Abortion is murder

[talloulou]

Well its been hours since I called ptsdkid to the carpet and he has been conspicuous only by his absence. Guess I broke him like I did doughfreak. Am I really that bad? :mrgreen:

Are you making people cry again Jallman? That is soooo not nice.

 

[talloulou]

(BTW, I won the whoville debate)

Actually I think Future did and he's calling me out on the Oh Baby book:shock: Its certainly part of the Dr Seuss collection but I am going to have to concede that Theodor Seuss Geisel didn't actually write it and that throws my whole whoville debate out of whack! Damn you Future. I hate conceding anything. :damn

 

[jallman]

Are you making people cry again Jallman? That is soooo not nice.

I didnt mean to. I really didnt. Well, doughgirl, I kind of did. But you got to admit, she deserved it. Like I said, I just gave her the villain she seemed to be begging for.

 

[FutureIncoming]

But you'll never convince me a fetus is similar to a chicken. Would you eat a fetus?

I'm reasonably sure I wouldn't go out of my way to eat one, but I know better than to make blanket statements such as "I'd rather starve to death!" Circumstances have a way of testing resolutions, as many people discover every January. I've discussed cannibalism in a few previous posts, but here are a few items of information that I didn't see a need to post before now (from "Lucifer's Hammer", by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, about a comet and the end of civilization). We can generally safely eat beef rare because cattle and humans have rather few diseases in common. But pork must be well cooked, because humans and pigs have a lot of diseases in common. It is necessary to kill the disease organisms during cooking. Well, obviously, you have the potential to catch any possible human disease if you are a cannibal. Thus there is a logical reason to avoid being a cannibal, completely independent of moral or ethical considerations. And, equally logically, should circumstances corner you into cannibalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571, the thing to remember is to cook the meat more thoroughly than anything you ever ate before! 'Nuff said!
In a slightly related vein, you know that cats are mammals, and that therefore (as you may also know) the birth of kittens is associated with an "afterbirth", the placenta, just as is true for humans. Well, a new-mother cat will eat the afterbirth. She is a carnivore, after all; it qualifies as fresh protein, which likely she could use after the efforts of birthing; and she cannot catch a new disease from herself! Nature is thrifty in ways like that (spiders eat their old webs before spinning new ones). Perhaps new human mothers, omnivores as they are, could follow the example offered by cats?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Yes well I will try to read FutureIncomings posts more thoroughly in the future.

You mean I need to write all that stuff down all over again????
ARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!
(Even us nerds have limits!

 

[Fantasea]

So, for a change, how about somebody telling me why these folks are wrong.

"As surprising as this may be to some people, there is no debate within the medical community as to when life begins. Life begins at conception. Therefore, every "succesful" abortion ends the life of a living human being, and we're not asking you to take our word for it. Consider the testimony below from an assortment of leading embryology text books."

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Briological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

 

[jallman]

So, for a change, how about somebody telling me why these folks are wrong.

Thanks fantasea. this actually was one of my favorite jousting matches with you.

"As surprising as this may be to some people, there is no debate within the medical community as to when life begins. Life begins at conception. Therefore, every "succesful" abortion ends the life of a living human being, and we're not asking you to take our word for it. Consider the testimony below from an assortment of leading embryology text books."

This is a very minimalistic view of human development. It attempts to take selected texts which have just the right rhetoric for arguing that development does not occur in stages but rather progresses as one seamless continuum. It does not as plainly evidenced in brain wave patterns, morphology, and the all important absence and then presence of cognition.

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

I agree human development begins at fertilization. That is inarguable. However, it is not a magical synthesis where one moment before there was no human being and the next moment there is. There is surely a unique new human genetic pattern, upon which is encoded the potential to develop into a whole human being, but that human being does not yet exist. The sum of human existence and personage does not solely rest upon the uniqueness of the DNA.

