion call themselves "Pro-Life," as if supporters are "Anti-Life," or "Pro-Death." Pfah!

winstonjen

Not true. Chickens can produce eggs that aren't fertilised, but are suitable for our own consumption.