A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

Perhaps you should be.

I'm not asking what you should be. I'm asking if you would be.

One act is an accident, the other is deliberate. Huge difference in motive, intent and opportunity.

So you would care as little about accidently killing a child as you would about knocking over a vial of zygotes? Or you would be equally distraught and plagued with nightmares in both cases?

Good thing your mom didn't stick a knitting needle up her twat when you were in utero isn't it? Ever stop to think what your life would have been like if she'd done that? You wouldn't be espousing any opinions at all, would you? It's easy to terminate someone else's life before they have had a chance to object. But I bet you'd object if someone tried to terminate your life right now, wouldn't you? That's rank hypocrisy of the highest order.

Nice little emotional outburst but I simply don't see microscopic zygotes as anything like a person so knocking over a vial of zygotes wouldn't matter to me.
As for asking about what my life would be like if my mum stuck a needle inside her! That's a poor analogy seeng as we're talking about zygotes specifically. Would've been more apt asking what I'd think if my mum had've taken a late morning-after pill? In which case I'd answer my life would never have begun in the first place, any more than if my father had've shot his load onto the bedsheet, for me to even care.
Of course I never said anything about my views on abortion. I was talking about accidently knocking over a vial of zygotes and how one would feel about it compared to killing a child (and saying I wouldn't feel at all similarly about the two) so I'm not sure where the hypocricy is supposed to lie.

The hypocrisy lies in the fact that because your mother chose not to abort you, you can bloviate on the subject of killing other living human beings...before they have a chance to speak for themselves. How convenient for you to eliminate the other side of the debate by murdering them and then declaring victory.

That hypocrisy.

[Animavore]

Actually the genes from your blood cells have the potential to be living humans. Clones, in fact.

Not by themselves. It requires substantial artificial intervention to create a clone, but once created, it too begins from a zygote, and at that point it's an individual living human being just like any other zygote.

Zygotess can't become people by themselves either. They need a womb in which to gestate.

Indeed. And therefore once invited there, the zygote can be afforded rights of occupancy for nine months if the law so chooses.

Well the estimation is that a whopping 60% of conceptions don't make it past this stage because the zygote doesn't take to the uterus wall so I see no argument against something like a morning after pill which intervenes before this stage by breaking down the uterus wall so there is nothing there for the zygote to cling to.

[Animavore]

Perhaps you should be.

I'm not asking what you should be. I'm asking if you would be.

One act is an accident, the other is deliberate. Huge difference in motive, intent and opportunity.

So you would care as little about accidently killing a child as you would about knocking over a vial of zygotes? Or you would be equally distraught and plagued with nightmares in both cases?

Good thing your mom didn't stick a knitting needle up her twat when you were in utero isn't it? Ever stop to think what your life would have been like if she'd done that? You wouldn't be espousing any opinions at all, would you? It's easy to terminate someone else's life before they have had a chance to object. But I bet you'd object if someone tried to terminate your life right now, wouldn't you? That's rank hypocrisy of the highest order.

Nice little emotional outburst but I simply don't see microscopic zygotes as anything like a person so knocking over a vial of zygotes wouldn't matter to me.
As for asking about what my life would be like if my mum stuck a needle inside her! That's a poor analogy seeng as we're talking about zygotes specifically. Would've been more apt asking what I'd think if my mum had've taken a late morning-after pill? In which case I'd answer my life would never have begun in the first place, any more than if my father had've shot his load onto the bedsheet, for me to even care.
Of course I never said anything about my views on abortion. I was talking about accidently knocking over a vial of zygotes and how one would feel about it compared to killing a child (and saying I wouldn't feel at all similarly about the two) so I'm not sure where the hypocricy is supposed to lie.

The hypocrisy lies in the fact that because your mother chose not to abort you, you can bloviate on the subject of killing other living human beings...before they have a chance to speak for themselves. How convenient for you to eliminate the other side of the debate by murdering them and then declaring victory.

That hypocrisy.

But you still don't know my views on abortion. I haven't espoused them. I'm asking you do you have the same emotional connect to a single cell zygote than you do to children and your'e dancing around answering it.

[Seth]

A human zygote can also make more than one human. In fact when it divides in two you can make two people by taking the two apart. You can do this again and again indefinately. So I'm not sure in what sense it makes sense to say that a zygote is an idividual.

