Abortion.What do you think about it?

Dok,

To me, the burden of proof is on those who claim that an unborn human is, somehow, not a human.

Regardless, I think real life has presented sufficient evidence to support that a fetus is a living human being. He, at least, has put forth a good argument. Some on the pro-choice side have not done even that much, despite general agreement that it is central to the debate.

This presupposes the unborn is, in fact, a human..now doesn't it

Honestly, I don't dispute that he has presented a case that could be considered compelling to many. By many I refer to those that agree the central and most important issue is 'When is it a human life'. [. . .] I see the central issue as being the power of the individual versus the power of the state.

The best I can figure is that the fusion of the two pronuclei (from the sperm and the ovum) indicates the presence of a human person.

At this stage, the zygote contains its own, unique (human) DNA;
It is developmentally active (assuming that it survives);
And, it reacts to stimuli.

The fact that it reacts to stimuli seems to show a capacity for preference and, therefore, some sense of awareness. I admit that it does seem pretty extreme to think that a zygote could be aware of anything. I don't claim to understand how that could be, nor do I claim to understand the nature of my own sense of awareness.

But, because I can find no reason to draw a line at any other point, I can only assume that it traces back to fertilization.

The best I can figure is that the fusion of the two pronuclei (from the sperm and the ovum) indicates the presence of a human person.

At this stage, the zygote contains its own, unique (human) DNA;
It is developmentally active (assuming that it survives);
And, it reacts to stimuli.

The fact that it reacts to stimuli seems to show a capacity for preference and, therefore, some sense of awareness. I admit that it does seem pretty extreme to think that a zygote could be aware of anything. I don't claim to understand how that could be, nor do I claim to understand the nature of my own sense of awareness.

But, because I can find no reason to draw a line at any other point, I can only assume that it traces back to fertilization.

echi wrote:

The best I can figure is that the fusion of the two pronuclei (from the sperm and the ovum) indicates the presence of a human person.

At this stage, the zygote contains its own, unique (human) DNA;
It is developmentally active (assuming that it survives);
And, it reacts to stimuli.

The fact that it reacts to stimuli seems to show a capacity for preference and, therefore, some sense of awareness. I admit that it does seem pretty extreme to think that a zygote could be aware of anything. I don't claim to understand how that could be, nor do I claim to understand the nature of my own sense of awareness.

But, because I can find no reason to draw a line at any other point, I can only assume that it traces back to fertilization.

That makes sense echi, if you are determined to find a definitive black and white solution. The truth as I see it, is that a sperm and an egg, a zygote, a foetus are all parts of the gradual process of becoming a living human being. I think a foetus at 39 weeks is perhaps 1000 times more "living human being" than a foetus at 12 weeks. I think this is actually the common view, although most people don't think about it in such terms. To demonstrate why I think this...compare the reaction of people why miscarry at 12 weeks or less (estimated at 50%, many never become public knowledge and many are not even known by the mother to have existed) to those who miscarry at 39 weeks (then called a still birth).

Now, with that in mind, and knowing that making abortion illegal will, without doubt, reduce the number of overall abortions, but INCREASE the number of later, dangerous, backyard abortions....do you still want abortion to be equal to murder?...and miscarriage to be treated as any other accidental death? You have to deal with these issues if you insist on a black and white definition at conception, you can't have it both ways.

As I've said many times, I think abortion is a bad thing, but I think making abortion illegal is far worse.

By the way, remember the thing with the hair?....those cells contain a complete set of dna that can be used to clone you an identical twin. Is it wrong NOT to allow those cells to become someone? If you actually went ahead and did it, and you asked that person as an adult if you thought human cloning was a good idea, what answer would you expect?

(Identical twins have identical DNA, so uniqueness of DNA itself is not a defining criterion for a human being)

echi wrote:

Dok,

To me, the burden of proof is on those who claim that an unborn human is, somehow, not a human.

This presupposes the unborn is, in fact, a human..now doesn't it

I don't find it compelling as I don't see all human life as sacrosanct. I see the central issue as being the power of the individual versus the power of the state. I am generally against the move away from individual liberty, with the exceptions being of what I view as beneficial to society in a way that benefits me and mine.

What medical evidence do you have that would indicate the unborn is NOT a living human being?

If they are inconvenient to 'you and yours', then they may as well have a red bullseye painted on their backs, eh?

The only question that matters in the abortion debate is:

Is the unborn a living human being?

Either he is and abortion is the killing of a living human being........

...............or he isn't and an abortion has no moral implications. It's like removing a wart or a mole from the skin.

Which is it?

Earlier I used the examples of rape and theft to make the same point. But you ignored it, and I think I am beginning to understand why you miss the point so badly.

We pass laws, not to convince lawbreakers that these laws are in their best interest, and not to convince those who won't break the law that it is their best interest.

We pass laws to protect those who would be the victim of the lawbreaker.

Rape laws are to protect women, not to convince men that rape is not in their best interest.

Theft laws are to protect property owners, not to convince thieves that theft is not in their best interest.

Slavery laws were passed to protect blacks, not to convince whites that slavery was not in their best interest.

Abortion laws were to protect the unborn, not to convince those already born that it is their best interest.

Get it? No probably not.

Now, have you ANY evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?