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

Again, you take this completely out of context. You look to a few independent words to rest your whole argument on...I took the convenience of boldening them for you. You look to two words used as descriptors of convenience and hinge your entire argument that there is a human being there from conception. You overlook the medical terms, italacized for your convenience, which carry a completely opposite denotation. I ask you again, prove to me that the embryo, zygote, and later the fetus, before the 18th week of pregnancy has the rights that a being of cognition and awareness has. Note also, among both the italicized and bolded word...there is no mention of a baby anywhere.

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

Here again, the word human is used in the most clinical and basic sense of the word...referring only to the unique genetic pattern and its nomenclature...but never to the resulting being. In fact, it seems these authors are making an even more concerted effort to maintain integrity to clinical definition, as evidenced by their care with dismissing the pre-embryo while still defining its exact structure. I see nothing to support nor negate the pro-life stance.

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Yes yes, the initiation of the development of an individual genetic pattern, yet not resulting in the spontaneous creation of an actual being.

Briological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

A new genetic pattern with living qualities, certainly. A being of cognition, awareness, intelligence, and rights...certainly not at conception.

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

Blatant misuse or misrepresentation of the word "being". There is no being at conception...just the roadmap to developing a being.

 

[Fantasea]

Thanks fantasea. this actually was one of my favorite jousting matches with you.



This is a very minimalistic view of human development. It attempts to take selected texts which have just the right rhetoric for arguing that development does not occur in stages but rather progresses as one seamless continuum. It does not as plainly evidenced in brain wave patterns, morphology, and the all important absence and then presence of cognition.



I agree human development begins at fertilization. That is inarguable. However, it is not a magical synthesis where one moment before there was no human being and the next moment there is. There is surely a unique new human genetic pattern, upon which is encoded the potential to develop into a whole human being, but that human being does not yet exist. The sum of human existence and personage does not solely rest upon the uniqueness of the DNA.



Again, you take this completely out of context. You look to a few independent words to rest your whole argument on...I took the convenience of boldening them for you. You look to two words used as descriptors of convenience and hinge your entire argument that there is a human being there from conception. You overlook the medical terms, italacized for your convenience, which carry a completely opposite denotation. I ask you again, prove to me that the embryo, zygote, and later the fetus, before the 18th week of pregnancy has the rights that a being of cognition and awareness has. Note also, among both the italicized and bolded word...there is no mention of a baby anywhere.



Here again, the word human is used in the most clinical and basic sense of the word...referring only to the unique genetic pattern and its nomenclature...but never to the resulting being. In fact, it seems these authors are making an even more concerted effort to maintain integrity to clinical definition, as evidenced by their care with dismissing the pre-embryo while still defining its exact structure. I see nothing to support nor negate the pro-life stance.



Yes yes, the initiation of the development of an individual genetic pattern, yet not resulting in the spontaneous creation of an actual being.



A new genetic pattern with living qualities, certainly. A being of cognition, awareness, intelligence, and rights...certainly not at conception.



Blatant misuse or misrepresentation of the word "being". There is no being at conception...just the roadmap to developing a being.

All of what you write amounts to the concocting and administering of an arbitrary test which must be passed by the living occupant of a womb before it is qualified to avoid "the executioner", as it were.

I use the word arbitrary because, even among those on your side of the fence, there is nothing but conflicting opinion regarding the precise attributes and the timing involved. I believe that you are not alone in harboring the kind of doubt which has led you to shorten the time span between conception and "passing the test".

Many people, who once supported abortion because they did not believe that a human life was involved, find that they are no longer able to deny that human life begins at conception. However, they are not yet able to fully let go and now cling to the question of viability or political personhood.

Given the advances during the intervening 33 years, it is highly unlikely that Roe will be able to withstand a case which is based on the now easily answerable question, "Does human life begin at conception?"

That was the question, the answer to which Justice Blackman refused to "speculate". If one reads the testimony that preceded the decision, one comes away with the distinct understanding that the unanswered question was the underpinning of Roe.

Justice Blackmun sowed the seeds of destruction in Roe in the second paragraph of section IXB when he wrote: "Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." (The emphasis is mine.)

Whatcha think about them apples?

