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

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.

How is setting a discursive condition of obligatory acceptance while denegrating the cognitive capacities of others working out for you? You do realise that if everybody accepted your point of view then its consequences would be irrelevant. Are you comfortable with that?

[Seth]

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.

They are worth a lot to hogs. But thanks for admitting that you have no rational or scientific argument to make and that your position on abortion is devoid of reason and based solely on your personal preferences. That's true of all pro-abortionists...they don't give a fuck about the facts, they've made up their minds and will not be swayed by anything, even though their opinions and religiously-held beliefs are demonstrably false.

Same with humans. We value the humans once they are born. We value the unborn far less, depending on it's length of gestation.

Thanks for admitting that abortion is a political matter, which means that a change in the political winds is all that it takes to ban abortion entirely.

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.

Strangely, more than 50 percent of Americans now disfavor unlimited abortion. And your No True Scotsman fallacy is noted and laughed hysterically at.

I haven't seen any explanation from Seth as to why HE values someone else's fertilised egg so highly.

There's a reason you haven't seen any such explanation. What I value and why is none of your business. What I'm extracting for use against other pro-abortionist arguments are the inconsistencies, irrelevancies, fallacies, falsehoods and ridiculous religious beliefs that you demonstrate so very well. You make a great quote source for showing just how irrationally religious pro-abortionists are. Thanks for that.

Since he denies being a Catholic.
Any offers, Seth?

Nope.

[Seth]

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.

You lie. You've been doing that quite recently, but thanks for the direct quote which I can now cite.

What is missing in that definition is that the organism can be called a human being, an oak tree, or whatever.

Well, Mr. Language Guy, that's because the definition of a zygote defines the particular type of cell involved without regard to its taxonomic classification. A zygote "is the first cell of a new organism. Nobody disputes that." A zygote is a zygote. Whether it is a human being or a wolf being depends on it's genetic code.

You're reading that into the definition because your ideology requires it.

No, I'm properly interpreting the scientific statement involved, whereas you are denying science and reason.

Guess what? Science does not share your ideology.

I didn't ask it to. But in this case I'm stating scientific fact, not ideology.

That's why it does not define a zygote as a human being, a tree, or whatever my eventually result from its development.

Once again, for the cognitively-impaired, a "zygote" is the scientific name for a particular type of cell. To quote YOU, it "is the first cell of a new organism. Nobody disputes that." The scientific name of the object being named does not define the taxonomic order to which that cell belongs. What defines the taxonomic order of that "first cell of a new organism" is its genetic code, which in the case of a zygote-stage human being is human DNA, making it human. And since it is alive, and is human, it has achieved the status of "being" and is therefore a "human being" of the zygote stage of development.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Seth,

This is a blatant attack on the other posters in this thread. The fact that you are trying to disguise it by using the third person shows that you still don't get our fundamental principle - If the staff agree that it is a personal attack on a member, or members, of this site (and we do) then it is, no matter how cleverly you think it is worded.

This is a warning that any similar posts will lead to an immediate suspension of your account - length to be decided.

[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.

You lie. You've been doing that quite recently

Where is the lie? That you have provided a very good definition? That nobody disputes that? If you want to keep ignoring forum rules by telling me that I lie quite a bit recently, the least you can do is to cite what you think are my lies and explain why you think they are.

What is missing in that definition is that the organism can be called a human being, an oak tree, or whatever.

Well, Mr. Language Guy, that's because the definition of a zygote defines the particular type of cell involved without regard to its taxonomic classification. A zygote "is the first cell of a new organism. Nobody disputes that." A zygote is a zygote. Whether it is a human being or a wolf being depends on it's genetic code.

If you were correct with your interpretation, the very first definition of 'zygote' you first cited (here) would simply read: "The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and forms a new individual" It does not. say it forms a new individual, though. Instead, it defines a zygote as a combination of the DNA in each gamete which contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The point of development at which that that new individual can be regarded as a human being, a wolf or an oak tree is not specified.

[Tero]

Yes we are killing an organism, so what? I still do not get why science would make an abortion legal or illegal. It is purely our decision. No science in it.

[Seth]

If you were correct with your interpretation, the very first definition of 'zygote' you first cited (here) would simply read: "The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and forms a new individual" It does not. say it forms a new individual, though. Instead, it defines a zygote as a combination of the DNA in each gamete which contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The point of development at which that that new individual can be regarded as a human being, a wolf or an oak tree is not specified.

Speculation. There is nothing in semantics or science that says that the "first cited" definition is the ultimate and only definition applicable to the discussion. The definition you refer to does indeed say what you claim, that is obvious. But again, the intent of that particular citation is to show that the zygote is not part of the body of either the mother or the father because it is a combination of gametes, which combination has all the genetic information necessary to form the new individual. This is true, but it is not, as you continue to try to insist, the only relevant definition or information relating to the zygote and its biological characteristics. While it is the combination of maternal and paternal gametes, it is also, as a function of that combination of gametes along the spindle apparatus, the "first cell of the new organism" that is created by those gametes.

