Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Hermit]

According to Seth, one single celled fertilised egg is a human being.

That's as extreme loony as you can get in the abortion debate. It means that all discarded ones are murdered, in the IVF business.

Also, when the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the central spindle in a new and unique genetic pattern as the result of rape or incest.

[Seth]

None of this is science. Our rules, our fetuses.

That's my point. Under your system of laws, the collective makes the rules, right? This means that there is nothing impeding the collective from changing the rules to make abortion illegal, is there?

Go ahead with the constitutional amendment defining rights of fetuses. No other laws will work.

So, I can tell by your attitude that you have no interest in discussing anything because your ideology will not permit deviation from the pro-baby-killing orthodoxy.

Pity about that, one anticipates more from a purportedly "rational" person.

[Seth]

According to Seth, one single celled fertilised egg is a human being.

Actually, that's the case according to every credible expert in the field of human embryology: "The zygote - by definition the first cell of the embryo – undergoes only an incomplete cell cycle."

The goal of the fertilization cascade is thus achieved:

The fabrication of a diploid set of chromosomes
The determination of the chromosomal gender of the new individual
The induction of normal "cleavage division" for embryogenesis. Ibid. (emphasis added)

That's as extreme loony as you can get in the abortion debate. It means that all discarded ones are murdered, in the IVF business. Even if they are faulty. But that's his definition of a human being.

No, it means that scientifically speaking a zygote is the first cell of a "new individual", and in the case of a human zygote, it's the first cell of a new individual human being. "Murder" is a social determination having nothing whatever to do with science.

As it's a matter of opinion, there is no right or wrong answer.

That a human zygote is the first cell of a new individual human being is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of scientific fact.

But I don't regard green acorns hanging on a tree as oak trees. And anyone who does is a bit of a loony in my book. It's genetically oak, but it's not a tree. It's not even a plant, till it's separated from it's parent tree, and living a separate life.

Zygotes are not acorns.

I know it's a difficult concept. Most people get it, but some will always struggle with the obvious.

Evidently you have great difficulty with well-known scientific information and common dictionary definitions, so I'd have to agree that you just don't get it.

I'd post the relevant definitions but I have my doubts as to your ability or willingness to apply them in a logically consistent manner.

[Seth]

According to Seth, one single celled fertilised egg is a human being.

That's as extreme loony as you can get in the abortion debate. It means that all discarded ones are murdered, in the IVF business.

Also, when the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the central spindle in a new and unique genetic pattern as the result of rape or incest.

Yes, this is occasionally true, but that doesn't change the scientific facts involved. Can I read this to mean that you admit that the formation of the zygote is in such a case the first cell of a new individual human being?

[Tero]

None of this is science. Our rules, our fetuses.

That's my point. Under your system of laws, the collective makes the rules, right? This means that there is nothing impeding the collective from changing the rules to make abortion illegal, is there?

Go ahead with the constitutional amendment defining rights of fetuses. No other laws will work.

So, I can tell by your attitude that you have no interest in discussing anything because your ideology will not permit deviation from the pro-baby-killing orthodoxy.

Pity about that, one anticipates more from a purportedly "rational" person.

You can pass laws fining or punishing abortion. They would be the same level of crime as animal torture. But you can slaughter animals as long as it is with minimal pain. Your call. Start lobbying against fetus torture. For example, a woman drinking a bottle of vodka and taking a hot bath and whatever tricks are needed to cause abortion could be committing a felony like:
A person who cruelly mistreats an animal is guilty of a Class IV felony if such cruel mistreatment involves the knowing and intentional torture, repeated beating, or mutilation of the animal.

[Seth]

None of this is science. Our rules, our fetuses.

That's my point. Under your system of laws, the collective makes the rules, right? This means that there is nothing impeding the collective from changing the rules to make abortion illegal, is there?

Go ahead with the constitutional amendment defining rights of fetuses. No other laws will work.

So, I can tell by your attitude that you have no interest in discussing anything because your ideology will not permit deviation from the pro-baby-killing orthodoxy.

Pity about that, one anticipates more from a purportedly "rational" person.

You can pass laws fining or punishing abortion. They would be the same level of crime as animal torture. But you can slaughter animals as long as it is with minimal pain. Your call. Start lobbying against fetus torture.

Thanks for admitting that abortion is not a right, but a privilege permitted by and controlled by government. That's consistent with socialist doctrine. As to the "level" of the crime, that too is, according to socialist doctrine, a matter of collective decision making.

But you're still evading the fundamental issue of science that makes mockery of your entire line of reasoning.

[Tero]

I added some more lines above. Dog torture is a felony.

There is no more science here than there is with religious freedom. There is no fundamental right involved other than reproductive rights. As a part time libertarian you should know this. Governments limit or permit citizens. The woman. Not the fetus. No science here.

[mistermack]

That a human zygote is the first cell of a new individual human being is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of scientific fact.

Quite so. You love stating the bleeding obvious, as if it proves your point. It doesn't.
Ford might start with the first nut and bolt of a new individual car. That wouldn't be a matter of opinion either. It would be a fact. But it's not a fucking car till it's finished.

Zygotes are not acorns.

You love stating the obvious, again and again. As if it's some profound Seth wisdom.
Acorns are embryos, which started as a zygote. They mirror human reproduction. That fertilised oak egg zygote had new individual oak dna, just like a human zygote, but it's not an oak tree, it's not even yet an acorn.

But we should be celebrating. One of the worlds great questions has at last been answered.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
At last, Seth has given the world the answer. The chicken, of course. The egg IS a chicken.

[Seth]

I added some more lines above. Dog torture is a felony.