 

[FutureIncoming]

All of what you write amounts to the concocting and administering of an arbitrary test which must be passed by the living occupant of a womb before it is qualified to avoid "the executioner", as it were.

jallman may have that problem, but **I** certainly don't. At conception begins the life of a completely human animal organism, and at birth it is still and only a totally animal organism. No human acquires enough brainpower to begin to qualify as being more than a mere animal until well after birth.

Now, why don't you tell us what is so important about that animal that women who don't want to stay pregnant should, according to you, be placed into involuntary servitude, just to nourish it?

 

[talloulou]

Blatant misuse or misrepresentation of the word "being". There is no being at conception...just the roadmap to developing a being.

Yes then why do we keep track of the age of the roadmap in gestational weeks? This week the roadmap, not the little being, is 10 gestational weeks old. And all the milestones.....this week the roadmap has a heartbeat. This week you can see the roadmaps tiny fingers and toes. This week the roadmap can suck its thumb. Good heavens Jallman.

 

[talloulou]

Now, why don't you tell us what is so important about that animal that women who don't want to stay pregnant should, according to you, be placed into involuntary servitude, just to nourish it?

That animal is her offspring developing in her womb! It is a human being in its earliest stage of development. If women wish to take steps in an attempt to keep from gettting pregnant that's fine. However things happen that you have no control over sometimes. Once you are pregnant the being has popped into existence. It's there, it's developing, and through no fault of its own it is being nourished by the womens bodily resources because that women is its mother!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Now, why don't you tell us what is so important about that animal that women who don't want to stay pregnant should, according to you, be placed into involuntary servitude, just to nourish it?

That animal is her offspring developing in her womb!

And if she doesn't want offspring developing in her womb at that time? That animal is her property, such that she gets to decide how valuable it is to her. Nobody else has that right. (An involved male may have the right to decide how valuable that property is to himself, but he cannot tell her how valuable it is, from her perspective. If their valuations differ, then that is something for them to work out between themselves, and nobody else.)

It is a human being in its earliest stage of development.

It is a purely human animal. The phrase "human being" implies things that do not apply to this organism, and cannot apply until more-than-merely-animal brainpower develops, after birth.

If women wish to take steps in an attempt to keep from gettting pregnant that's fine. However things happen that you have no control over sometimes.

TRUE. Natural Mindless Biology its its own cause-and-effect thing, influenced by but independent of the Free Will of Persons. Sometimes this brings dinner to where it can be caught for the table; sometimes it brings disease; sometimes it brings offspring; etc.

Once you are pregnant the being has popped into existence.

An animal has started to exist. The word "being" implies things that do not apply to the merely animal. Animals can be property, for example. Beings are often Persons with Free Will, and are not allowed to be property (that would be slavery).

It's there, it's developing, and through no fault of its own it is being nourished by the womens bodily resources

It may exist through no fault of its own (Natural Mindless Biology is to blame there, and also is to blame for the availability of nourishment in the uterus), but the animal's implantation into the uterus is something it actively does. It is blame-able for that!

because that women is its mother!

That point is irrelevant. A pregnant kangaroo, in an extra-dry season, will routinely do "fetal resorption", killing her offspring, because it conserves her resources, and she can always make more, when times are better. Thats Natural Mindless Biology in action. Who are you to say that Free Will must be less powerful?

 

[jallman]

Yes then why do we keep track of the age of the roadmap in gestational weeks? This week the roadmap, not the little being, is 10 gestational weeks old. And all the milestones.....this week the roadmap has a heartbeat. This week you can see the roadmaps tiny fingers and toes. This week the roadmap can suck its thumb. Good heavens Jallman.

For the exact same reasons we keep track of the shelf life of milk, eggs, and other perishables. For the same reason we mark our educations in predetermined segments of achievement. For the same reason we mark our birthdays by the passage of the earth around the sun. This week I cut my hair...six weeks later it is over my ears again and time to turn my attention to taking care of it. Development occurs over time...I am not sure what philosophical hoops you expect me to jump through to make such a simple concept work for you.

Rest assured though, I will never capitulate to the mere existence of a unique double helix strand being the sum of my existence as you pro-lifers expect me to. There is much more to being a human being than the presence of our unique DNA. Good Heavens, talloullou.

