Abortion and the Bald Man Paradox

[Removable Mind]

Agreed, but my reply was to one who stated:

"There's nothing subjective about human life. A unique set of living human DNA is a biological fact at conception. Sadly though, the debate has shifted away from scientific fact and into the highly subjective arena of "personhood" or "being". Having unique human DNA isn't enough anymore. Now other subjective qualifiers need to be met to become a "being". Can someone please tell me how the DNA of a child at conception is different than the DNA at viability or at birth or at 50 years old? Of all the scientific fact used to support abortion, why is this one irrelevant"

I was simply pointing out there must be something more to human beings/persons than a unique set of living human DNA because two unique sets of living human DNA can create one person/human being and one unique set of living human DNA can create two human beings/people.
Knowing this I have a hard time understanding how others cannot see the difference between a unique set of living human DNA and a unique person/human being

Sweet, I understand and agree.

When born persons become part of a social environment…they become more than their physical existence through their individual living experiences. In fact, the term “the sum of the parts are greater than the whole” is completely apropos.

In other words – a born person, along with his or her immutable characteristics, exposed to his or her respective environmental influences, mixed with an amalgamation of life events such as daily physical and mental maturation, daily tasks, personal achievements, and interactions with others – cultivates a person’s unique identity.

Also born persons contribute to a perpetually changing social infrastructure, which includes the choice to be a part of the proliferation of the species.

A ZEF's only task is to become a "whole" physical being…in order to be "potentially" capable of participating in all of the aforementioned.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If a zygote is a human life at conception because it has human DNA, then a mouse must be at least 97.5% of a human as well:

Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans. The new estimate is based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA. Previous estimates had suggested mouse-human differences as high as 15 per cent.

The new work suggests that neither genome has changed much since we shared a common ancestor 100 million years ago. "The differences are going to be few rather than many," says Richard Mural of Celera Genomics, the Maryland company that compared the mouse chromosome with human DNA.

Therefore, if you kill a mouse, you've killed 97.5% of a human being.

 

[AGENT J]

Which I have already shown your arguments towards those ends as not rational in other threads.

only in your opinion, but if you idsagree id love to see these arguments

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

If a zygote is a human life at conception because it has human DNA, then a mouse must be at least 97.5% of a human as well:



Therefore, if you kill a mouse, you've killed 97.5% of a human being.

as an attempt to refute the above logic this is a particularly weak attempt (because we know the fetus/zygote will develop into something more than a mouse). You're better off just asking why simple having human DNA amounts to a reason to grant something rights, especially given the limited state of existence of the thing being discussed

 

[sangha]

Like I said, I'm not a biologist. But there is a point when a sperm and an egg join together tha constitutes conception. It is definable and not arbitrary, because it is a point in time before which there were two things and after which there is one thing. This remains true despite an intermediate transition process, for the same reason there is a point whem a caterpillar is no long a caterpillar and becomes a butterfly, even though it spends some time in a cocoon. Conception may be a period of time rather than a moment, like the coccon, but as for when that period of tome or moment is, that question is best left to a trained biologist. But it has a clear answer, which is different from "personhood," a philosophical abstraction without a basis in biology.

I won't say you're wrong, but I can't say you're right either. More importantly, you haven't shown how this "moment" (and it's not a moment; it's a process) is any less arbitrary than any other moment

For one thing, while many do believe that the point where the sperm and egg join together is the defining point of conception, this belief is not universal, and there is no definitive conclusion amongst biologists.

For another, there is no "moment" when this happens. Are you referring to the moment when the sperm first makes contact with the eggs' membrane? When the sperm breaks down the eggs' membrane so it can penetrate it? The moment when the sperm is finally within the eggs membrane? The moment when the electrical charge of the eggs membrane changes to prevent other sperm cells from entering?

Exactly when is this moment?

You say this moment of conception is definable and clear and based on when two become one. Well, what about when that one splits into two to become twins? Now there's two where there were two. What's so special?

And what about that 2nd life? Is it not worthy of protection because it did not arise directly from the merger of the sperm and the egg? Because it's not an example of "two becoming one"?

And now you're claiming that this "moment" may not actually be a moment, but a period of time. At exactly what point does it get protection? How many "hairs" must fall off before this ZEF is "bald"?

It looks like your abstract notion of "conception" is more arbitrary, unclear, and philosophical and conceptual as the definition of personhood, which has a clear and definable demarcation.

 

[Removable Mind]

only in your opinion, but if you idsagree id love to see these arguments

I agree that Henrin has arguments contradicting every rational and reasoned argument made by a pro-choice advocate. However when Henrin does post...there's rarely (if ever) a post made accompanied by citations supporting his argument.

In other words, you are expected to accept his opinions and claims as the gospel according to Henrin.

 

[AGENT J]

I agree that Henrin has arguments contradicting every rational and reasoned argument made by a pro-choice advocate. However when Henrin does post...there's rarely (if ever) a post made accompanied by citations supporting his argument.

In other words, you are expected to accept his opinions and claims as the gospel according to Henrin.

NAILED IT!

this is actually true for the vast majority of ALL his posts i have ever seen

 

[Mr.Nick]

It ends when the child becomes a child with rights at birth. Up until that point they have no rights.

Seriously? you believe that?

Until a Child comes out of the womb they're not viable?

Funny considering I was born almost a month early.. You may as well argue I'm not viable.

So it's ok to abort before the due date but not after?

Great logic...

 

[Mr.Nick]

I love how progressives are all for abortion and feel they have the right to decide when human life is valuable but then call crazy abortion bombers radicals because they "decided."

How about no one gets to decide????

How about murder is wrong and no one is God???

Funny how progressives believe they can kill babies yet drinking a soda or eating a Big Mac freaks them out.

Yeah ok... ban guns, soda, Big Mac's, smoking, sugar, meat et al but support baby killing .... Seriously? "oh I want you to live just not when you're in your mom, after you come out it's ok, but not when you're inside her - you're a menace to society then."

Honestly progressives are basically like: "no pop for you - but you - you can have an abortion, no problem."

Unbelievable....

 

[Removable Mind]

I love how progressives are all for abortion and feel they have the right to decide when human life is valuable but then call crazy abortion bombers radicals because they "decided."

How about no one gets to decide????

How about murder is wrong and no one is God???

Funny how progressives believe they can kill babies yet drinking a soda or eating a Big Mac freaks them out.

Yeah ok... ban guns, soda, Big Mac's, smoking, sugar, meat et al but support baby killing .... Seriously? "oh I want you to live just not when you're in your mom, after you come out it's ok, but not when you're inside her - you're a menace to society then."

Honestly progressives are basically like: "no pop for you - but you - you can have an abortion, no problem."

Unbelievable....

Nick,

Observer92 is Canadian. The law in Canada regarding abortion is as follows:

Canadian Supreme Court decision

In its decision (R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 37), the Court stated:

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

Canada has no law that limits abortion, Canada does have a law that permits abortion by denying any human rights whatsoever to a child before the moment of complete birth. It is Section 223 of our Criminal Code: "A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has breathed, etc."

Observer is simply citing the law of the land in which he lives.

You've stated your moral objection to abortion.


Thanks...

 

[Dezaad]

Personhood is an interesting philosophical concept. Peter Singer, for instance, has argued that personhood does not begin until around the age of three to five, and therefore infanticide should be legal. Your line of thinking raises some very unsettling consequences.

I have to wonder how the highly abstract and slippery notion of personhood is less arbitrary than a simple proscription against the killing of any genetic human.

