Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Brian Peacock]

Of course. I guess that remark should be taken in the general sense, less someone lopes by and says that someone opting for the morning after pill is a serial killer.

We haven't gotten to the issue of when a living human being becomes a legal person because y'all keep denying the basic scientific facts involved.

You are assuming that arguing that a zygote et al is a human being is the same thing as saying that taking medication to prevent the implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall is the equivalent of murder.

I am not assuming anything. In fact I haven't expressed my personal views on abortion in this thread, nor have I denied any 'scientific facts'. You are assuming that I am assuming. I also think you've overdosed on your literal pills today - my comment above was clearly light-hearted banter - and yet you seem keen to address the deliberately nonsensical while avoiding a serious contribution to the discussion a few posts before.

For the sake of clarity, what is your scientific description of a human being?

You suggest that not all 'living human beings' are 'legal persons'. If so, where does the distinction lie, and on what grounds would is that distinction to be made, and what are those grounds? Is killing a human being who is not a legal person permissible by your lights, or a less serious matter than killing a human being who is legal person. And in terms of the discussion, when does a human being become a legal person, and how? And while the dictionary does not tell us this, you maintain that clearly science does. So, can you now tell us what science tells you?

[Seth]

Since when does society run by science? It's more of an inconvenience and only welcomed when it makes pills that cure you or better cell phones.

Oh my, what a remarkable statement.

Science bad. Kills god.

I note you're the first one to invoke god. Why is that? Evasion perhaps?

[Seth]

Of course. I guess that remark should be taken in the general sense, less someone lopes by and says that someone opting for the morning after pill is a serial killer.

We haven't gotten to the issue of when a living human being becomes a legal person because y'all keep denying the basic scientific facts involved.

You are assuming that arguing that a zygote et al is a human being is the same thing as saying that taking medication to prevent the implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall is the equivalent of murder.

I am not assuming anything. In fact I haven't expressed my personal views on abortion in this thread, nor have I denied any 'scientific facts'. You are assuming that I am assuming. I also think you've overdosed on your literal pills today - my comment above was clearly light-hearted banter - and yet you seem keen to address the deliberately nonsensical while avoiding a serious contribution to the discussion a few posts before.

For the sake of clarity, what is your scientific description of a human being?

A living human organism that has achieved the state of "being" or existence.

You suggest that not all 'living human beings' are 'legal persons'. If so, where does the distinction lie, and on what grounds would is that distinction to be made, and what are those grounds?

Actually, I said we have not yet addressed the issue of when a human being becomes a legal person. You incorrectly infer this to mean that I claim that there is a time when a human being is not a legal person. I make no such claim at this time.

Is killing a human being who is not a legal person permissible by your lights, or a less serious matter than killing a human being who is legal person.

Well, abstractly yes. A legal person implies a living human being who enjoys legal rights, and killing such a being would be more serious than killing a human being that is not a legal person, if, of course, there is such a thing. We have not yet determined whether or not any human being is, can be, isn't or cannot be a legal person because we have not discussed it because we have not yet settled the question of whether a zygote et al is a human being or not. Without such an agreement there is no point in moving on to the next issue because the resort to any argument will inevitably be "it's not a human being" as a way of evading the ethical and moral discussion it might be interesting to have.

Thus we must first resolve the question "when is a living human organism a human being" before we can address the question "when does a living human being become a legal person, and what does it mean to be a "legal person"?

[Brian Peacock]

So when do you think a living human organism is a human being, and what are the consequences of that for your views on abortion?

[Seth]

So when do you think a living human organism is a human being, and what are the consequences of that for your views on abortion?

At the formation of the zygote, of course. I thought that was pretty clear. When do you think a living human organism is a human being?

[Hermit]

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.

Okay, great! So you are admitting that the "right" to an abortion is not a right, it is merely a social priority which can be changed at the whim and caprice of the society involved.

I think Tero is saying that there are no fundamental rights of the sort that are not granted by the state, that it is humans that confer rights, or deny them. This would apply equally to the right to life and the right to abort a foetus. A right is what we define it to be and what rights there are or are not vary over time.

[Seth]

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.

Okay, great! So you are admitting that the "right" to an abortion is not a right, it is merely a social priority which can be changed at the whim and caprice of the society involved.

I think Tero is saying that there are no fundamental rights of the sort that are not granted by the state, that it is humans that confer rights, or deny them. This would apply equally to the right to life and the right to abort a foetus. A right is what we define it to be and what rights there are or are not vary over time.

Okay, that's a fine description of the socialist view of rights and confirms what I've been saying, which is that a woman's "right" to privacy manifested as an abortion is subject to revocation at the will of the collective, which means it's not a "right" at all, it's a privilege or permission granted by the government only for so long as the government chooses to do so.