 

[talloulou]

Rest assured though, I will never capitulate to the mere existence of a unique double helix strand being the sum of my existence as you pro-lifers expect me to. There is much more to being a human being than the presence of our unique DNA. Good Heavens, talloullou.

Fair enough....while I don't think it's quite the same as the shelf life of perishables I'll let it lie. But only 'cause I agree there might be something else other than "the mere existence of a unique double helix strand" something like a soul. It's just how could you ever even begin to pretend we could know at what stage of development a soul would enter the body?

I like the idea of reincarnation myself....don't believe it or disbelieve it...I just like the idea of souls choosing again. And I like the idea that even if an aborted fetus had a soul it can just choose again so to speak and thus the terminated fate is not such a big deal. However since I can't know for sure I'd rather we all err on the side of the fetus.

However unfortunately we are not the country of the great dictator Talloulou! Too bad. :angel?:

 

[steen]

Fair enough....while I don't think it's quite the same as the shelf life of perishables I'll let it lie. But only 'cause I agree there might be something else other than "the mere existence of a unique double helix strand" something like a soul.

Good for you, as you otherwise would insist that a hydatidiform mole has a soul.

It's just how could you ever even begin to pretend we could know at what stage of development a soul would enter the body?

The Torah tells us that it is a birth.

 

[talloulou]

The Torah tells us that it is a birth.

I'd have more faith if science told us! :rofl I don't rely on those religious books too much. Isn't the Torah the same thing as the old testament? 'Cause I really really don't like the old testament. Never read a torah though....

 

[steen]

I'd have more faith if science told us! :rofl

Well, first science would have to be able to prove the existence of a soul and define its properties so it can be measured.

 

[FallingPianos]

Well, first science would have to be able to prove the existence of a soul and define its properties so it can be measured.

hey, remember that debate we were having about sentience?

 

[steen]

hey, remember that debate we were having about sentience?

Yes? There is a point when we can say that sentience is clearly present per the actions an person is able to undertake. The presence of a soul holds no such definition, nothing measurable.

 

[FallingPianos]

Yes? There is a point when we can say that sentience is clearly present per the actions an person is able to undertake. The presence of a soul holds no such definition, nothing measurable.

I asked you what the scientific definition of sentience is, and you never replied.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea, in Msg #1358
All of what you write amounts to the concocting and administering of an arbitrary test which must be passed by the living occupant of a womb before it is qualified to avoid "the executioner", as it were.

jallman may have that problem, but **I** certainly don't. At conception begins the life of a completely human animal organism, and at birth it is still and only a totally animal organism. No human acquires enough brainpower to begin to qualify as being more than a mere animal until well after birth.

Now, why don't you tell us what is so important about that animal that women who don't want to stay pregnant should, according to you, be placed into involuntary servitude, just to nourish it?

If one were to accept your premise, then it woud be perfectly correct to exterminate any human that fell into the category of "less than enough brain power".

Some never acquire it. Some acquire it, but lose it, either temporarily or permanently.

There is no valid reason to abort a child in the womb.

 

[steen]

I asked you what the scientific definition of sentience is, and you never replied.

Sentient. Capable of, or characterized by, sensation.

(Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 25th ed.)

Now, what is the physical description of a soul, the description that makes its measuring possible?

 

[steen]

There is no valid reason to abort a child in the womb.

An absolutists and utterly meaningless subjective postulation.

 

[talloulou]

There is no valid reason to abort a child in the womb.

Well I can't think of valid health reasons but they are admittedly rare and they are not the reasons behind the majority of abortions.

 

[FallingPianos]

Sentient. Capable of, or characterized by, sensation.

(Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 25th ed.)

and how can we observe the sensations of something else?

to use an extreme example of why science cannot measure sentience, there is no way for me to observe sentience in my best friend. He might appear to be a thinking being, but there is no way for me to know that there are actual thoughts, rather than just uncomprehensably complicated physics going on. The only persons sentience I have ever observed is my own.