The answer is surprisingly simple, really. All we need to do is ask ourselves "Why value babies at all?", and then resist cowering before we have our proper answer. Once we do this honestly, we discover that the main reason, towering over all other considerations, is that we value them because we value our relationships to and interactions with them. There are other important reasons, but all of them pale in comparison to this. What is it, though, that we are relating to or interacting with?? A group of cells clumped together and possessing human genes as their instructions set? Hardly. We are interacting with what we know to be a person.

And when we interact with a pregnant woman who is agonizing over her ability to support a potential person growing in her belly, we are interacting with an actual fully fledged person, whose life development we value. Valuing the 'baby' in her womb in the same way is only achieved in an entirely artificial manner, though it does still have some value. It is a mere blob of human cells, until we have the potential to interact with it, and relate to it.

Claiming that born humans are 'not persons' doesn't help out the unborn human organisms. It condemns the born humans, logically speaking. And, I simply don't buy it.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I love how progressives are all for abortion and feel they have the right to decide when human life is valuable but then call crazy abortion bombers radicals because they "decided."

Probably because the former is acting within the law created by a democratically representative govt, and the other is some asshole with a boomstick

 

[Mr.Nick]

Probably because the former is acting within the law created by a democratically representative govt, and the other is some asshole with a boomstick

This is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic..

 

[Mr.Nick]

Nick,

Observer92 is Canadian. The law in Canada regarding abortion is as follows:

Canadian Supreme Court decision

In its decision (R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 37), the Court stated:

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

Canada has no law that limits abortion, Canada does have a law that permits abortion by denying any human rights whatsoever to a child before the moment of complete birth. It is Section 223 of our Criminal Code: "A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has breathed, etc."

Observer is simply citing the law of the land in which he lives.

You've stated your moral objection to abortion.


Thanks...

IMO, I don't really care what country an "individual" is from, but in my opinion abortion is murder.... The fact the guy is from Canada makes no difference to me considering it is legal for woman to put babies in blenders here.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Probably because the former is acting within the law created by a democratically representative govt, and the other is some asshole with a boomstick

I was attempting to show progressives how stupid the concept of "we decide what is life" is... Someone blows something up and everyone goes ooooooohh but then a mother kills her unborn child and everyone claps as if she is embracing some sort of civil liberty.

I believe all murder is wrong but when murder is presented as a civil liberty or right it is worse. I only hope people don't think I'm horrible for acknowledging that.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

This is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic..

Hence the use of "democratically representative govt", genius

 

[Scrabaholic]

I love how progressives are all for abortion and feel they have the right to decide when human life is valuable but then call crazy abortion bombers radicals because they "decided."

How about no one gets to decide????

How about murder is wrong and no one is God???

Funny how progressives believe they can kill babies yet drinking a soda or eating a Big Mac freaks them out.

Yeah ok... ban guns, soda, Big Mac's, smoking, sugar, meat et al but support baby killing .... Seriously? "oh I want you to live just not when you're in your mom, after you come out it's ok, but not when you're inside her - you're a menace to society then."

Honestly progressives are basically like: "no pop for you - but you - you can have an abortion, no problem."

Unbelievable....

And here we have another one without a uterus demanding that women be forced to gestate and give birth against their will.....

I am not a progressive, I am a conservative. Abortion is none of the govt's business, and neither is how much of anything we eat or drink - ditto for whether we wear a seat belt or not, whether we wear a helmet while riding a bike, whether parents spank their kids, etc etc etc.

 

[Removable Mind]

And here we have another one without a uterus demanding that women be forced to gestate and give birth against their will.....

I am not a progressive, I am a conservative. Abortion is none of the govt's business, and neither is how much of anything we eat or drink - ditto for whether we wear a seat belt or not, whether we wear a helmet while riding a bike, whether parents spank their kids, etc etc etc.

Unfortunately in the USA, we have a government hell-bent on saving us from ourselves as long as it benefits the special interests who owns government's allegiance.

 

[Mr.Nick]

And here we have another one without a uterus demanding that women be forced to gestate and give birth against their will.....

I am not a progressive, I am a conservative. Abortion is none of the govt's business, and neither is how much of anything we eat or drink - ditto for whether we wear a seat belt or not, whether we wear a helmet while riding a bike, whether parents spank their kids, etc etc etc.

No you just don't care....

If a woman wanted to abort your kid what would you say?

"OK it's your body, kill my kid?"

Man, all I can say is society is twisted.... Apparently I don't have a right in having a say in what I created with a woman.... Nooo it's her body and I'm allegedly just the sperm man....

 

[Dittohead not!]

as an attempt to refute the above logic this is a particularly weak attempt (because we know the fetus/zygote will develop into something more than a mouse). You're better off just asking why simple having human DNA amounts to a reason to grant something rights, especially given the limited state of existence of the thing being discussed

I believe that was the point. Why, indeed?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)I love how progressives are all for abortion and feel they have the right to decide when human life is valuable but then call crazy abortion bombers radicals because they "decided."

2.)How about no one gets to decide????

3.)How about murder is wrong and no one is God???

4.)Funny how progressives believe they can kill babies yet drinking a soda or eating a Big Mac freaks them out.

5.)Yeah ok... ban guns, soda, Big Mac's, smoking, sugar, meat et al but support baby killing .... Seriously? "oh I want you to live just not when you're in your mom, after you come out it's ok, but not when you're inside her - you're a menace to society then."

Honestly progressives are basically like: "no pop for you - but you - you can have an abortion, no problem."

Unbelievable....

1.) not all "progressives" think this way lol

2.) id be all on board with this faster than any banning, but of course you understand this would mean NO LAWS on abortion period.

3a.) abortion isnt murder
3.b) god is meaningless to the debate of abortion

4.) there you go again grouping people together and making blanket false statements, this really telling of who you are rather than any group you falsely judge

5.) more nonsensical irrational ranting, maybe you should try and educate yourself on abortion and the stance that people have individual so you arent posting misinformation like this

6.) another false claim

7.) yes the nonsense you posted is unbelievable LOL

while i partially agree with some of your individual points your lumping them all together and total misunderstanding of how people actually thing is quite bizarre

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I believe that was the point. Why, indeed?

Yes, but the author is doing so through faulty logic. Being the point of interest in the DNA isn't the simple fact of shared genetic material, but that we can recognize that the fetus will develop into something we assign social value to: a human.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

No you just don't care....

If a woman wanted to abort your kid what would you say?

"OK it's your body, kill my kid?"

Man, all I can say is society is twisted.... Apparently I don't have a right in having a say in what I created with a woman.... Nooo it's her body and I'm allegedly just the sperm man....

When you get pregnant, then you get to have an opinion. Until that time, sorry -- biology ain't fair.

Find a woman who wouldn't abort, just like I look for men who would get the hell out of my way if I did. Simple.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

No you just don't care....

If a woman wanted to abort your kid what would you say?

"OK it's your body, kill my kid?"

Man, all I can say is society is twisted.... Apparently I don't have a right in having a say in what I created with a woman.... Nooo it's her body and I'm allegedly just the sperm man....

If you are going to be intimate with someone, its a good idea to find out first if they have the same values about issues you consider important. If you are in a respectful relationship and are faced with an unplanned pregnancy, you discuss it.

That is what grown ups do.

If you aren't having a mature, respectful relationship, then maybe you should leave it up to the woman.

 

[Scrabaholic]

No you just don't care....

Don't presume to know whether I do or not.

If a woman wanted to abort your kid what would you say?

"OK it's your body, kill my kid?"

I AM a woman and I will most likely abort any time my contraception fails and I conceive.

Man, all I can say is society is twisted.... Apparently I don't have a right in having a say in what I created with a woman.... Nooo it's her body and I'm allegedly just the sperm man....

It's not your body put at risk by pregnancy. If it's so important to you, then don't play hide the weenie with a woman unless she's agreed to carry through with any pregnancy that might result.