Does abortion kill people?

[jimmyjack]

I'm actually not aware of any precise legal definition. Corporations were-- erroneously-- made into persons by a decision of the Supreme Court.

Beyond that, the legal definition in place appears to be specifically limited to born human beings-- after having been expanded to include Blacks, Asians, and Native Americans. (Women were always considered people, just people with fewer rights.)

So if the best you can do is to say a person exists at birth, at what definitive point is a person born?

 

[afr0byte]

So if the best you can do is to say a person exists at birth, at what definitive point is a person born?

When they become separate from their host, obviously. I was born in August of '83, not in late December '82 nor early January '83.

 

[jimmyjack]

When they become separate from their host, obviously. I was born in August of '83, not in late December '82 nor early January '83.

So when the umbilical cord is cut, it is a person?

 

[FallingPianos]

So when the umbilical cord is cut, it is a person?

im not sure how this helps your argument. conception is far from being an instantanious process. it arguably takes longer than birth.

 

[jimmyjack]

im not sure how this helps your argument. conception is far from being an instantanious process. it arguably takes longer than birth.

What are you saying here?

 

[FallingPianos]

What are you saying here?

what part of what im saying do you not understand?

 

[jimmyjack]

what part of what im saying do you not understand?

The entire statement.

 

[talloulou]

im not sure how this helps your argument. conception is far from being an instantanious process. it arguably takes longer than birth.

I don't understand this either? Conception is when the egg is fertilized. The moment the egg is fertilized. It's not some process, it's a point in time, when an egg is fertilized. What are you talking about?

 

[FallingPianos]

I don't understand this either? Conception is when the egg is fertilized. The moment the egg is fertilized. It's not some process, it's a point in time, when an egg is fertilized. What are you talking about?

the process of fertilization isnt instantaneous, it takes up to 24 hours. fuzing DNA is no easy task.

 

[talloulou]

the process of fertilization isnt instantaneous, it takes up to 24 hours. fuzing DNA is no easy task.

Hmmmm I know there is alot involved and I have even read that sperm must "mature" so they are not immediately able to fertilize an egg the moment they are ejaculated. However I always thought science viewed conception as the moment one sperm breaks through the egg. At that moment chemical changes take place instantly to prevent other sperm from entering the egg. That is what I always considered "conception"? No?

 

[jimmyjack]

the process of fertilization isnt instantaneous, it takes up to 24 hours. fuzing DNA is no easy task.

What is your point?

 

[FallingPianos]

Hmmmm I know there is alot involved and I have even read that sperm must "mature" so they are not immediately able to fertilize an egg the moment they are ejaculated. However I always thought science viewed conception as the moment one sperm breaks through the egg. At that moment chemical changes take place instantly to prevent other sperm from entering the egg. That is what I always considered "conception"? No?

conception is just means fertilisation.

Fertilisation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fertilisation or fertilization1 (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy) is fusion of gametes to form a new organism of the same species. In animals, the process involves a sperm fusing with an ovum, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo. Depending on the animal species, the process can occur within the body of the female in internal fertilisation, or outside in the case of external fertilisation.

The entire process of development of new individuals is called procreation, the act of species reproduction.

Human fertilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human fertilization is the union of a human egg and sperm, usually occurring in the ampulla of the uterine tube.

There is a specific sequence of events that occur in fertilization:

* The sperm passes through the corona radiata, the outermost cell layer of the egg.
* The sperm breaks through the zona pellucida.
o This occurs with the aid of several enzymes possessed by the sperm that break down the proteins of the zona pellucida, the most important one being acrosin.
o When the sperm penetrates the zona pellucida, the Acrosome reaction occurs. This makes the egg impermeable to any other sperms and prevents fertilization by more than one sperm.
* The cell membranes of the egg and sperm fuse together.
* The female egg, also called a secondary oocyte at this stage, completes its second meiotic division. This results in a mature ovum.
* The sperm's tail and mitochondria degenerate with the formation of the male pronucleus. This is why all mitochondria in humans are of maternal origin.
* The male and female pronuclei fuse to form a new nucleus that is a combination of the genetic material from both the sperm and egg.

 

[talloulou]

conception is just means fertilisation.

None of your sources state it takes 24 hrs and as far as I can tell they don't differentiate with my belief that conception takes place the moment a sperm penetrates the egg. Before that time there is no human organism. After that moment, unless something went wrong, there is.

 

[afr0byte]

None of your sources state it takes 24 hrs and as far as I can tell they don't differentiate with my belief that conception takes place the moment a sperm penetrates the egg. Before that time there is no human organism. After that moment, unless something went wrong, there is.

It takes time for the DNA to fuse. So, if you define conception the way you are defining it, and define human being the way you've defined it, the sperm simply entering the egg does not make a human being.