Do you see the conundrum this causes for socialists who try to insist that women have an unassailable "right" to an abortion? They don't. They have a temporary and perilous permission to do so only for so long as the collective decides that they do. If the collective, for whatever reason, changes its mind, it can direct the government to revoke that permission, can't it?

The point is that when it comes to, say, 2nd Amendment rights, or the very idea of inherent, unalienable rights of any kind that accrue to the individual merely by virtue of their humanity that lie beyond the grasp and control of the collective, socialists and liberals are happy to deny that any sort of inherent, inalienable rights exist at all. But when the issue is whether a woman has an unlimited and plenary "right" to abortion on demand, the hypocrisy and unreason of socialists and liberals leaps off the page at you as they insist that the woman's "right" to control her body is essentially absolute and not subject to the will of the majority...unlike every other statement on the nature of "rights" they ever make.

This cognitive disconnect is why socialists and liberals are identified correctly as Marxist useful idiots. They want to have their cake and eat it too and are entirely unable to even recognize the fundamental failure of logic and reason inherent in this bald hypocrisy.

[mistermack]

just as a human zygote is defined as a human being.

A zygote is not a complete human being, but it will be in the normal course of development.

it's a living human cell that has achieved the state of "being" (existence), and is therefore a human being.

Which applies to every cell in your body.

For the sake of clarity, what is your scientific description of a human being?

A living human organism that has achieved the state of "being" or existence.

So when do you think a living human organism is a human being,.....

At the formation of the zygote, of course. I thought that was pretty clear.

Trolling is a confusing business. You forget the bollocks you wrote earlier.

Much of the confusion is generated by the term ''human being''.
Seth is using it like it's a definition. IT'S NOT.

It's a common name. We apply the name to the animal, but the animal is not defined by the name.

Just as Hooded Crows don't wear hoods, and Shovelers don't have shovels and pussy willows don't have pussies.
This is what is so ridiculous about Seth's attempt to say, "it's human, and it's being, so it's a human being".
I wonder what he thinks of sea horses ?

[Hermit]

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.

Okay, great! So you are admitting that the "right" to an abortion is not a right, it is merely a social priority which can be changed at the whim and caprice of the society involved.

I think Tero is saying that there are no fundamental rights of the sort that are not granted by the state, that it is humans that confer rights, or deny them. This would apply equally to the right to life and the right to abort a foetus. A right is what we define it to be and what rights there are or are not vary over time.

Okay, that's a fine description of the socialist view of rights and confirms what I've been saying, which is that a woman's "right" to privacy manifested as an abortion is subject to revocation at the will of the collective, which means it's not a "right" at all, it's a privilege or permission granted by the government only for so long as the government chooses to do so.

Do you see the conundrum this causes for socialists who try to insist that women have an unassailable "right" to an abortion? They don't. They have a temporary and perilous permission to do so only for so long as the collective decides that they do. If the collective, for whatever reason, changes its mind, it can direct the government to revoke that permission, can't it?

All rights are created, bestowed and denied by humans, be they socialist or otherwise. Even the ones contained in the US constitution. Look at the 18th and 23rd amendments, for example. In fact, all 27 ratified amendments are ample evidence that rights are neither immutable nor unchangeable. That is why it took your nation almost a century since the formulation of its "unalienable rights" abolish slavery and well over a century to give women the right to vote.

[Brian Peacock]

So when do you think a living human organism is a human being, and what are the consequences of that for your views on abortion?

At the formation of the zygote, of course. I thought that was pretty clear.

Well it wasn't, you have talked about the state of existence of a zygote as necessarily inferring human being-ness while also talking about a zygote is representing a potentiality for human being-ness. Nonetheless, stating here that a zygote is a human being is clear and unambiguous, and is the basis on which I will proceed. This formulation has consequences for a view on abortion, particularly if one holds that all human beings should be afforded certain rights and protections automatically. Do you think that all human being should be afforded certain rights and protections automatically, and in relation to this specific discussion do you think a right to life (a right to continuing existence) is among them and should be endorsed on behalf of a zygote and enforced accordingly on its behalf?

[Tero]

Socialist, atheist etc. All the usual labels. At least we don't have the kind of "socialism" that limits science as well. In fact we don't have any socialist dictatorships in the Western World. Only socialist majorities. They can be voted out. In fact, in Europe racist nationalist parties are doing that. It will be the end of the Euro some day. I'm not saying that is what I want.

[Forty Two]

And what gives the state the right to control this baby or fetus inside the mom? It's not a citizen until it has a birth certificate. Inside, it is under the woman's jurisdiction. Her survival goes first. She might have 5 other mouths to feed.

The state has the power and authority to control many things involving non-citizens.

The state can say that a doctor can't remove a healthy pancreas, for example.