There is no more science here than there is with religious freedom. There is no fundamental right involved other than reproductive rights. As a part time libertarian you should know this. Governments limit or permit citizens. The woman. Not the fetus. No science here.

That you deny the science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, by what theory are "reproductive rights" somehow "fundamental" whereas the right to life is not?

You've caught your gonads in a cleft stick. If there is such a thing as fundamental rights, as Libertarians insist, then the right to life is certainly included, along with the right to reproduce, among other fundamental rights that take precedence over other rights in the hierarchy of rights each individual enjoys as a function of being human. If that is correct, then the fetus, being a living human being, has those fundamental rights as well as a function of its essential nature as a living human being.

If, as socialists insist, all rights are grants of the state according to the will of the collective, then no rights are "fundamental" and no argument can be legitimately raised against the revocation or constraint of those state-granted rights by the state itself, which must necessarily both define and grant them. This means that there are no "fundamental" rights at all, and all rights are subject to regulation and revocation by the state, including the right to have an abortion.

So. if you are claiming the protection of "fundamental rights" under Libertarian theory for the right of a woman to control her reproductive choices and actions, you are at the same time acknowledging that fundamental rights which are not granted by the state but are an inherent part of our humanity do exist and may be asserted by the individual against the actions or desires of the collective as being preeminent.

So, an argument that abortion is a "fundamental" reproductive right must first acknowledge that fundamental rights exist and may not be interfered with by the state absent a very strong justification, and of course the very nature of fundamental rights are irrevocably attached to the individual's status as a living human being.

But you fail to explain how it is that fundamental rights come into existence and accrue, as in this case, to the benefit of, in this case, a pregnant woman, nor do you bother to discuss other fundamental rights which might exist as companions to a "right to abortion." Most importantly, you utterly fail to even address the obvious conclusion that if a woman has fundamental rights merely because she is a living human being, so does every other living human being, including a fetus, simply because of its status as a living human being.

This creates a conundrum for you because if rights are creatures of the state, then the right to abortion may be granted, enforced or revoked by the same state, and if rights are not creatures of the state but are "fundamental" aspects of being human and are not subject to the whims and caprices of the state, then such rights must necessarily accrue to all living human beings equally, including a fetus.

So, you may justify a right to abortion based on the socialist model of state-granted rights, but in doing so you must accept that such a right is subject to revocation by the state at the will of the collective. Or, you may justify a right to abortion based on the Libertarian model of inherent fundamental rights, but then you must acknowledge that in a conflict between one fundamental right of one living human being and another fundamental right of another living human being, some form of adjudicating the dispute and reaching a balancing of those competing rights is necessary.

Upon what logical and philosophical premise is this right to abortion predicated, pray tell? How do you derive this right and what other rights either support or conflict with the assertion of this right?

[Seth]

That a human zygote is the first cell of a new individual human being is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of scientific fact.

Quite so. You lo,ve stating the bleeding obvious, as if it proves your point. It doesn't.
Ford might start with the first nut and bolt of a new individual car. That wouldn't be a matter of opinion either. It would be a fact. But it's not a fucking car till it's finished.

But that bolt is still the first bolt of an automobile under development. And in a bolt analogy that bolt would have to be so designed that it can be nothing OTHER THAN a bolt used in an automobile that will not function at all if combined with other non-automobile parts. Thus, that bolt, while not a complete (mature) automobile is still the first requisite part of the complete automobile and can therefore be properly identified as an "automobile bolt" just as a human zygote is defined as a human being. The analogy is inapt of course precisely because zygotes are not bolts nor are the two comparable. A bolt is not a complete automobile, and a bolt may be used in something other than an automobile to complete that other thing. A zygote is not a complete human being, but it will be in the normal course of development. It can never be something else other than a human being.

Zygotes are not acorns.

You love stating the obvious, again and again. As if it's some profound Seth wisdom.

I'm constantly forced to do so by ignorami who try to draw parallels between unlike things.

Acorns are embryos, which started as a zygote. They mirror human reproduction. That fertilised oak egg zygote had new individual oak dna, just like a human zygote, but it's not an oak tree, it's not even yet an acorn.

"Acorn" and "tree" are not species identifiers they are descriptors of stages of development of the oak organism. Whether an acorn or a tree, it's still comprised of oak DNA, just as the embryonic human being is comprised of human DNA.

But we should be celebrating. One of the worlds great questions has at last been answered.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
At last, Seth has given the world the answer. The chicken, of course. The egg IS a chicken.

No, the zygote that forms once the egg is fertilized is the chicken. Prior to that however it's still and always a chicken egg, not an acorn or a bolt that turns into a chicken when it breaks out of the shell.

[Brian Peacock]

You moralize to dodge the moral consequences of your position Seth.

[Seth]

You moralize to dodge the moral consequences of your position Seth.

Not at all. I'm happy to discuss the moral issues once the biological issues are settled and agreed upon.

[Brian Peacock]

Or, "Once everyone accepts I'm right I more than happy to convey the appropriate normative values"?

[Tero]

>>fundamental rights which are not granted by the state but are an inherent part of our humanity do exist and may be asserted by the individual against the actions or desires of the collective as being preeminent.<<

Show me where I said we have ANY fundamental rights. We have simply agreed on a few things. These are our laws. We use them to define and prioritize things. This is sociery, not science.

[Hermit]

Can I read this to mean that you admit that the formation of the zygote is in such a case the first cell of a new individual human being?

In my mind there has never ever been any doubt about it. My parents skipped the stork theory of procreation when I first asked where we come from and went straight into the biological explanation.