The formation of the zygote

After the two pronuclei have come as close together as they can, no merging of them takes place, i.e., a fitting together of the chromosomes of the two pronuclei within a single nucleic membrane does not happen. It is much more accurate to say that the nucleic membranes of both pronuclei dissolve and the chromosomes of both align themselves on the spindle apparatus at the equator.
The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus. (emphasis added...again)

As we can see above, the paternal and maternal chromosomes do not "merge" one into the other, rather the membranes of both pronuclei dissolve together and the respective chromosome then align themselves simultaneously on the common spindle apparatus. Thus, one set of chromosomes (paternal, for example) is not merged "into" the maternal pronuclei, nor vice versa. In a very egalitarian way, each pronuclei dissolves its own membrane and attaches to the common spindle apparatus each by itself, and this mutual and simultaneous alignment is what forms the unique natal DNA of the zygote and the adult which develops from that zygotic stage.

You keep insisting that one sentence of many is the absolute answer to whatever strange notion you have of cellular biology. It's not. It's perfectly clear that once you read and understand the process involved that it's simply indisputable that the zygote is it's own distinct, separate living being comprised of a unique combination of chromosomes giving it its own unique DNA pattern that persists from that moment to the end of the organism's life. It never changes its basic DNA coding. A human zygote isn't a rodent-based DNA coding that becomes a rodent zygote that develops into a rodent blastocyst that develops into a rodent embryo that develops into a rodent fetus that suddenly and miraculously changes its entire DNA coding to become a human being only when it's pushed or extracted from the mother's womb. And that's what you're saying, and it's laughable.

You can pettifog all you like, but biology, science and logic are on my side, not yours. The human zygote is a living human being that is separate and distinct from both the human mother and human father that is hosted and developed inside the human uterus and it remains fully human and completely alive and maintains its state of being and existence from that moment until it dies. This is plain and exhaustively proven scientific fact.

Those are the scientific facts. Now deal with them rationally if you still want to support the idea of aborting a living human being. I'm not saying abortion can never be justified, merely that you are going to have to face the actual facts of science and biology in defending your position on how, when, why and if abortion is to be permitted. You are not going to get away with avoiding the moral and ethical questions involved by trying to falsely deny that the organism that is being killed during a human abortion is not a human being. It is.

Now, either deal with that fact rationally or continue to cling to your entirely irrational, absolutely religious and completely fallacious belief that a human zygote/fetus et al is not a human being. I really don't care what you think. You can continue to cling to your mindless religious dogma if you like, but you cannot then justifiably claim to be thinking rationally about the subject, which makes your opinions on the matter of no more, and of rather substantially less interest and relevance than those of theists and others who object to the wanton and unjustified killing of human beings in utero who at least clearly and accurately understand the facts of science and biology involved, something which pro-abortionists either do not or will not admit.

[Seth]

Yes we are killing an organism, so what? I still do not get why science would make an abortion legal or illegal. It is purely our decision. No science in it.

The question becomes, of course, what KIND of organism are you killing and should you be allowed to do so? I have not suggested that science makes abortion illegal, I have merely insisted on correctly identifying the exact organism that is being killed during the abortion of a human fetus so that we have a rational basis upon which to discuss the theological, social and political aspects of abortion as part of examining the rationality, logic, reasonableness, scientific necessity, personal preferences and other matters that come into play in this fundamentally social policy issue.

For fuck's sake, it's illegal to kill a bald eagle fetus, or any other fetus of an endangered species, so why shouldn't it be illegal to kill a human fetus if that's what society wants?

I will not abide the common pro-abortion tactic of evading the discussion by simply dismissing the factual biological nature of the organism that's being killed. You may be able to justify killing a human being in utero, I really don't know, but you won't be allowed to get away with using "it's not a human being, it's just a clump of cells" dodge while I'm around. You'll have to do much, much better than that, and if you are an honest intellectual, you should insist on this sort of scientific accuracy as the basis of discussion. God knows you lot blather on about "science" in the AGW threads. Why you are so unwilling to acknowledge firmly established biological facts when it comes to abortion is one of those things that tends to prove that the pro-abortion belief/practice set is as much a religion, and as irrational as most other religions, as any theistic religion, and I can't see why any rational person would want to appear to be so utterly irrational in this one instance.

[Hermit]

The formation of the zygote

After the two pronuclei have come as close together as they can, no merging of them takes place, i.e., a fitting together of the chromosomes of the two pronuclei within a single nucleic membrane does not happen. It is much more accurate to say that the nucleic membranes of both pronuclei dissolve and the chromosomes of both align themselves on the spindle apparatus at the equator.
The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus. (emphasis added...again)

Thanks for increasing the size of the font. Together with the helpful colouration it makes it even clearer that there is no mention of human beings, pigs, oak trees or even a mention of a new general individual of any sort whatsoever.

[Seth]

The formation of the zygote

After the two pronuclei have come as close together as they can, no merging of them takes place, i.e., a fitting together of the chromosomes of the two pronuclei within a single nucleic membrane does not happen. It is much more accurate to say that the nucleic membranes of both pronuclei dissolve and the chromosomes of both align themselves on the spindle apparatus at the equator.
The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus. (emphasis added...again)

Thanks for increasing the size of the font. Together with the helpful colouration it makes it even clearer that there is no mention of human beings, pigs, oak trees or even a mention of a new general individual of any sort whatsoever.

