Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[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.

Ta daaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!

[mistermack]

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?

I see the problem now. Seth has no understanding of time.
He's confusing the first fertilised cell, with what it WILL BECOME in nine months time.
It's so simple minded, it's like confusing the first rivet, with the Titanic.

If you stick to the instant in time that you are discussing, the zygote IS AT THE TIME a single cell, invisible to the eye, with no mind, brain or nervous system. That's what it IS. It's not a human being, it's a cell.

Nine months later, there exists a baby. Separate from the mother, breathing on it's own, with billions of cells and a brain and a nervous system. A human being.

It's easy to get the two confused, if you have no concept of time.

[Brian Peacock]

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?

I see the problem now. Seth has no understanding of time.
He's confusing the first fertilised cell, with what it WILL BE in nine months time.
It's so simple minded, it's like confusing the first rivet, with the Titanic.

If you stick to the instant in time that you are discussing, the zygote IS AT THE TIME a single cell, invisible to the eye, with no mind, brain or nervous system. That's what it IS. It's not a human being, it's a cell.

Nine months later, there exists a baby. Separate from the mother, breathing on it's own, with billions of cells and a brain and a nervous system. A human being.

It's easy to get the two confused, if you have no concept of time.

It's a philosophical, not a scientific, point t'boot. Science only describes, it doesn't attach value. Scientists might attach value to a particular description, but in that they are not, nor should they be granted the role of, the sole arbiters. If one applies a particular value to particular scientific description and then make normative claims about the value of the thing described then you're engaged in morals and ethics, and where science is just the discursive domain of morals and ethics. Whether a single post-conception cell, or two cells, four cells, eight cells, or n cells constitutes a human being, and thus deserves the protection of socially afforded (and, accordingly, enforced) rights, is something aside from the biological description or cell-count.

If a person maintains that a single post-conception cell is a human being, while maintaining that a single skin cell is not, then they are making an appeal to specificity - which is essentially a subjective moral judgement, not a scientific description. If a person maintains that a single post-conception cell is not a human being, merely the potential progenitor of a human being, then the question remains at which point--that is; by what time, at what level of descriptive complexity etc--does a human being begin, and is accordingly to be afforded certain rights and protections, and to what extent, and under what conditions? This comprises the nature of the abortion debate, and while science has a role to play in informing that debate it is unhelpful to simply declare by fiat that science necessarily determines our individual or societies general conclusion. To do so, and by so doing declare that abortion is generally morally wrong, just come over as an attempt to immunise a particular moral outlook from due challenge and/or criticism - it's a deflective measure taken to disengage from the debate and avoid both addressing the challenges and/or criticisms of others and of travelling any further than a mere declaration in justifying the position. In that regard it is dogmatic - and I use that word deliberately because Seth's position here seems to have more in common with a self-authorised religious doctrine than with the 'rationality and logic' of the science he says he is championing.

Though I don't expect one to be forthcoming, what Seth needs to provide to support his contention is a scientific description of a human being, and not merely a description of a potentiality.

[mistermack]

Whether a single post-conception cell, or two cells, four cells, eight cells, or n cells constitutes a human being,

There is actually a scientific answer to the first four examples.
A single fertilised cell can't be "a" human being. Because it could result in twins.

How many cells there are when that possibility expires, I don't know. But as it can happen up to 15 days after fertilisation, it's obvious that it's not A human being, for the first couple of weeks.

[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.

[Seth]

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

Well, if you wouldn't be wrong all the time, I wouldn't have to edumacate you.

[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.

That's rather my point with respect to socialism and it's unintended consequences.

What this means is that you can no longer argue that abortion is a "right" or that a woman has any "right" to do something society chooses to forbid her from doing, be it having an abortion or revealing any scrap of flesh in public or driving a car. Therefore, all that is required to ban abortion is the societal decision to do so. And because "we...define and prioritize things" in our society, defining abortion as illegal (or that all women must wear big black bags) is therefore, according to your metric, a perfectly acceptable social decision devoid of any negative moral consequences.

Thanks for admitting that. Now all that is required is to persuade a majority of citizens that abortion should be illegal and abortion may be made illegal and you won't have anything to bitch about, will you?

[Seth]

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?

I see the problem now. Seth has no understanding of time.
He's confusing the first fertilised cell, with what it WILL BECOME in nine months time.
It's so simple minded, it's like confusing the first rivet, with the Titanic.

If you stick to the instant in time that you are discussing, the zygote IS AT THE TIME a single cell, invisible to the eye, with no mind, brain or nervous system. That's what it IS. It's not a human being, it's a cell.

Nine months later, there exists a baby. Separate from the mother, breathing on it's own, with billions of cells and a brain and a nervous system. A human being.

It's easy to get the two confused, if you have no concept of time.

And yet at every moment after the formation of the zygote it's a living human cell that has achieved the state of "being" (existence), and is therefore a human being. Is it a fully-formed adult human being? No, but that's not really relevant to the scientific issue at the bar. It is you who doesn't understand time or fetal development. A baby, separate from the mother, breathing on its own is no different species-wise than it was ten seconds earlier when it was still inside the birth canal. It's location does not determine it's genetic makeup, it's gender or it's status as a living human being.

The idea that the location of the infant determines it's species is one of the most asinine irrationalities of the pro-abortion crowd. The real agenda has nothing whatever to do with the child at all, it's actually about a feminist political agenda of denying any responsibility for the woman's actions in the past that resulted in her becoming pregnant and denying any duty to protect the living human being inside of her, produced by her voluntary actions, in order to maintain the political fiction that women are sovereign unto themselves and must not be oppressed by the patriarchal male-dominated political and social system.

It's pure political posturing and denial of personal responsibility for one's own actions in favor of the "feminist" anti-patriarchal agenda, nothing more.

Abortion is a feminist stalking horse in the radical feminist agenda of denying and attempting to deconstruct what they view as an oppressive male-dominated social structure.

But that doesn't change the fact that when a woman permits a man to ejaculate inside of her she's the one in control of her gonads and therefore is the one responsible for their proper operation. If she fails to operate her sex organs properly and gets pregnant with a living human being, then it's her obligation to put up with the consequences of creating a new living human being, which includes protecting it throughout it's natural development and delivery.

If she doesn't want to be burdened with that responsibility, then she ought to keep cocks out of her vagina. It is within her authority to do so.

being
noun be·ing \ˈbē(-i)ŋ\

: a living thing

: the state of existing

: the most important or basic part of a person's mind or self

Full Definition of BEING
1
a : the quality or state of having existence
b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things
c : conscious existence : life
2
: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3
: a living thing; especially : person

You want to deny the zygote and all it's subsequent formative stages the definition of "human" because only by doing so can you even begin to attempt to justify killing it with impunity.

This is classic pro-abortion doublespeak. You fear that if you admit, for one second, that a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is what it actually and scientifically is, a living human being, your entire justification and rationale for advocating abortion will crumble beneath you.

You fear that if you acknowledge the zygote as a human being you will actually have to squarely face the knotty moral and ethical questions surrounding abortion, which might result in your having to acknowledge some sort of compromise between the ability of a woman to abort right up until the baby is fully delivered and the outright banning of abortion at any time after the formation of the zygote. This is nothing more than intellectual cowardice and sloth. You like the particular political demarcation point of exit from the vagina because it is convenient and fully realizes your personal political agenda of supporting "feminist" doctrine, which claims that a woman has complete and absolute autonomy and authority over her body at all times, regardless of the circumstances or her own choices and actions.

But that's just political posturing and face-saving bloviation, not a display of intellectual ability or nuanced reasoning. Not to worry however, because your tactics are hardly unique, they are in fact utterly commonplace among pro-abortion zealots. In that respect you are just one of many who have swallowed the feminist bait, closed your mind, shoved your head firmly up your ass and ignored both reason and reality and there's nothing at all special about you.

[Seth]

Whether a single post-conception cell, or two cells, four cells, eight cells, or n cells constitutes a human being,

There is actually a scientific answer to the first four examples.
A single fertilised cell can't be "a" human being. Because it could result in twins.

And both of them are still human beings. Doltish bloviation isn't becoming of a purported intellectual. It's mere pettifoggery to make such an argument.

How many cells there are when that possibility expires, I don't know. But as it can happen up to 15 days after fertilisation, it's obvious that it's not A human being, for the first couple of weeks.

It's human, and it has achieved the state of being, therefore it's a human being. Trying to ignore scientific facts and redefine words is a bootless exercise in evasion.

[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.

[Tero]

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.

[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.

[mistermack]

And yet at every moment after the formation of the zygote 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.
According to that, if I pick my nose, I'm killing hundreds of human beings. By your definition, you are made up of billions of human beings. Surely that should give even you a clue, that your definition is bollocks ?

I thought that you were good at the bleedin obvious? I see I over-estimated your abilities.
You are good at producing words, but not much cop at making sense out of them.

[Tero]

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.

[Seth]

And yet at every moment after the formation of the zygote 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.
According to that, if I pick my nose, I'm killing hundreds of human beings. By your definition, you are made up of billions of human beings. Surely that should give even you a clue, that your definition is bollocks ?

I thought that you were good at the bleedin obvious? I see I over-estimated your abilities.
You are good at producing words, but not much cop at making sense out of them.

Your nose boogers are not zygotes.