Also there is the case of chimerism in which two separte zygotes (potential paternal twins) fuse together to become one individual with two populations of genetically distinct cells. Should these people be seen as two people?

Then there are zygotes frozen in IVF clinics awaiting plantation (or destruction if all the ones they'll need are taken). Should these be traeted as people and their parents be allowed to clain a tax deduction or benefit on each?

None of that matters. As long as the number of human beings is greater than zero, they, however many of them there are in whatever configuration, may be afforded rights if society chooses to do so.

[Animavore]

A human zygote can also make more than one human. In fact when it divides in two you can make two people by taking the two apart. You can do this again and again indefinately. So I'm not sure in what sense it makes sense to say that a zygote is an idividual.

Also there is the case of chimerism in which two separte zygotes (potential paternal twins) fuse together to become one individual with two populations of genetically distinct cells. Should these people be seen as two people?

Then there are zygotes frozen in IVF clinics awaiting plantation (or destruction if all the ones they'll need are taken). Should these be traeted as people and their parents be allowed to clain a tax deduction or benefit on each?

None of that matters. As long as the number of human beings is greater than zero, they, however many of them there are in whatever configuration, may be afforded rights if society chooses to do so.

Of course they can. They can decide to bring back hanging or criminalise homosexuality again also. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Seth]

A human zygote can also make more than one human. In fact when it divides in two you can make two people by taking the two apart. You can do this again and again indefinately. So I'm not sure in what sense it makes sense to say that a zygote is an idividual.

Also there is the case of chimerism in which two separte zygotes (potential paternal twins) fuse together to become one individual with two populations of genetically distinct cells. Should these people be seen as two people?

Then there are zygotes frozen in IVF clinics awaiting plantation (or destruction if all the ones they'll need are taken). Should these be traeted as people and their parents be allowed to clain a tax deduction or benefit on each?

None of that matters. As long as the number of human beings is greater than zero, they, however many of them there are in whatever configuration, may be afforded rights if society chooses to do so.

Of course they can. They can decide to bring back hanging or criminalise homosexuality again also. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that all your (meaning the pro abortion crowd) arguments are based in notions of "rights" that don't apply and never have. A woman does not have a "right" to have an abortion, as we can see in the caselaw, she has the permission of government to have an abortion under limited circumstances, which can be changed at any time.

Women's wombs are no more sacrosanct than anything else the government chooses to regulate.

[Tero]

Well we need an amendment. The woman is only killing one fetus, whereas hand guns kill a random person thought to be a threat.

[Animavore]

A human zygote can also make more than one human. In fact when it divides in two you can make two people by taking the two apart. You can do this again and again indefinately. So I'm not sure in what sense it makes sense to say that a zygote is an idividual.

Also there is the case of chimerism in which two separte zygotes (potential paternal twins) fuse together to become one individual with two populations of genetically distinct cells. Should these people be seen as two people?

Then there are zygotes frozen in IVF clinics awaiting plantation (or destruction if all the ones they'll need are taken). Should these be traeted as people and their parents be allowed to clain a tax deduction or benefit on each?

None of that matters. As long as the number of human beings is greater than zero, they, however many of them there are in whatever configuration, may be afforded rights if society chooses to do so.

Of course they can. They can decide to bring back hanging or criminalise homosexuality again also. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that all your (meaning the pro abortion crowd) arguments are based in notions of "rights" that don't apply and never have. A woman does not have a "right" to have an abortion, as we can see in the caselaw, she has the permission of government to have an abortion under limited circumstances, which can be changed at any time.

Women's wombs are no more sacrosanct than anything else the government chooses to regulate.

I'm fine with that. I never mentioned rights, women's or other, or sanctity anywhere.

[Seth]

Well we need an amendment. The woman is only killing one fetus, whereas hand guns kill a random person thought to be a threat.

Infrequently, and whenever someone is killed, an investigation is opened to determine if it was a justifiable homicide or not, and the person is almost never "random" it's because he or she was posing a deadly threat to the person who shot them.

And we have plenty of laws that control that particular use of firearms already, we don't need any more.

[Animavore]

Well we need an amendment. The woman is only killing one fetus, whereas hand guns kill a random person thought to be a threat.

Seriously?

[Kristie]

I think an even biggrin difference is that one lives inside of another persons body. I don't think that little factor can be dismissed, or, reasonably, compared to having a boarder. Really.

Why not? The fetus was invited to live there, and like any tenant, can have its rights of occupancy protected by the law.

Ah but we go to the constitution. Nowhere does it say a fetus has rights. Even blacks were not humans back then.

They were not legally "persons." They are now, by virtue of a change in the laws of the land. Nothing inhibits the law from defining a zygote as a person if that's what the People demand.

In another thread, we're discussing a change in law that has the support of the majority, but the minority side declares that majority rule isn't sufficient enough for a law change because the majority of people are sheeple. So, which is it?

[JimC]

Given that every account I've read about a woman's experience of abortion is very negative from her personal point of view, the most critical aspect is to reduce the need for it in the first place by more widespread and effective contraceptive measures (including placing more responsibility on men), while reserving the right to abortion as a rare emergency measure.

[Animavore]

Given that every account I've read about a woman's experience of abortion is very negative from her personal point of view, the most critical aspect is to reduce the need for it in the first place by more widespread and effective contraceptive measures (including placing more responsibility on men), while reserving the right to abortion as a rare emergency measure.

Are you sure you haven't just been reading anti-abortion propaganda? I know about four women had abortions and they all treat it like either something that needed to be done and in one case complete indifference.

Not that I don't agree with what you say. It's an irony in Bible- belt areas in the States where they're most vociferous against abortion and teach the seriously flawed sex education of abstinence only that most abortions take place because they just aren't using condoms or other protection. It seems the shame of sex outside of marriage outweighs the moral opposition to abortion. As an aside, a lot of girls are letting their boyfriends do them up the ass as compensation for not having sex.

And while we're on the subject of irony; abortions among atheists are right down.

[JimC]

Given that every account I've read about a woman's experience of abortion is very negative from her personal point of view, the most critical aspect is to reduce the need for it in the first place by more widespread and effective contraceptive measures (including placing more responsibility on men), while reserving the right to abortion as a rare emergency measure.

Are you sure you haven't just been reading anti-abortion propaganda? I know about four women had abortions and they all treat it like either something that needed to be done and in one case complete indifference.

Not that I don't agree with what you say. It's an irony in Bible- belt areas in the States where they're most vociferous against abortion and teach the seriously flawed sex education of abstinence only that most abortions take place because they just aren't using condoms or other protection. It seems the shame of sex outside of marriage is outweighs the moral opposition to abortion. As an aside, a lot of girls are letting their boyfriends do them up the ass as compensation for not having sex.

And while we're on the subject of irony; abortions among atheists are right down.

I suppose I shouldn't be absolutist. Perhaps there are some women who regard an abortion as only a somewhat more expensive version of a haircut...

However, I suspect that the majority would prefer, at the least, not to be in the position of needing one.

Rape aside, sensible contraception policies seem to be the way to go...

[Animavore]

Given that every account I've read about a woman's experience of abortion is very negative from her personal point of view, the most critical aspect is to reduce the need for it in the first place by more widespread and effective contraceptive measures (including placing more responsibility on men), while reserving the right to abortion as a rare emergency measure.

Are you sure you haven't just been reading anti-abortion propaganda? I know about four women had abortions and they all treat it like either something that needed to be done and in one case complete indifference.

Not that I don't agree with what you say. It's an irony in Bible- belt areas in the States where they're most vociferous against abortion and teach the seriously flawed sex education of abstinence only that most abortions take place because they just aren't using condoms or other protection. It seems the shame of sex outside of marriage is outweighs the moral opposition to abortion. As an aside, a lot of girls are letting their boyfriends do them up the ass as compensation for not having sex.

And while we're on the subject of irony; abortions among atheists are right down.

I suppose I shouldn't be absolutist. Perhaps there are some women who regard an abortion as only a somewhat more expensive version of a haircut...

However, I suspect that the majority would prefer, at the least, not to be in the position of needing one.

Rape aside, sensible contraception policies seem to be the way to go...

It's not about them 'treating it like it was a haircut' it's about abortion becoming normalised. Or in the case of Ireland, having to go over to Britain to get an abortion is becoming normalised.