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

I said that the zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens. This is simply a straight fact of reproductive biology: the zygote is the product, and only the product, of sexual reproduction. Species that reproduce sexually have offspring that are, invariably, members of the same species as the parents. From these facts we can, with manifest reason, immediately infer that the zygote is a human organism, a unique human being.

And, with all due respect to the experts you cited, what they expressed were just that, opinions. There was no supporting evidence adduced in the quotes you supplied. Unless you can produce some quotes where they do provide evidence for their claims, there's simply no need for me to take them seriously.

This is another fatuous claim. You are displacing genotype, with phenotypic characteristics. In terms of its genetic code, the zygote certainly must be classified as a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. The zygote after all does have a genetic code, and one which acts to give expression to a whole, unique phenotype. What sufficient reason is there to suppose that the zygote is of a different species than the parents? As far as I can see, there is none.

 

Prima facie we are certainly entitled to view it as a human (for reasons I touched on in my last post). On the other hand, your (extraordinary) claim that the new life that is the zygote, is not a member of the species homo sapiens, most certainly does need to be defended. Here, the burden of proof is squarely on you.

I gave a refutation of this claim back in post #108

Yes, it is sufficient.

 

The zygote is the same species as every other human cell. If by this logic you claim every human cell is "a human" you are on thin ice.

With all due respect .. when a subject matter expert has an opinion, I will generally accept that over your opinion. Especially since you provide no evidence in support of your claim.

The onus is on you to prove your claim.

You have not proven that a zygote is "a human" more so than any other human cell. You have not proven that without brain or heart, a living human exists.

So far, the only part of your claim that has held water is:

You have yet to show how this difference qualifies the zygote as "a living human".

 

Regular cells are not themselves members of the species. But the zygote is, for the reasons I've canvassed in my last few posts.

Well, their word might be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for a critically informed audience. I have, in the last few posts, supplied evidence that the zygote is a member of the species. You are under the burden of rejoinder, if you disagree with what I've said. If you think my reasoning is weak, then by all means show me why.

No - I accepted that I have the burden of proof; but that does not mean that I have to have proved my point simply with my first statement of it. If that were the case, then you could simply say, "I don't agree" no matter what I said. No, the logical stipulations for debate require the one with the burden of proof to go first and state their thesis and give a defense of it, and this I have done in previous posts. After having done this, the burden shifts to you: you have to point out what is wrong with my reasoning. Merely citing so-called authorities without introducing any of their actual arguments won't do.

Sure I have. The zygote, in contrast to all other human cells, has operatively implemented the program for the reproduction of a whole organism, not just some select parts of it.

I don't see what I have to "show." My point here should be manifestly evident. The biological action of the zygote, and an archetypal member of the species, is just the same: the self-production of the whole organism. Ordinary cells, ceteris paribus, cannot do this.

 

Nah - my argument is with you, not that biologist. I was charitable about accepting the burden of proof - something I did not have to do; if you want to invoke biologists' authority to bolster your argument, then you should be yourself presenting the parts of their views that support your argument, not requiring me to go and hunt for them in those articles.


(Hopefully this is not the point where you make the predictable response...)

 

Ha .. the only claim the zygote has to membership in the club homo sapien is DNA and every cell has this.

You have made no other points that have anything to do with classification .. than DNA.

You are so busted ! What characteristics other than DNA "just one will do but good luck because there are no others" get the zygote into the club "homo sapien"

I]

You have provided claims .. no references or links or evidence.

Regardless .. I will accept DNA as one characteristic that is required for entrance into the homo sapien club.

Prior to getting into this one .. do you have any other qualities of the zygote that you think might relate to the club homo sapien.

(I believe you mentioned reproduction .. this is false as the zygote reproduction is asexual . .not sexual and is actually an argument against the zygote being a homo sapien (and a big argument at that) .. but I am willing to let it slide)

 

This is a technically correct statement dispite your awkward verbage.

Finally we get to the only significant difference between the zygote and other human cells.

The the "create a human" program in the DNA of the zygote has been activated.

A Human at this point has not been created, but the process to create a human has been set in motion.

What is wrong with terminating the program prior to creation of a human ?

 

It is you that is claiming the zygote is a homo sapien. The onus is on you.

I am satisfied by the information found in Biology texts, by reading about what Taxonomical classification is .. and so forth. The fact that subject matter experts agree with me is just a bonus.

Even if experts or myself could not prove your claim false.. that does not make your claim true. Argumentum ad ignorantium

It is up to you to prove your claim.

 

Wrong. An archetypal member of the species has not come into being at the moment of conception, but that is a trivial fact. All members of all sexually reproducing species must perforce begin their life cycle as microscopic life forms; it is a practical necessity that all archetypal members pass through this early stage of life. Far from failing to count as members of the species, it is essential to the very meaning of the species homo sapien, that its members begin life as a zygote. Without zygote-humans, you can't have any other, more developed members of the species.

Further, you apparently don't appreciate how incoherent your reasoning is on this point. You posit "something" which "becomes" a human being, while all the while denying that this "something" is itself a member of the species. In the case of the development of a life form in the early period of gestation, this is to suppose that this selfsame continuously developing life-form is at one (arbitrarily determined) moment not a member of the species, but in the subsequent moment somehow is a member of the species.

The best you can do is supply dubious legal criteria for determining how this "not-x" becomes "X" - when the very presence of those criteria themselves (nervous system and heartbeat) presuppose the existence and progressive unfolding of a biological program which is present from the first moment of the coming into being of the organism! With the program's implementation, the necessary conditions have been met for the existence of a new unique member of the species. It is manifestly more rational, and less arbitrary, to trace the individual organism's existence back to the moment when it began on its continuous process of growth and development.

It is wrong because archetypal humans are here and accounted for and of value perforce because they were all once new, microscopic members of the species. Physical immaturity of a member of the species is no sufficient reason to deny that being the rights and prerogatives attendant on membership in a class.

 

Nope. Looks like you are busted. You are the one referencing the experts to support your claims; you are the one responsible for producing their arguments - which you have not done, yet. Maybe because there aren't any arguments, just their own, personal, assertions?

Agree with you on your claims? That's fine and dandy, but unless you or they actually produce the arguments in support of the assertion that the zygote is not a human being, you are failing in the burden of rejoinder - and on your way to ceding this argument.

- ?? Only purely formal arguments are provably false. And our dispute in not that kind of argument. Right now it is your obligation to give me evidence for your claim that the being gestating in the female of a sexually reproducing species, is as a matter of fact not a unique member of said species. If you refuse to even attempt to do this, that does not prove my contrary claim, true; but it does mean that you lose this argument.

 

There seems to be a basic contradiction in method here: on the one hand we ask for population control and on the other, stop abortion. I am not a doctor, but as a common educated person, I would guess that at some point of time, the foetus develops enough brain cells to form what may be called a consciousness. Perhaps that is the point where we could say that it is a living being. I doubt if an abortion in the early stages could be anything akin to taking a life.

 

I don't think that some particular developmental milestone or other should be our criterion for whether or not abortion is morally legitimate. If you have a human being in place - which you do from the moment of conception - there is no moral justification for deliberately destroying it.

 

If it is not a member of the species then it is not significant. The "mechanism" of reproduction is not relevant, as it is not in question or not the focus of the debate.

That is odd, considering that you just stated the same thing.

 

What is the moral justification for forcing a woman to continue gestation? What is the value of the zygote that outweighs a woman's choices about her life?

 

That is the whole point: do we really have a human being in place right from conception? or are you talking about the possibility? Like i said, I am not a doctor, and I am not even a woman, and so not an expert in any way. but personally, i would like to know exactly what we are planning on destroying: LIFE? or something akin to a tumour? I didnt mean to sound gross, just trying to drive home the point as clearly (or ruthlessly) as possible.

 

The mechanism is integral to the kind of species that is under discussion. We are talking about sexually reproducing species; and it is essential to the nature of such species, that new members begin life as microscopic life forms. The existence of the archetypal form which is our secular concern, presupposes in every case early life as a zygote. The process of growth and development from zef to born human is a continuous process; it is a process undergone by the one, self-same genetically unique entity, from the moment that it is conceived.

There is no sufficient reason to say that that being is not, from the first, a member of the species homo sapiens, and entitled to the minimum rights and prerogatives of homo sapiens; there is no sufficient reason for saying that the one, self-same life at one stage in its development is not a human being, and then, somehow, at some conventionally stipulated subsequent moment, suddenly "is" a human being. Trying to make that argument is a cardinal example of incoherent special pleading. What is not human, cannot become human. Humans of course - perforce - undergo different stages of growth and development, but they must be and remain humans throughout, otherwise it would be unintelligible to speak of a self-same life going through these various stages.

 

Good that you agree that “a living human” does not exist at conception.


The whole crux of the abortion debate centers around the a primary question; Is this entity a person such that it should have rights, including the right to life.

If you agree that no living human exists, then it is not a Person and has no rights on that basis.

If you think personhood should be granted based on another premise, then you need to state that premise and how it relates to the central question.

You are correct in that all humans begin as a single cell and all buildings as a single brick. Neither the single cell nor the brick is a Person .

You state that “the blueprints for a creating a human and the act of creation” is important. I agree for without these steps we would not have a human.

What is missing is an argument showing how having the blueprints for a human = Personhood.

I also agree that membership in the club "homo sapien" requires that the DNA complete the process of creating a human. (the zygote does not create a human). Until this act of creation is completed (to a certain standard) it is not a member.

There is no such thing as a zygote-human and the zygote does not become a human. The zygote's cell ceases to exist after the first mitotic division while the DNA continues the process of creation.

Members of the club homo sapien do not begin life as a zygote. The creation of a human begins with the zygote. The zygote is alive, but the life of a zygote begins and ends well prior to the creation of any cells that will be part of the born human.

No human exists .. so the claim that "a human life" has begun is not valid. The criteria for "a living human" is not met.

Something has to exist before it can be alive.

 

This is a sad.

If you do ever get around to taking a philosophy class one of the first classes you take is logic.

We do not make laws on the basis of: "You can't prove me wrong so it should be a law"

Can you prove that your neighbor comming over buggering you once a day will not do you some good ? If you cant prove this should we make a law based on the fact that you can not prove otherwise ??

You can not disprove a negative.

Can anyone prove to that the zygote is "not" a person ? Can I prove that the sky is not green ? You prove that the sky is blue.

It is "your" claim .. that a zygote is a person and should have rights.

My claim is that you have not supported your claim.

Your claim, that not being able to disprove your claim somehow supports your claim, is a logical fallacy. "Argumentum Ignorantium" -appeal to ignorance.

It is up to you to prove your claim if you want to force that belief on others by making a law.

Aliens may well exist, Personhood may well exist - But we are not going to make a law that gives Aliens rights until we prove they exist.

 

Apparently, one can go from being a non-person, to being a person, then back to being a non-person again. So fetuses are people but children are not.

http://abortionmonologues.blogspot.com/2011/03/anti-choicers-dont-consider-babies.html

Anti-Choicers don't consider babies "People" during protest - Irony meter explodes
I love irony. As the forty days of harassment continues, my local abortion clinic finds itself having to continually remind the anti-choice bullies of the terms of their injunction against protesters, an injunction meant to protect the patients of the clinic. Among other things, the injunction permits protesters, but only four at a time and they must stay on the other side of the street.

Yesterday, the clinic had to call the police (again) because the protesters had (again) violated the terms of the injunction. There were four women on the sidewalk and together they had three kids in strollers. In my world, four plus three equals seven. When told they were violating the injunction, they argued that "four people" did not include children.

Apparently, their actual children don't count as people, but according to the signs they wave maniacally, fetuses do count as people.

 

I agreed to no such thing. Not good reading comprehension.

True, but this question quickly devolves upon the issue of whether or not the conceptus is a human being. That is why choicers try to resist the facts of genetics.

I already pointed out that this was a false analogy.

Yes, as I said, a human being = the genetic blueprint + its implementation to produce a whole organism. If you agree to this much, then you have to acknowledge that abortion is murder.

Again, an entity in possession of the appropriate genetic progam, and in the process of autonomous/self-directed growth/production of a whole organism, counts as a new member of the species. Every member of the human species has by default certain fundamental rights, beginning with the original noninterference right - the right to not be summarily slaughtered at another's convenience.

I agreed to no such thing. I spefically refuted this point. Still waiting on your rebuttal.

Again, re-stating your thesis is not an argument. Go back and address what I said.

This is pure semantics. My own cell composition has changed over completely from when I was 7. Am I not entitled to identify my seven year-old self with me?

A human being is created at conception, for the reasons I have repeatedly outlined. The onus is on you to rebut what I have said; merely restating your thesis won't cut it. That's why it's called the burden of rejoinder.

More semantics. So what if the zygote is no longer the form that the archetypal human being takes? It was a necessary stage in the growth and development of the mature human, just as much age seven years is for anyone older than seven years. Just who do you think you're fooling with such a weak argument?

More thesis without supporting argument. Again: the zygote is an integral metabolic life, a living organism. It's genetic composition indicates that it is a member of the species homo sapiens. Living organism + member of the species = living human being.

Sure, that's why neither sperm nor egg count as a living human being. But the zygote obviously exists, is obviously alive, is obviously human (per its genetic composition) and is obviously in the process the self-production of itself as an organism, as is the case with all archetypal members of the species. Why do you cleave to denial on all these straightforward points...?

 

(*Sigh* Been here before. I'm in another one of these conversations...)

We are not in a formal logical dispute. We are in an ethical/moral dispute. The standards of "proof" are significantly different in each case. I have put forth a thesis: that the zygote is a human being and as such in entitled to fundamental human rights. In support of this claim, I supplied a definition of what is to count as a human being: a living entity which has a certain genetic composition, and which possesses an integral metabolic life - it is in the process of the self-production of itself as a whole organism. The zygote meets these criteria, and hence is to be acknowledged as a human being.

That is my thesis, and my preliminary argument in support of it. Now, by the protocols of debate, you have to do one of two things: 1) cede the point or 2) tell me why you think my reasoning is flawed. Merely re-stating your own thesis is not a counter-argument. Merely alluding to experts who you say agree with you, is also not evidence. If you persist in those kinds of replies, you end up forfeiting.

People bandy that point around all the time, without really understanding it. It does not mean that just because you say that the zygote is "not a human," that there is nothing I can say to demonstrate that you are wrong. I have said nothing about what does not exist; I accepted the burden of proof in my claim that the zygote is a human being, and I have given a preliminary defense of that thesis. You seem to think that "burden of proof" means that I have to logically demonstrate the truth of my position with my very first statement of it. Now, I might do that (I certainly believe I have), but that is not what the burden of proof is about. The burden means that the one making the resolution has to put forward a case that will in the end be persuasive to a critical audience. Along the way to that point, both sides to the disagreement have the obligation to respond to the other's arguments. Failure by one side to do so, threatens that side with loss by forfeit.

I have given a preliminary defense of my claims. If you are not intellectually honest enough to admit it, perhaps we can go to a third party and let them decide. You do not have to agree with what I've said, and you can believe that in spite of what I have said that I've given inadequate support for my thesis. But it's not enough merely for you to sit back and say "not good enough." Anybody in the world can do that. What you have to do, what it is your obligation to do, is to move the argument forward by actually pointing out what is wrong with my case, besides building up a positive one of your own.

It's sad that I should have to make all this explicit. But people who study philosophy, I've found, often think they can win an argument with technique and not actual critical reasoning.

When we are engaged in discursive reasoning, in contrast to formal-logical reasoning, the standard for proof and truth is how successfully an argument resists attack. In scientific circles this goes by the criterion 'falsifiability.' A claim will prevail as long as it is not displaced with a more convincing one.

So, c'mon "Gifted One," stop this typical philosopher's bob and weave, and address the various arguments I have been making for the last 10 posts.

 

I do not accept your "criteria" for the definition of "human being." Something that is "in the process of producing" is NOT THE SAME as something already produced. And there is no valid reason why one should not stop the process before the completion.

 

On what basis do you claim that they are not the same? Again, we are not talking about something we artificially build, but something that naturally grows. On the genetic level, the thing that is growing is indeed the self-same thing. And it is on the basis of genetics that we determine what is and what is not a member of the species homo sapiens. If you don't believe that all humans have a default right to life, that's all well - but the burden is on you to demonstrate why.

Of course there's a valid reason. Doing so is killing a human being. Geez, people. Really you sound like Nazis sometimes.

 

Something that is in the process of acquiring those traits that we consider make us "human beings", but has not yet acquired those traits, should not be considered "human beings." Isn't that rather obvious? You simply WANT them to be considered the same as "human beings" so that you can deny women the right to abortion. But it really doesn't matter, because no matter WHAT it is, it is WHERE it is that makes the difference. You simply cannot compel women to gestate a fetus when she doesn't want to do so. BTW, it was the Nazis who denied people the right to make their own decisions.