Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

What none of them say is that an organism like, say, a zygote, which I'll remind you is an organism, turns into into something that can be regarded as a human being, when an acorn becomes a tree and so on and so forth.

What complete and utter nonsense. A human zygote doesn't "turn into" a human being, it IS a human being, by definition. Whether it is a fetal human being or a teenage human being or an adult human being is completely irrelevant to it's status as a human being. All those terms, just like the terms "acorn" and "seedling" and "tree" are notations of stages of development and absolutely nothing else. They are biological acknowledgments of the passing of time and the maturation of the organism from it's beginning stages to its final stage, and they apply to EVERY individual of ANY species that uses the same biological processes for development.

The definitions don't have to say "a human zygote turns into a human being at X weeks of gestation" because that has nothing whatever to do with the definition of "zygote." The word MEANS "the first cell of a new individual organism." It's implicit that the zygote formed from the DNA of the parents is a new individual of that species and it's equally implicit that over time, the zygote will develop according to its DNA into more mature stages of the same species.

Now you're trying to hang your argument on the notion that the definition of "zygote" must include a complete synopsis of the future developmental progress of the organism?

That's ridiculous because each species develops in a different way. The word "zygote" is merely a descriptor for the first cell of the new living individual organism of the relevant species. Defining the next stages of development depends on the species of the particular organism involved, which may develop differently from some other species.

Sheesh.

[Seth]

Thanks for admitting that abortion is a political matter, which means that a change in the political winds is all that it takes to ban abortion entirely.

Admitting the bleedin obvious? I'm happy to do that any time.

Glad to hear it.

But thanks for dumping your pretence that it's a scientific matter.

I never once said that abortion is a scientific matter because it's not. But pro-abortionists like to claim it is a matter of science, or mixed science and politics, by using deliberately and mendaciously false arguments about the nature of the living organism being killed during an abortion. The most commonly heard outright lie is "it's not a baby, it's just a clump of cells." Well, that's asinine argument to begin with, and it's factually untrue, which is what I've been pointing out here. Every abortion of a living human fetus is the killing of a living human being. That is scientific fact.

It must be hard to keep up with your previous bollocks, when you're trolling.

It's child's play for me, actually, because you're so very, very easy to troll. You rise to the bait like a starving trout every single time, without fail. It actually gets a bit boring highlighting your ignorant foolishness so often. The lurkers must be laughing their asses off at you right now.

[Hermit]

A human zygote doesn't "turn into" a human being, it IS a human being, by definition.

Correction: By [img]your[/img] definition. To me a zygote is no more a human being as an acorn is a tree, though they may become a human being or a tree. Your notion that a zygote is a human being and that an acorn is a tree is so nonsensical that there is no need for a definition to explicitly state "A zygote/acorn is an organism but not yet a human being/tree.

[Forty Two]

The acorn/tree analogy is interesting.

In the US, a person can be guilty of a crime in some jurisdictions for cutting down a tree that is on another person's property. Not only trespass, but also the actual felling of a tree can be illegal. Under Seth's logic, if an acorn is on the ground on my property, and I invite the neighbor over to my house, and he purposefully crushes an acorn that is on the ground, he would have just cut down a tree.

[Tero]

For fuck's sake, it's illegal to kill a bald eagle fetus, or any other fetus of an endangered species, so why shouldn't it be illegal to kill a human fetus if that's what society wants?

You answered it yourself. We have no shortage of fetuses.

[Brian Peacock]

For fuck's sake, it's illegal to kill a bald eagle fetus, or any other fetus of an endangered species, so why shouldn't it be illegal to kill a human fetus if that's what society wants?

You answered it yourself. We have no shortage of fetuses.

Yeah, that society thing is grand when it wants what you want, but it's a dangerous, baby-murdering, unscientific, immoral mob when it don't.

[Tero]

Resources such as fetuses are best left under the jurisdiction of the carrier when there are no national interests involved. If we ever get a shortage of fetuses, we could allow the state to purchase them and then raise them. Cost would be 9 months salary of the carrier. Free healthcare for fetus and carrier.

[Forty Two]

For fuck's sake, it's illegal to kill a bald eagle fetus, or any other fetus of an endangered species, so why shouldn't it be illegal to kill a human fetus if that's what society wants?

You answered it yourself. We have no shortage of fetuses.

Anything can be made legal, if that's what society wants.

[mistermack]

The most commonly heard outright lie is "it's not a baby, it's just a clump of cells." Well, that's asinine argument to begin with, and it's factually untrue, which is what I've been pointing out here. Every abortion of a living human fetus is the killing of a living human being. That is scientific fact.

It most definitely is NOT a baby. And that IS a scientific fact.
Baby is a stage of human development. Up to birth, it's a fetus. After being born, it's a baby, or infant.
And that's also a legal, as well as scientific distinction.

Human growth and development Stages

Embryo Fetus Infant Toddler Early childhood Child Preadolescence Adolescence Adult Middle age Old age

As far as a fetus being a human being, that's not a scientific fact. No matter how many times you say it.
You don't produce evidence. Just repetition.

A fetus is human. That's a scientific fact. But there is no scientific definition of a "being". It's not a scientific term. It's a philosophical one.

Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this use is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being"). So broad a notion has inevitably been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly.

But of course, you are welcome to quote any scientific references you like, for an accepted scientific definition of a "being".
Or ignore it, and prove yet again what a bullshitter you are.

