Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[mistermack]

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."

And where is the science in that?
As I keep telling you, constantly repeating something doesn't make it true.

[Forty Two]

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, if left unmolested, will grow into a mighty oak tree, just like a zygote will grow into a human. The acorn has all the DNA of the oak tree, and it has everything within it necessary to grow into the tree.

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.

An unsprouted acorn is just in a prior state of development. If left unmolested it will sprout, just like a fertilized egg will divide.

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.

Then killing an acorn is killing an oak being.

Again, the point is that a human zygote is a human zygote.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed.

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.

I take issue with the use of the term "human being" because I think that it means something different than just "being human." You use "being" as if it means "existing," but mos people use the term in a different connotation.

That said, using your definition, I'll say, sure, it's human and unfortunately there have to be legal abortions, as a matter of policy and pragmatism, and balancing the rights and interests of competing societal stakeholders.

So yes, when you kill a human fetus you are killing a living human being.

Agreed, you are killing a living human fetus. You call it a being. I don't. But, it doesn't matter. Even if I agree it's a being, it still needs to be legal to abort, at least to a certain number of weeks and in order to preserve the life and significant health risks oft the mother.

Whether that act is morally justifiable is an entirely different issue,

Agreed.

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.

'
It really doesn't "depend" on that. My opinion on abortion has nothing to do with whether or not its a human being. I am quite willing to assume it is a human being, and I still conclude that abortion is necessary to the same extent as if you called it not an human being.

[Tero]

Fetus production out of control
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 110634.htm

Those aborting fetuses could be given 500 dollar reward. However, only two times, after that free operation to discontinue reproduction.

[Seth]

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."

And where is the science in that?
As I keep telling you, constantly repeating something doesn't make it true.

And I keep telling you that denying a scientific truth doesn't make it untrue.

[Seth]

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.

I take issue with the use of the term "human being" because I think that it means something different than just "being human." You use "being" as if it means "existing," but mos people use the term in a different connotation.

I'm expecting precision of language here and therefore I post the actual definitions from the literature. How people misuse language is not my concern. Mis-defining the word "being" to mean something other than what it actually means is, particularly in this case, an attempt to redefine the word to fit one's own personal beliefs or agenda. That is absolutely the case here. Pro-abortionists use the classic Marxist/Alinsky tactic of trying to redefine the terms to suit their agenda by telling the Big Lie as often as they can in hopes that the public perception of the word "being" will be changed to support their false contention that a fetus is not a living human being. They do this specifically to de-humanize the fetus in order to (vainly) attempt to justify their beliefs and arguments. I refuse to allow them to do so without challenge.

That said, using your definition, I'll say, sure, it's human and unfortunately there have to be legal abortions, as a matter of policy and pragmatism, and balancing the rights and interests of competing societal stakeholders.

That's a much more rational argument than any pro-abortionist ever makes.

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.

It really doesn't "depend" on that. My opinion on abortion has nothing to do with whether or not its a human being. I am quite willing to assume it is a human being, and I still conclude that abortion is necessary to the same extent as if you called it not an human being.

Of course it depends on accuracy. One cannot make a rational decision about abortion unless one rationally considers all of the necessary information upon which to base a rational decision, which obviously includes an accurate understanding of the scientific facts involved. This does not mean that you cannot come to the same conclusion as before, but it does mean that the conclusion you draw is based on accurate and factual information, and only then can you even begin to defend your conclusion as being rational. If you base your conclusion on false information then you absolutely cannot draw a rational conclusion no matter what. If you base your conclusion on true information your conclusion can still be irrational, but it can also be rational. Whether your conclusion is rational is then dependent on your reasoning in light of the true facts and whether you are drawing a true, rational conclusion based on those facts.

[mistermack]

Of course it depends on accuracy. One cannot make a rational decision about abortion unless one rationally considers all of the necessary information upon which to base a rational decision, which obviously includes an accurate understanding of the scientific facts involved. This does not mean that you cannot come to the same conclusion as before, but it does mean that the conclusion you draw is based on accurate and factual information, and only then can you even begin to defend your conclusion as being rational. If you base your conclusion on false information then you absolutely cannot draw a rational conclusion no matter what. If you base your conclusion on true information your conclusion can still be irrational, but it can also be rational. Whether your conclusion is rational is then dependent on your reasoning in light of the true facts and whether you are drawing a true, rational conclusion based on those facts.

