Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Brian Peacock]

Does anyone think that reducing access to termination services decreases the demand for abortion?

Probably not, but how is that relevant?

Only in as much as it speaks to the consequences of stringently restricted access to terminations services, something you seem unwilling to follow to its logical conclusion...

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1619749

[Seth]

The definition you quote does not answer that at all. Instead it explicitly states that "The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The wording is deliberate because the fact that a zygote contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual is a scientific fact, while the point at which that new organism can be said to be a human being, a cow, a slug or whatever, is not. An acorn is not an oak tree, you know?

But you're wrong, an acorn is an oak tree

That is not what the definition you provided says. An acorn merely contains all of the genetic information necessary to form an oak tree. Most acorns don't in fact become trees. They are more likely to become food for squirrels and pigs. And you'll definitely have an uphill battle trying to make a table out of acorns.

But it's always an oak, regardless of its possible future existence. It's not a dog that turns into an oak when it sprouts. It's not a fish that turns into an oak when it sprouts. It's an oak.

Likewise, a human zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/infant/child/adolescent/adult is always a human being at every stage of development. It's never anything else.

[Seth]

You might like to know that most of your dna is from viruses, that lived "separate" lives, and another good chunk, your mitochondrial dna, is from beneficial bacteria, that also lived "separate" lives from our ancestors. (by your definition of separate).

I'm well aware of that, actually.

Good. At least you've learn't something today.

Yes, I learned that you are far less educated that I first thought.

And yet an acorn is nothing other than an oak, ever.

Yeh, but it's not a fucking tree, ever.
It's either an acorn or a tree. Never both.

This is like teaching three-year-olds.

A "tree" is a stage of development of the particular organism that develops from the acorn, nothing more. The taxonomic identification of the organism remains the same regardless of the stage of development.

[Seth]

And yet an acorn is nothing other than an oak

The potential for something to become something else does not mean it is that thing
already.

Indeed, and therefore neither the human egg nor the human sperm by themselves are a "human being." The zygote, however, is a human being that is created by the alignment of the parental gametes on the spindle apparatus.

And by no stretch of the imagination now can something as small as an acorn
simultaneously be something as large as an oak.

Of course it is. It's a species of oak at an immature stage of development. An oak tree is nothing more than a mature specimen of a species of oak that grows from an acorn. It's never anything other than a species of oak.

You look like a dunce when you try to weasel your way around this obvious biological fact of science.

Since there is an evolutionary process
allowing such a transition over time. It is not something which happens instantaneously

Which is entirely irrelevant non sequitur.

[Seth]

And yet an acorn is nothing other than an oak

The potential for something to become something else does not mean it is that thing
already. And by no stretch of the imagination now can something as small as an acorn
simultaneously be something as large as an oak. Since there is an evolutionary process
allowing such a transition over time. It is not something which happens instantaneously

To add to this, cutting down or otherwise destroying a mature oak tree is a very different action in terms of ethics or consequences than feeding an acorn to a hog...

Indeed, just as destroying the life of an adult human can be much more difficult and fraught with peril and ethical dilemmas because as a mature specimen of the human species it is capable of defending itself against murderous butchers who try to kill it. Unfortunately the fetus does not have this ability and must therefore be protected by the mature members of the species.

[Seth]

Does anyone think that reducing access to termination services decreases the demand for abortion?

Probably not, but how is that relevant?

Only in as much as it speaks to the consequences of stringently restricted access to terminations services, something you seem unwilling to follow to its logical conclusion...

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1619749

We are not yet discussing the issue of restricted access to abortion and its social consequences. I'm still working on getting idiots to accept the fact that abortion terminates a human life rather than killing an acorn by feeding it to a hog.

Evidently the dunces are quite simply to profoundly stupid and brain-damaged to be able to understand this simple distinction, which in my opinion makes their bloviation on the subject less than worthless. Good thing I'm not trying to teach them anything, because they are too stupid to learn. I'm posting for the benefit of those persons of intelligence who may be lurking and others with enough brains and intellectual honesty to admit to plain scientific fact.

Perhaps if we can come to an agreement about the basic scientific facts involved we can then rationally discuss the social issues involved. I rather doubt that's going to ever happen because to agree to the biological facts involved is to in and of itself pretty much destroy every rationalization supporting abortion that exists.

[Hermit]

The definition you quote does not answer that at all. Instead it explicitly states that "The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The wording is deliberate because the fact that a zygote contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual is a scientific fact, while the point at which that new organism can be said to be a human being, a cow, a slug or whatever, is not. An acorn is not an oak tree, you know?

But you're wrong, an acorn is an oak tree

That is not what the definition you provided says. An acorn merely contains all of the genetic information necessary to form an oak tree. Most acorns don't in fact become trees. They are more likely to become food for squirrels and pigs. And you'll definitely have an uphill battle trying to make a table out of acorns.

But it's always an oak, regardless of its possible future existence.

Not according to the definition you provided. That definition does not say a zygote, oak or whatever forms a new individual. It merely contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. There's a difference between containing all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual and having a new individual actually formed. The difference is that the former indicates a potential of an individual being formed while the latter represents the actuality of the individual having been formed. The definition you provided clearly indicates the former only.

[Hermit]

Yes, I learned that you are far less educated that I first thought.

[JimC]

And yet an acorn is nothing other than an oak

The potential for something to become something else does not mean it is that thing
already. And by no stretch of the imagination now can something as small as an acorn
simultaneously be something as large as an oak. Since there is an evolutionary process
allowing such a transition over time. It is not something which happens instantaneously

To add to this, cutting down or otherwise destroying a mature oak tree is a very different action in terms of ethics or consequences than feeding an acorn to a hog...

Indeed, just as destroying the life of an adult human can be much more difficult and fraught with peril and ethical dilemmas because as a mature specimen of the human species it is capable of defending itself against murderous butchers who try to kill it. Unfortunately the fetus does not have this ability and must therefore be protected by the mature members of the species.

So, by that logic, acorns also need protection...

[Seth]

The definition you quote does not answer that at all. Instead it explicitly states that "The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The wording is deliberate because the fact that a zygote contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual is a scientific fact, while the point at which that new organism can be said to be a human being, a cow, a slug or whatever, is not. An acorn is not an oak tree, you know?

But you're wrong, an acorn is an oak tree

That is not what the definition you provided says. An acorn merely contains all of the genetic information necessary to form an oak tree. Most acorns don't in fact become trees. They are more likely to become food for squirrels and pigs. And you'll definitely have an uphill battle trying to make a table out of acorns.

But it's always an oak, regardless of its possible future existence.

Not according to the definition you provided. That definition does not say a zygote, oak or whatever forms a new individual. It merely contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. There's a difference between containing all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual and having a new individual actually formed. The difference is that the former indicates a potential of an individual being formed while the latter represents the actuality of the individual having been formed. The definition you provided clearly indicates the former only.

You really are desperate, aren't you? I've quoted the relevant quote several times now that states unequivocally that the zygote is the first cell of a new individual. Ignoring that fact isn't going to change anything, but it does make you look increasingly delusional.

[Seth]

And yet an acorn is nothing other than an oak

The potential for something to become something else does not mean it is that thing
already. And by no stretch of the imagination now can something as small as an acorn
simultaneously be something as large as an oak. Since there is an evolutionary process
allowing such a transition over time. It is not something which happens instantaneously

To add to this, cutting down or otherwise destroying a mature oak tree is a very different action in terms of ethics or consequences than feeding an acorn to a hog...

Indeed, just as destroying the life of an adult human can be much more difficult and fraught with peril and ethical dilemmas because as a mature specimen of the human species it is capable of defending itself against murderous butchers who try to kill it. Unfortunately the fetus does not have this ability and must therefore be protected by the mature members of the species.

So, by that logic, acorns also need protection...

If one wishes to grow oak acorns into oak trees, that's absolutely true. Likewise, if society wishes to grow new human beings into adulthood it must protect them from those who would kill them while they are helpless to defend themselves.

[Hermit]

You really are desperate, aren't you? I've quoted the relevant quote several times now that states unequivocally that the zygote is the first cell of a new individual. Ignoring that fact isn't going to change anything, but it does make you look increasingly delusional.

Does it? Oh, look. It doesn't:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual

[Seth]

You really are desperate, aren't you? I've quoted the relevant quote several times now that states unequivocally that the zygote is the first cell of a new individual. Ignoring that fact isn't going to change anything, but it does make you look increasingly delusional.

Does it? Oh, look. It doesn't:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual

Still pettifogging and mendaciously eliding the truth I see:

The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome... is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus.

[mistermack]

A "tree" is a stage of development of the particular organism that develops from the acorn, nothing more. The taxonomic identification of the organism remains the same regardless of the stage of development.

Yes, and like Jim pointed out, we value the tree highly, but acorns are practically worthless.

Same with humans. We value the humans once they are born. We value the unborn far less, depending on it's length of gestation.
Apart from Seth, and the other Catholics, who think they have a soul.
No rational person could put such a high value on a single fertilised ovum, unless you are the parent, or are religiously deluded.

I haven't seen any explanation from Seth as to why HE values someone else's fertilised egg so highly.
Since he denies being a Catholic.
Any offers, Seth?

[Hermit]

The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome... is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus.

Yes, once again a very good definition of 'zygote', and it is the first cell of a new organism. Nobody disputes that. What is missing in that definition is that the organism can be called a human being, an oak tree, or whatever. You're reading that into the definition because your ideology requires it. Guess what? Science does not share your ideology. That's why it does not define a zygote as a human being, a tree, or whatever my eventually result from its development.