[Seth]

The most commonly heard outright lie is "it's not a baby, it's just a clump of cells." Well, that's asinine argument to begin with, and it's factually untrue, which is what I've been pointing out here. Every abortion of a living human fetus is the killing of a living human being. That is scientific fact.

It most definitely is NOT a baby. And that IS a scientific fact.

Indeed, but it is a human being. The failure of the statement is the implicit presumption that because it's not a "baby" it's okay to kill the human being that exists. Such pro-abortion arguments depend entirely on their attempt to pettifog and misdirect and mendaciously deny reality by making pseudo-scientific statements intended to confuse the illiterati that claim that the fetus is something other than a human being in the fetal stage of development in order to justify and excuse killing it precisely because they know if they admit that the fetus is a human being, their rationalization and attempt at justifying killing the human being involved fails the test of morality miserably.

Baby is a stage of human development. Up to birth, it's a fetus. After being born, it's a baby, or infant.

Yup, just like "zygote" is a stage of development.

And that's also a legal, as well as scientific distinction.

Yup. But while the scientific distinction doesn't change, the legal one can.

Human growth and development Stages

Embryo Fetus Infant Toddler Early childhood Child Preadolescence Adolescence Adult Middle age Old age

As far as a fetus being a human being, that's not a scientific fact. No matter how many times you say it.
You don't produce evidence. Just repetition.

I keep repeating the evidence and you keep ignoring it.

A fetus is human. That's a scientific fact. But there is no scientific definition of a "being". It's not a scientific term. It's a philosophical one.

No, it's entirely scientific and also philosophical. When something exists, it has achieved the state of "being."

Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this use is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being"). Source

be·ing
ˈbēiNG/

1.
present participle of be.

noun
noun: being; plural noun: beings

1.
existence. Source

noun be·ing \ˈbē(-i)ŋ\

: a living thing

: the state of existing

: the most important or basic part of a person's mind or self

Full Definition of BEING
1
a : the quality or state of having existence
b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things
c : conscious existence : life
2
: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3
: a living thing; especially : person Source

being
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: be·ing
Pronunciation: /ˈbēiNG/
Definition of being in English:
present participle of be.
noun
Back to top
1Existence: the railroad brought many towns into being the moment when the universe came into being
More example sentences
Synonyms
1.1Living; being alive: holism promotes a unified way of being Source

Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this use is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being"). So broad a notion has inevitably been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly.

But of course, you are welcome to quote any scientific references you like, for an accepted scientific definition of a "being".
Or ignore it, and prove yet again what a bullshitter you are.

human being

Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:
living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.
Source

In E 1 ( = K 7 ) Aristotle explains what he understands by a science of being as such. All sciences inquire into certain causes and principles of things. As examples he mentions medicine and gymnastics, and-to take one with a more developed method mathematics, i.e. the examples usual in Plato's theory of science and method. Each of these sciences marks off systematically a definite sphere of reality and a definite genus and studies the resulting limited complex of facts. None of them discusses the being of its object; they all either presuppose it on the ground of experience, as do natural science and medicine; or, like mathematics with its axioms, they start from particular definitions. (emphasis added) Source

Pettifog all you like, but science absolutely presupposes a state of existence (being) of anything tangible. If it did not, then science would be nothing more than a philosophical debate, which it's not. Science presupposes that the human egg and sperm have the physical characteristic of "being" or existing, and likewise biological science indisputably recognizes that the zygote, once formed, has achieved a state of being that is both genetically unique and physically separate from the parent gametes.

Your asinine sophistry just shows how desperate you are to defend the indefensible, and how utterly incapable your argument is at doing so.

[Forty Two]

Is an acorn an "oak being?"

An acorn is genetically "oak" or quercus, just like a zygote is genetically human or homo sapiens sapiens. But is an acorn an "oak being?" When you crush an acorn, do you kill an oak tree?

[JimC]

When you disagree with Seth, does a kitten die?

[Seth]

Is an acorn an "oak being?"

Well, I'm not sure about the biology of the oak or the acorn, which is to say I don't know exactly how it works, but I do know that it's not the same biological process as that of a human or other mammal, which makes the comparison useful only so far.

An acorn is genetically "oak" or quercus, just like a zygote is genetically human or homo sapiens sapiens. But is an acorn an "oak being?" When you crush an acorn, do you kill an oak tree?

And that's probably too far. The point of the acorn example is to demonstrate that an acorn is not a human and a human is not an acorn...ever. Once the acorn has sprouted, then yes, you're killing an oak tree under development. But because the oak tree never exists as a zygote, as far as I'm aware, it's hardly a useful analogy beyond that stated above.

But now you're expecting to stretch the analogy too far beyond reason or utility.

If you want to know if killing a fetal raccoon is killing a racoon being, then the answer is yes, clearly that is the case.

Again, the point is that a human zygote is a human zygote. It is never anything other than a human being comprised of human DNA that has the quality of existence and the biological aspect of being alive. From the moment the zygote is formed until the developing human being dies, it's always a human being and is not some undefined organism of uncertain or indeterminate genetic composition that suddenly becomes a genetically-distinct human being when it leaves the birth canal. It's always a human being, from beginning to end.

So yes, when you kill a human fetus you are killing a living human being. Whether that act is morally justifiable is an entirely different issue, but one which depends upon an accurate description and recognition of the scientific facts involved for any sort of rational analysis of the moral, ethical or societal issues involved.

[Seth]

When you disagree with Seth, does a kitten die?

No, but a large number of your brain cells appear to.

[Tero]

When you disagree with Seth, does a kitten die?

:like: