What is wrong with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy?

I did not believe that it was possible to be this dense and what do you know, for the first time you prove me wrong. I was NOT referring to the trend, only to the fact educated people are more pro-choice than the uneducated ones. Now it is obvious that this bothers you because it contradicts your earlier assertion that it was not true and to top it off you provided the proof, shooting yourself in the foot as it were.

 

You continue to make baseless assertions and I continue to shoot them down. Do you never tire of being so completely wrong?

Where is the earlier assertion you claim I made? Link please!

 

The link has been provided twice already.
You asserted that educated people are not more pro-choice and the survey YOU provided proved exactly the contrary. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
The fact you are still so desperately attempting to deny it is really pathetic.

 

Opinions of subject matter experts .. are evidence LOL

Further .. the science of Developmental Biology will tell you that the zygote is a cell.

It is you that claims it is something "more" or different.

Unfortunately you seem to have nothing to back up your claim.

 

Evidence that they have an opinion maybe, besides I don't accept people as subject matter experts just because they say they are.

 

They are ... or at least the one is.

Regardless

I do not think that just because two SME share an opinion that, that opinion is necessarily correct .. or the only one.

Especially the opinion that "all" dev biologists deny that "a living human" exists at conception. Im sure there are some out there that have divergent opinions.

Even when you read the article .. what they are saying is not necessarily that the zygote cell is not a living human .. but what is said by the renouned expert is that " an egg has never talked to me" .

There may indeed be a few (and they likely do not speak up at conferences) that can make an argument that "a human" exists at conception.

The vast majority however think otherwise or are on the side of " most of the evidence suggests that the zygote is a cell"

The problem for lifers is "not" that they can not fine one or two experts to support their claims .. the problem is that there is no real support for such a dogmatic claim " a baby exists at conception".

At best you may get "I am not sure" or there is evidence on both sides.

What is clear is that there is no support among subject matter experts for the unilateral claim .. " abortion is killing a baby".

 

Since opnions on this issue cannot be scientifically proven, I do not beleive there is any such thing as a SME in this area.

 

Clearly this gets into semantics. The word 'baby' is typically used by pregnant mothers who are expecting, as well as for young persons the first 18months or so after they have been born. "Baby" is obviously an emotionally charged word in our language, precisely the reason why expectant mothers use it, pro-life rhetoric uses it, and pro-choice rhetoric avoids it - like the plague!

It is naive to think that scientists and doctors who work in the area of early human development aren't cognizant of these political fault-lines; they are deliberate in their use of terms just like everyone else. Of course, pro-choice medical researchers are quick to equivocate on the the use of the term: they won't correct their wife if she refers to the life she's pregnant with as "the baby," but they'll jump to split hairs about the use of the term at a conference. Such equivocations don't fool anybody.

It's better to avoid the rhetorical confusion caused by the word 'baby,' and instead stick with other, more accurately descriptive terms, like "person" and "human being."

The claim that the zygote is not a human being I simply do not find credible. It is an obvious political ploy to gain advantage by changing the meanings of words. The zygote constitutes the complete set of information necessary to develop into an archetypal human being, under ceteris paribus conditions. I do not see how the zygote is different, on the genetic level, from the archetypal human. Now, the zygote is not also self-sufficient for its growth and continued survival - but that is of course true with any living system! Failure to meet these conditions is only morally relevant if it comes as a result of deliberate interventions by outside agents.

Further, there is an argument going about in pro-choice circles nowadays, that the conceptus is morally equivalent to most any regular human cell, since current technology makes it possible, at least theoretically, to re-produce an archetypal human from the genetic information contained in the regular cell. That reasoning would not be valid even if a regular cell could be inter-substituted with the conceptus, in the uterus; even if a regular cell is liable of implantation in the uterine wall (which it is not), such an event could never happen, under ceteris paribus conditions. That is because, again, it would require highly technical, deliberate interventions on the part of intelligent agents, to bring off such an effect. All things in this world being equal, that would never happen. Hence there can be no moral equivalence drawn between the question of whether the already formed conceptus is entitled to not be deliberately destroyed, and whether the choice should or should not be made to cause a regular cell - itself not having the necessary potential (though it does, by our current science, have the possible potential) to produce a human being - to be used to clone a human individual.

The rationalizations that choicers employ to justify the destruction of human life are sophisticated, but they are nevertheless mere rationalizations, in the end.

 

Pro-choicers are not bent on fooling anyone, it is really not necessary. It seems you feel that in places where accuracy and precision is required, say at a conference as you mentioned, one should not use the precise term but rather the vague and emotion laden one. That is the argument of a weak mind that can not support a position based on rational arguments, thus necessitating emotion to prop up an otherwise untenable position.

Yes it is better in places and when the terms apply. While not emotional terms it is just as dishonest to use them when they do not apply because of the misrepresentation they present.

But reality does not hinge on what you find credible. At best you can present arguments why the currently unrecognized fetus should be regarded in the same way a born human is.

No, reality is NOT a political ploy, but misrepresenting it can be ant it look like that is what you are attempting.

And that is not disputed. If it has to develop into a human being it clearly is NOT one.

Your inabilities should not affect or effect the debate. A human being is more than a biological classification and that is the only thing the two have in common. If classification based solely on genetic identification is all that is required then cancer cells would qualify too.

No, that is simply NOT true. Capacity to self sustain life is not the same as surviving.

As opposed to sophistry you are attempting to use here, which amounts to what exactly in your opinion?

 

Oh lookie PMS posted something. Lucky me she is on my ignore list!!!!

 

Your sniping is wearisome. Make it worth my time and make a substantive counter-argument.

 

Sorry, that is all your post was worth and it seems even with so little you are lost.

 

Depends on what the claim is. I think it can be proven that the zygote is a cell for example.

What can not be proven is that it is "a human", what level of sentience and so forth.

There are few significant differences between the zygote and any other human cell. One difference that "is" significant is in the DNA. Both human and zygote cells have the programing to create a human. The zygote just has that programming activated.

This is significant and meaningful, but it does not make the zygote "a human"

If, as you say, opinions such as "a living human exists at conception" can not be proven, then folks should not be using the term "baby killers".

The subject matter experts may not be able to answer every question, but some they can. The point is that SME's in developmental biology do exist .. and that is the proper domain in relation to this particular abortion question.

 

The ones changing the meaning of words are the lifers. The word "human being" for example. Something that is Human (adjective) and being (exits)

The zygote is a human cell. Human cell being. It is not a "human" (noun) on the basis of some labling a human cell .. a human being. Yes, the cell is a being .. and it is human (adj) but that does not making a human (noun)

Your claim here is this:

Having the genetic info required to create a human, constitutes a human.

My counterclaim is that clearly the above claim is false. Every human cell has this information, yet you would not claim that each of these cell is a person.

What is interesting (how you might rephrase this claim such that it is not false) is by looking at the genetic difference.

The significant difference between the zygote and other human cells is that the zygote has the "create a human" program codes within its DNA turned on.

What you are really claiming then is:

Having a human DNA that is in the process of creating a human .. is a human.

I would argue that it is a potential human as it has not been created yet.

Further, even if you claim it is a human, it is not "a living human" lacking both a heart and brain. (requirements for clinical death)

It does not matter whether or not we will be able to achieve the above.

First you must make a case for the claim:

Human DNA with the codes "create a human" turned on = a human

 

You state that I made a lot of claims that you provide no link to. This is what is widely known as strawman building. You claim I stated some argument that you think you have an effective response to, so you post that as my assertion, then you attack it.

Honest debate simply does not work that way.

Please provide proof that I maxde the assertions you claim.

 

Is the debate over whether or not a zygote is a cell?

What can also not be proven is that "sentience" is required to be a human. Your argument doesn;t even get that far.

The significant difference is that the zygote is the first cell in the creation of a new human being. That is VERY significant.

It likewise cannot be disproven so use of the term you cited cannot be proven incorrect.

Again there are no SMEs!!!

 

The post was to modus ponens addressing his claims .. not yours.

 

A normal human cell is not a person. It is a proven fact that the zygote is a cell. What is not proven is that the zygote cell is a person.

Can you make the case that an organism without a brain is a living human?

Significant how ? ( I have stated how a couple of posts back)

If you have more to add .. then add.

It likewise cannot be disproven so use of the term you cited cannot be proven incorrect.

The onus is on the one making the claim to provide proof.

Laws are not made on the basis of:

"Well is hasn't been disproven !"

Perhaps we should make a law that your neighbor should come to your house and bugger you on a regular basis. Can you prove that a good buggering will not do you some good ?

__________________
A Liberal In an abortion thread:

 

Hardly. And you performatively demonstrate my point, with what you go on to say. To wit:

'Human being' is one (two word) term. It is a noun. "Human" in this term, does not function as an adjective qua adjective. But you will equivocate on the use of the word 'human,' mentioning instances where it is used as an adjective, and then trying to import that sense of the term into other contexts where it is not grammatically appropriate - all for the sake of trying to get a rhetorical advantage. Do you really think that that rhetorical slight of hand is going to help you?

It is misleading to speak in this way. At the very beginning of its existence, the human being is a single-celled entity, yes; but it is not "a" cell in the sense of a cell that is one among very many, many other cells that are corporately related in an organism. The zygote marks instead the beginning of life of a new organism.

If you deny that human DNA that is in the process of creating a human is itself a human, then I guess we don't count then. For our DNA is precisely in the perpetual process of re-creating our own bodily selves.

Your reasoning depends, besides, on a very vague understanding of the meaning of "potential.". Clearly, there are different varieties of potentiality. For one thing, there is no such thing as an actually existing potential human. The zygote is most certainly a real and actual being; and further it is undeniably a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. What it is, is a human being in a very early stage of growth and development. It is in potential of all sorts of faculties that it does not operationally possess, but which nonetheless are definite attributes of its species-being. It is in virtue of these definite potential attributes (mainly, a highly developed central nervous system which is the physiological basis for engaging in moral reasoning), that a being is entitled to the mantle of person and to all the prerogatives associated with personhood.

This is pure semantics. All complex life begins as a unicellular being - indeed must begin as a unicellular being, as a matter of empirical necessity. There is no expectation that life in the earliest stages exhibit differentiated organ function. It is simply fatuous to claim that a gestating member of a species is somehow not a member of a species, until it has reached some indeterminate stage of growth. It is much more rational to date the beginning of the existence of a new member of a species, to the moment in which its genetic individuality is constituted - namely, the fertilization of an egg (in sexually reproducing species)

Because new members of our species come into being only by that route - only by those codes being turned on in such a fashion, that the command is = "whole organism to be constructed" (as opposed to "just more of the local organ being fabricated") . All definitions of "human being" are predicated on this comprehensive expression of a genetic individual.

 

You have not given any support for your claim that a zygote is "a human being" (noun). The fact that you claim so over and over again does not make it so.

How is the zygote not a single cell ?

There is no such thing as a single celled human being.
Claiming so is what is misleading.

Homo sapiens are not single celled organisms.

The zygote marks the beginning of the creation of a new organism.

The single cell is not part of, nor will it ever be one of the cells that make up the born human.

 

Recreating DNA through cell division for growth, development, or repair is a different process than what is happening in the zygote DNA.

Differentiated cells are not totipotent for one.

Second, the cells that are doing the "re-creating" are not humans.

.

Sorry .. the zygote is not a member of the species homo sapiens any more than any other human cell.

Clearly you have no clue what semantics is. Where is the semantics in my statement ?

Life: because an organism is alive .. does not make it a human.
because an organism is complex .. does not make it a human

Taxonomy gives definitions on what fits and what does not fit into various classifications. The zygote does not even come close to fitting into the classification homo sapien.

and last .. the beginning of the life of cell that will reproduce and eventually create a human .. does not mean that "a living human" exists.

There is no living human (noun) .. but there is human life. Adjective

 

It's doubtful that here I'm the one who has the burden of proof, and not you. But, alright, for the sake of the debate I'll go first. All human beings must come into existence at some point in time. It is logical to trace each human individual's origin back to the moment when the genetic information which serves both as the blueprint and program executor for a whole unique organism, first comes into being. That moment is conception. At conception we have the appearance of a new member of the species; in the case of our species, that is a new human being. From the moment of conception, we have a continuous process of growth and development (a process in which the zygote's actions serve as a unique necessary condition for all subsequent stages), on upward through the stages of fetal viability, birth, and eventual maturation. This is a continuous process, and there is no sufficient reason for us to say, at any given point along it (at least, after conception itself, anyway) that "before this point" we didn't have a human being, but that "after this point" we did.

I'm not going to quibble on this point; my main claim is that the fertilized egg is a new human being. I've made enough argument to support this claim. If you disagree, the burden of rejoinder is now on you to show how I'm wrong.

The organism already exists in its essentials. That is the difference between living things and non-living things: living things are not "constructed," they grow. And they cannot grow without possessing an immanent and autonomous plan of development. It is this plan, this biological program, which constitutes their integral individuality. It does not matter one whit whether the organism in question has indeed achieved viability; if it is destroyed, a unique member of the species has been destroyed.

You're mistaking the specific materiel of which a living thing at any given point in time is constituted, with the information, the code which is the most fundamental component in the constitution of a living being. What does it matter if the blastocyst dissolves completely, if it is one stage in a process of continuous development in which genetic information is preserved and expressed - ??

 

But the core process is the same: the transmission of information for to facilitate growth.

Their collective action is to recreate a human individual, yes.

Nuh - uh. You don't get a free pass on making unsupported assertions. Let's hear your defense of your claim.

Semantics. The zygote belongs to the species homo sapiens. From that fact we can immediately infer that it is a homo sapien. If you don't agree, let's have your reasons.

More unsupported assertions

 

1)It may be a "whole unique organism" but that does not make it human.

2)As discussed in a previous post, having a complete blueprint (DNA), is no different than any other human cell.

As discussed before, the only significant difference is that the zygote DNA has the codes "create a human" activated. Is this sufficient to call this organism a person ? You have yet to argue a case for this that has not been refuted by 1 and 2

The claim that a zgote is a homo sapien/ human being is denied by 3 subject matter experts in the previous post.

In addition it is obvious that the zygote does not meet the criteria neccessary to get into the "mammal club" nevermind making it into homo sapien.