It's a very libertarian perspective to suggest that anything inside people's skins is outside the power of the State. It's also a very American thing these days to talk about are limited government and the power of the state being limited. Most of the democratic world seems to go by the presumption that majority opinion is enough, and that if most people want something then that 's what should happen, and the concept of fundamental rights or areas where the government cannot go are deemed antiquated and obsolete.

[Forty Two]

It's indisputable because it has been proven beyond any doubt by scientific investigation that the organism that is created by the alignment of the maternal and paternal chromosomes of two human beings within a fertilized human egg is entirely comprised of human DNA and it is in fact a new, living, presently single-celled organism beginning development into a fully-developed human being.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word indisputable. Would you like to give us YOUR definition?

As far as I'm concerned, a fetus is a POTENTIAL human being.
A fertilised human egg is not a human being to most people. Even you called it a single celled organism. You need to make your mind up. Is it a human being, or a single celled organism?

When a baby dies shortly after it's born, people say it only lived X hours.
They don't say it lived 9 months and X hours.

You are correct mistermack, within your definition of human being, and Seth is correct within his. You're defining the terms differently.

Where, i think, Seth differs is that in his mind "human" and "human being" are the same thing. He shows, and is correct, that an embryo or blastocyst of two humans is human, but then he assumes from that that it must be afforded all the same rights as born humans.

To me, it's not a bright line -- but, a very grey line, from a fertilized egg to a human being. I look at it this way. A human sperm is human, but it isn't a human being. A human egg is human, but it isn't a human being. A fertilized egg is human, but it isn't a human being.

Any place along the spectrum from there to birth is arbitrary. Some people even argue that birth is arbitrary, and I tend to agree. Some have advocated for post birth abortion for a period of time, because a newborn is not a human being.

There is no scientific "proof" that anything is a human being.

I am prochoice as a matter of pragmatism. But, I'm not absolutist. I really don't think that abortion has to be all or nothing -- legal and unrestricted until birth -- there is room for a compromise. I mean, once a child is past 28 weeks, it can be born alive and live. How different is that from a 28 weeker that just happens to wait longer. If the woman goes into labor and births it, can you just kill it? Why not?

I see it as necessary that women be able to abort for sure through 12 week so, maybe to 20. As we get past there, though, I really can't see an argument for abortion unless there is an issue of the life or substantial health risk to the mother. I.e., I come from the school that there has to be limit. I'm flexible as to where that limit is, as to what is reasonable. But, I can't fathom how anyone could think it would be reasonable to kill a 28 or 30 week fetus. That's just a premature baby. There may be reasons that NECESSITATE it occurring, but whim should not be one of those reasons, IMO.

I like to think that I'm trying to be reasonable about abortion. Some feminists tend to get bent out of shape out of the mere mention of any sort of limit. This is, I think, an American phenomenon, though. I sometimes wonder why there is so little public outrage about the 20-odd week limits found in almost all western industrialized nations, yet in the US, limits on late term abortions are viewed as misogynistic over-reaching of the State.

[Tero]

It's a very libertarian perspective to suggest that anything inside people's skins is outside the power of the State. It's also a very American thing these days to talk about are limited government and the power of the state being limited. Most of the democratic world seems to go by the presumption that majority opinion is enough, and that if most people want something then that 's what should happen, and the concept of fundamental rights or areas where the government cannot go are deemed antiquated and obsolete.

Until the state steps up to feed and clothe the new human for 18 years, they really have no say in the matter. Majorities decide things that involve more than 1-2 people.

[Forty Two]

It's a very libertarian perspective to suggest that anything inside people's skins is outside the power of the State. It's also a very American thing these days to talk about are limited government and the power of the state being limited. Most of the democratic world seems to go by the presumption that majority opinion is enough, and that if most people want something then that 's what should happen, and the concept of fundamental rights or areas where the government cannot go are deemed antiquated and obsolete.

Until the state steps up to feed and clothe the new human for 18 years, they really have no say in the matter. Majorities decide things that involve more than 1-2 people.

The State usually does step up to feed and clothes new humans, and provide health care for them. The State first obligates the parents to do so, and then if the parents fail, the State has mechanisms in place to provide.

Like, in the UK, there are limits on abortions -- two doctors have to certify that the pregnancy is not beyond 24 weeks, or that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the woman, or that there is substantial risk to the life of the woman which is greater than if the pregnancy is terminated, or substantial risk of deformities or abnormalities tot he degree that the child would be significantly handicapped. Abortion Act of 1967.

I don't know where you get this "majorities decide things that involve more than 1-2 people" -- but, that isn't the explcit rule in any country on Earth. Maybe you're talking about what you'd like it to be, but it certainly isn't the way it is anywhere in the world right now.