This is pure bollocks, and you use it to divert attention from the real truth, that you can't give a good reason why an abortion is wrong.
You know perfectly well that human beings are lawfully killed all the time. And you support nearly all of it, from the death penalty, to cops killing suspects and US soldiers killing foreigners. Your attitude has always been that if there's a good reason, it's ok to kill a human being. All of this "it's a human being" is a smokescreen.
So all you've got on abortion, is that the mother doesn't have a good enough reason.

Well, that's incredibly arrogant. You'll never be pregnant, so in importance, your opinion on a woman's reasons comes way after the opinion of 3.5 billion people who could, or could have. Why don't you keep your nose out of their business? It's fuck-all to do with you.

[Seth]

Of course it depends on accuracy. One cannot make a rational decision about abortion unless one rationally considers all of the necessary information upon which to base a rational decision, which obviously includes an accurate understanding of the scientific facts involved. This does not mean that you cannot come to the same conclusion as before, but it does mean that the conclusion you draw is based on accurate and factual information, and only then can you even begin to defend your conclusion as being rational. If you base your conclusion on false information then you absolutely cannot draw a rational conclusion no matter what. If you base your conclusion on true information your conclusion can still be irrational, but it can also be rational. Whether your conclusion is rational is then dependent on your reasoning in light of the true facts and whether you are drawing a true, rational conclusion based on those facts.

This is pure bollocks, and you use it to divert attention from the real truth, that you can't give a good reason why an abortion is wrong.

I've not said that abortion is "wrong."

You know perfectly well that human beings are lawfully killed all the time. And you support nearly all of it, from the death penalty, to cops killing suspects and US soldiers killing foreigners. Your attitude has always been that if there's a good reason, it's ok to kill a human being. All of this "it's a human being" is a smokescreen.
So all you've got on abortion, is that the mother doesn't have a good enough reason.

Precisely.

Well, that's incredibly arrogant. You'll never be pregnant, so in importance, your opinion on a woman's reasons comes way after the opinion of 3.5 billion people who could, or could have. Why don't you keep your nose out of their business? It's fuck-all to do with you.

Of course it has to do with me. Every one of those aborted babies might have been the person to cure cancer or invent the hyperdrive. Furthermore I have an interest in protecting human life against being arbitrarily ended without a rational and morally acceptable justification for doing so because to allow such actions is to endanger the lives of all, as Hitler so aptly proves. I also have an interest in maintaining a civilized society that operates under the rule of law, and such laws must be based in reason, not ideology or personal preference.

If a woman has a morally justifiable and rational need to abort a fetus, then it may be acceptable to allow her to do so. But, at some point in gestation issues larger than just her personal preferences and desires and her sovereignty over her womb may take precedence.

So, I don't keep my nose out because as a member of society it is my business to rationally examine the effects of abortion on society and the rights of unborn children.

[mistermack]

If a woman has a morally justifiable and rational need to abort a fetus, then it may be acceptable to allow her to do so. But, at some point in gestation issues larger than just her personal preferences and desires and her sovereignty over her womb may take precedence.

No different to most of the people on this site then, when you strip away the semantics about what to call a fetus.

Most people agree that there should be some restriction on abortions, especially when the fetus is close to viability.
That's actually the current state of the law in this country, which I feel they have got about right.

Very few people would agree to free abortion on demand as a right. It's a murky business where you have to arrive at a sensible compromise, which we seem to have done, in this country.

Going by your post, you agree that abortion is acceptable in certain circumstances.
So all this bollocks about " it's a human being " is irrelevant. It's a human being, that's ok to kill, in certain circumstances. ie, a fetus.

[Seth]

If a woman has a morally justifiable and rational need to abort a fetus, then it may be acceptable to allow her to do so. But, at some point in gestation issues larger than just her personal preferences and desires and her sovereignty over her womb may take precedence.

No different to most of the people on this site then, when you strip away the semantics about what to call a fetus.

Most people agree that there should be some restriction on abortions, especially when the fetus is close to viability.
That's actually the current state of the law in this country, which I feel they have got about right.

Very few people would agree to free abortion on demand as a right. It's a murky business where you have to arrive at a sensible compromise, which we seem to have done, in this country.