That is the only relevant point in the abortion debate, and the one which you and most of the rest of the pro-abortion crowd can't seem to address specifically.

I have plenty of evidence that fetuses are not human beings until at least 24 weeks gestation. But no matter how many times I present it, those with an anti-abortion mindset simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Name someone who wasn't both an egg and sperm? No one contests that we weren't all fetuses. Go ahaed and make your point, nobody needs to list the people who used to be fetuses.

Your question even impies that we are not fetuses anymore. When did we stop being a fetus?

Should adults like us have the same rights as a fetus? Should fetuses be allowed to vote? Should a fetus have to pay taxes?

Face it, you have to acknowledge that fetuses and developed humans, have different rights. you can't vote until you are 18, a right that is abitrarily assigned. Can't drink until you are 21, but you can drive at 16 in the USA. In other countries these ages are different. Who is right? who knows when arbitrary rights can be assigned? Our country upholds that before 18 your parents are in charge of your rights and your legal voice, and it also holds that an unborn person is under the rights of the mother.

If we are humans/people/whatever at the moment of conception/fertilization, how come our birth-certificates don't document that the beginning of a person is at their conception? You can be inside a womb and your parents can even give you a name, but it's not your name until you are come out.

Numeration. You begina at zero, not zero minus 9 months. Before that you may be developing etc, but you don't enharit any rights that your carrier doesn't give you (and this is key-->) by choice.

Your questions here really do not matter to me. Very simply - my biggest concern for a fetus, 5-month old "preemie", infant, toddler, child, teen, adult, elderly person is the right to live. Wink

real life wrote:

The only question that matters in the abortion debate is:

Is the unborn a living human being?

Either he is and abortion is the killing of a living human being........

...............or he isn't and an abortion has no moral implications. It's like removing a wart or a mole from the skin.

Which is it?

A zygote is not a human being. An embryo is not a human being. A fetus is an organism in the process of becoming a human being. When its brain develops to the point that awareness might be possible (certainly no earlier than 24 weeks gestation), I would consider it a rudimentary human being. However, the woman whose body the fetus is parasitizing is unquestionably a human being whose rights to health and well-being (however she defines it) must always supersede those of the fetus.

Quote:

Earlier I used the examples of rape and theft to make the same point. But you ignored it, and I think I am beginning to understand why you miss the point so badly.

We pass laws, not to convince lawbreakers that these laws are in their best interest, and not to convince those who won't break the law that it is their best interest.

We pass laws to protect those who would be the victim of the lawbreaker.

Rape laws are to protect women, not to convince men that rape is not in their best interest.

Theft laws are to protect property owners, not to convince thieves that theft is not in their best interest.

Slavery laws were passed to protect blacks, not to convince whites that slavery was not in their best interest.

Abortion laws were to protect the unborn, not to convince those already born that it is their best interest.

Get it? No probably not.

The black-is-white mindset continues to amaze me. How do rape laws "protect" women or theft laws "protect" property owners? They don't. Women still get raped, property still gets stolen, and the law does nothing for the victim. Laws are nothing more than a social contract that stipulates punishment for those who violate them. The intent is to deter crime by convincing potential offenders that it is not in their best interests to risk future punishment for immediate pleasure/gain, and prevent repeat offenses (at least for the period of incarceration).

Laws did not end slavery, war and economics did. Laws will not protect fetuses that parasitize women who do not want to gestate them. Anyone who truly believes in the right to life should lobby to change the laws to allow women to sell babies. I guarantee that there would be no shortage of babies available for adoption if women were properly compensated for the economic loss, pain, and health risk of pregnancy and childbirth. High school girls could pay for college by bearing a baby or two. Welfare moms could be put to work having more babies "for the good of society." Even nuns could do their part by giving up their vows of chastity in order to provide life to more human beings.

Quote:

Now, have you ANY evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?

That is the only relevant point in the abortion debate, and the one which you and most of the rest of the pro-abortion crowd can't seem to address specifically.

I have plenty of evidence that fetuses are not human beings until at least 24 weeks gestation. But no matter how many times I present it, those with an anti-abortion mindset simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Name someone who wasn't both an egg and sperm? No one contests that we weren't all fetuses. Go ahaed and make your point, nobody needs to list the people who used to be fetuses.

Your question even impies that we are not fetuses anymore. When did we stop being a fetus?

Should adults like us have the same rights as a fetus? Should fetuses be allowed to vote? Should a fetus have to pay taxes?

Face it, you have to acknowledge that fetuses and developed humans, have different rights. you can't vote until you are 18, a right that is abitrarily assigned. Can't drink until you are 21, but you can drive at 16 in the USA. In other countries these ages are different. Who is right? who knows when arbitrary rights can be assigned? Our country upholds that before 18 your parents are in charge of your rights and your legal voice, and it also holds that an unborn person is under the rights of the mother.

If we are humans/people/whatever at the moment of conception/fertilization, how come our birth-certificates don't document that the beginning of a person is at their conception? You can be inside a womb and your parents can even give you a name, but it's not your name until you are come out.

Numeration. You begina at zero, not zero minus 9 months. Before that you may be developing etc, but you don't enharit any rights that your carrier doesn't give you (and this is key-->) by choice.