What part of "the first cell of a new organism" is unclear to you?

[JimC]

The first cell is not the organism. It has none of the features of a human being that count. It is a cell, end of story. (With the right technology, it is possible that, in the future, any cell in your body could become a baby, your clone...)

As the zygote develops, we get a gradual change in the nature of the foetus, until the word baby becomes appropriate. The point where many say that abortion should not occur is when there is chance of survival outside the mother. What cut-off point is decided is up to a societal consensus, not the belief structures of religious people.

[Hermit]

The formation of the zygote

After the two pronuclei have come as close together as they can, no merging of them takes place, i.e., a fitting together of the chromosomes of the two pronuclei within a single nucleic membrane does not happen. It is much more accurate to say that the nucleic membranes of both pronuclei dissolve and the chromosomes of both align themselves on the spindle apparatus at the equator.
The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus. (emphasis added...again)

Thanks for increasing the size of the font. Together with the helpful colouration it makes it even clearer that there is no mention of human beings, pigs, oak trees or even a mention of a new general individual of any sort whatsoever.

What part of "the first cell of a new organism" is unclear to you?

Nothing at all. An organism is, as any dictionary will tell you, a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. In case you doubt this, you can look it up yourself. Here, for example. To confirm this, you can check any other reputable dictionary. They all say pretty much the same thing.

What none of them say is that an organism like, say, a zygote, which I'll remind you is an organism, turns into into something that can be regarded as a human being, when an acorn becomes a tree and so on and so forth. If you want anything else explained to you, just ask. No need to be indirect about it. There is no shame in being ignorant about some things. Nobody knows everything.

[mistermack]

Thanks for admitting that abortion is a political matter, which means that a change in the political winds is all that it takes to ban abortion entirely.

Admitting the bleedin obvious? I'm happy to do that any time.
But thanks for dumping your pretence that it's a scientific matter. It must be hard to keep up with your previous bollocks, when you're trolling.

I haven't seen any explanation from Seth as to why HE values someone else's fertilised egg so highly.

There's a reason you haven't seen any such explanation. What I value and why is none of your business.

Any offers, Seth?

Nope.

Talked yourself into another corner.

[Brian Peacock]

What cut-off point is decided is up to a societal consensus, not the belief structures of religious people.

Indeed, dogmatic assertions on abortion, like dogmatic assertions in so many areas of the public square, do not reflect the situation as it stands, they are just demmands that attempt to force the situation to conform to their own terms.

[Seth]

The first cell is not the organism.

Don't be silly, of course it is. Is not a single-celled organism "the organism?" The first cell is in fact "the organism" in a single-celled state. It's not something other than "the organism" now is it?

It has none of the features of a human being that count. It is a cell, end of story.

Ah, here we see you departing from science and reason into religious belief and ideology. To many people, including many biologists and scientists, the human zygote has the two most essential, critical, and unchanging features of a human being: Human DNA and life. To many others, it has a putative third all-important feature: a "soul." I have no opinion on that claim. But, since you cannot prove that a zygote does NOT have a soul, you cannot rationally claim that a zygote does not have a soul nor can you claim that a soul is unimportant or does not "count." That's all a matter of personal opinion on your part having nothing whatever to do with science or reason and your opinion is, of course, like all opinions, which are like assholes: everybody has one.

The VALUE of your opinion on the matter is yet another important variable, and your opinion may be important or worthless, in someone else's opinion.

As the zygote develops, we get a gradual change in the nature of the foetus, until the word baby becomes appropriate. The point where many say that abortion should not occur is when there is chance of survival outside the mother. What cut-off point is decided is up to a societal consensus, not the belief structures of religious people.

Again, you are departing from reason and science in an attempt to dismiss and minimize the nature of the zygote/fetus by attempting to dehumanize it. Yes, there is indeed gradual development (not "change" in the way that so many pro=abortionists mean it) of the zygote into a fetus and infant and then eventually an adult. But it is still a living human being at all times during that continuous process. The ONLY time a fundamental change from one (or two actually) types of human cells (egg and sperm) into another type of human cell that is the first cell of a new living human being is at the formation of the zygote. Everything thereafter proceeds naturally as a gradual process of development as programmed by the new, unique DNA formed at the formation of the zygote.

As to aborting the living human being, it is indeed a matter of social policy, but not necessarily of "social consensus." As a matter of social policy, particularly in a socialist society, the side that has the most votes wins, and it doesn't matter at all if that side is Marxist or Catholic. Whichever has the most votes for whatever social policy that side wants, wins, and the losers just have to put up with it. Ain't Democracy a hoot!

So, if you have a society that is comprised of a majority of persons of firm religious belief that abortion for any reason must be made unlawful, why, under your preferred form of government, that's what you get, and if you don't like it, tough titty. And vice versa.

Which makes the next stage of this debate one of politics and fundamental human rights rather than one of biology, because you have just admitted that the decision to allow or outlaw abortion has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the whims and caprices of the voting public.

As H.L. Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

All the rest is politics.