Going by your post, you agree that abortion is acceptable in certain circumstances.
So all this bollocks about " it's a human being " is irrelevant. It's a human being, that's ok to kill, in certain circumstances. ie, a fetus.

It's far from irrelevant, it's essential to the debate. Yes, I can conceive of situations in which the killing of a fetus is morally justifiable, but in coming to a rational and moral conclusion one must first take into account the true nature of what's actually happening: the deliberate killing of a living human being.

The problem with the pro-abortion argument that claims that a woman's "decision" about "her body" and the fetus within it is plenary and absolute is precisely that the argument depends for any moral or ethical strength at all on the false presumption that the organism within the woman is not a living human being, but is something else, usually an unspecified and carefully avoided something. The rhetoric is never couched in the biologically accurate manner of "I am making a decision as the mother of this living human being within me to terminate its life for reasons X, Y, and Z." It's always couched in the vaguest of terms and usually without referencing the living human being involved AT ALL. The universal phrase of the pro-abortionist is "terminate the pregnancy," as if "the pregnancy" is some pathology not involving a separate and distinct living human being at all.

It is this kind of amoral rhetorical sophistry that I fight tooth and nail. If you want to kill a fetus, then admit you're killing a fetus and find a legally, morally, ethically and socially acceptable justification for doing so based on biological facts and truths.

[mistermack]

So what you object to is the terminology.
Everybody knows what a fetus is. That's hardly rocket science. You are just objecting to the way that they put it.
Well, they don't need your permission as to how they put it.

Coming from a country where people never die, they "pass away", I would think that you're going to be busy, insisting on more realistic language.

After all, homosexual is actually what "gay" people are. Get stuck in, you tell 'em.

And while you're about it, insist that people explain when they are going for a shit. Their nose already has plenty of powder, and they need the shithouse, not the bathroom.

[Tero]

The powder is for the nose? I thought it was for the wig.

[Seth]

So what you object to is the terminology.

No, the deliberate mendacity actually.

Everybody knows what a fetus is. That's hardly rocket science. You are just objecting to the way that they put it.
Well, they don't need your permission as to how they put it.

I didn't say they did. I do, however, say that they are being both lying sacks of shit and deeply duplicitous and in many cases, like Planned Parenthood utterly, Nazi-like evil and criminal.

Coming from a country where people never die, they "pass away", I would think that you're going to be busy, insisting on more realistic language.

Fetuses that are aborted don't "pass away" they are deliberately and intentionally killed, and in many cases, murdered.

After all, homosexual is actually what "gay" people are. Get stuck in, you tell 'em.

And while you're about it, insist that people explain when they are going for a shit. Their nose already has plenty of powder, and they need the shithouse, not the bathroom.

Your argument, such as it is, is a perfect example of the kind of mendacious and deliberately evasive, not to mention entirely irrelevant attempt to derail an important discussion that is a hallmark of pro-abortionists worldwide.

You'll do anything to avoid actually confronting the actual issue, which is the deliberate, knowing, intentional killing of a living human being in utero.

[mistermack]

You'll do anything to avoid actually confronting the actual issue, which is the deliberate, knowing, intentional killing of a living human being in utero.

Which is acceptable according to you.

If a woman has a morally justifiable and rational need to abort a fetus, then it may be acceptable to allow her to do so.

Your trolling is now absolutely shit quality. Or you are going down with Alzheimer's?

[Seth]

You'll do anything to avoid actually confronting the actual issue, which is the deliberate, knowing, intentional killing of a living human being in utero.

Which is acceptable according to you.

I never said that, nor did I ever imply that even if it was acceptable in some circumstances that this implies that it's acceptable in all circumstances.

If a woman has a morally justifiable and rational need to abort a fetus, then it may be acceptable to allow her to do so.

Your trolling is now absolutely shit quality. Or you are going down with Alzheimer's?

Your rebuttals have always been shit quality, so I have nothing to worry about, I'd be authoritatively refuting your shit if I were drooling out of the corner of my mouth and babbling meaninglessly.

[Forty Two]

Abortion is deliberate.
Abortion is done knowingly.
Abortion is done intentionally.
Abortion kills the unborn human.

So, having admitted all that, how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?