 

[FallingPianos]

None of your sources state it takes 24 hrs and as far as I can tell they don't differentiate with my belief that conception takes place the moment a sperm penetrates the egg. Before that time there is no human organism. After that moment, unless something went wrong, there is.

the 24 number I've seen quoted in many places, but im still trying to find a stronger source to back up that number, but here's one of the places I've seen it:

Stage 1
Stage 1

Fertilization

1 Oocyte, 300 Million Sperm, 24 Hours

0.1 - 0.15 mm

1 day post-ovulation

Fertilization begins when a sperm penetrates an oocyte (an egg) and it ends with the creation of the zygote. The fertilization process takes about 24 hours.

as far as the scientific definition of when there is a single organism, I dont think there is any scientific consenses of a single instant where one begins to exist, sinse none of the processes involved are instantanious. even if limited to conception some might say the instant the sperm begins to penetrate the egg, and others might say the instant DNA fusion is complete.

 

[talloulou]

It takes time for the DNA to fuse. So, if you define conception the way you are defining it, and define human being the way you've defined it, the sperm simply entering the egg does not make a human being.

hmmm well I personally have never defined human being as anything other than a living member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development. I have read tons of information from embryologists, medical drs., and scientists that claim that at conception there is a brand new living human organism. That's good enough for me to consider it a living human being. All the definitions I've heard from prochoicers up to this point have been arbitrary and subjective and seem to argue more in terms of value of the human vs proving the new human does not exist.

 

[FutureIncoming]

All the definitions I've heard from prochoicers up to this point have been arbitrary and subjective and seem to argue more in terms of value of the human vs proving the new human does not exist.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Nor have you yet answered any question directed at you about the basis for assigning more value to humans than to other organisms.

Fact: The English language allows nonhumans to qualify as people. The word is even generic enough that the physical nature of a person is irrelevant. Fiction has introduced persons having "bodies" ranging from ectoplasm to subatomic particles to electricity to gaseous to liquid to jelly to solid to electronic/mechanical, to various combinations thereof (a cyborg can be a person).
Logic: Because of the wide range of possible types of persons, it is impossible to associate personhood with a fixed set of physical characteristics. Thus it is mental characteristics that distinguish persons from non-persons.
Fact: An unborn human is inherently unable to exhibit any of the mental characteristics that serve to identify persons.
Logical conclusion: Although abortion kills an unborn human, it never kills a person.

 

[FISHX]

And thus use of the word "indiscriminate" is inappropriate. Words have meanings.

If a specific woman only has the authority to kill a very specific fetus-- the one currently residing within her-- then she is not legally authorized to kill fetuses indiscriminately.



That would suit me fine, except that it's not what I support. I'm in favor of abortion-on-demand up to a defined legal deadline-- anything between 16 and 26 weeks is acceptable-- and abortion for defect or the mother's health for the duration of the term. I support infanticide only for reasons of defect, and only until the signing of the birth certificate.



When you drop a bomb in a war zone, it kills everyone within the effective lethal radius of the device-- whether they are enemy soldiers, civilians, or even allied soldiers.

That's indiscriminate.



If you take an action deliberately, knowing that innocent people are going to be killed, you are purposefully killing innocent people; this is true regardless of the necessity of doing so. Note that I don't object to this-- I agree with you that it is both necessary and moral in the case of war.

However, if there is no blanket prohibition of killing innocent human beings, you have to explain why it is okay to kill them under one set of circumstances and not okay to kill them other unders.

I am capable of doing this, but you have rejected my moral reasoning. Thus, you need to present an alternative line of reasoning.



Even when the declared purpose of that war is to liberate those citizens from a government we claim is oppressing them? Doesn't that mean that they are responsible for their own government and that we should leave them to it?



So, we come back to the "personhood" issue again. Why do you consider human fetuses to automatically be persons? And why do you not consider the citizens of other countries to be persons?



The point is, fetuses aren't people, legally or morally. Thus, since abortion only kills fetuses-- barring complications-- we cannot claim that abortion kills people.

Yes we can termination kills people all the time just open your eyes and take a look

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bldeaths.htm

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You quoted all of that for a one-line reply that ignores the argumentation from the whole rest of the thread and post a link from an advocacy group?

If you want to get involved, read the rest of the thread. And learn to use the Quote function properly.

 

[FISHX]

screw you and get an argument

 

[shuamort]

screw you and get an argument

Moderator's Warning:

Not a very compelling argument, outside of the basement. Please do not flame up here.

 

[FutureIncoming]

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bldeaths.htm

I think steen has indicated that the death rate of adult women from abortions (and by "adult" I am referring to the biological definition, "able to breed") is less than the death rate associated with birthing.

So, your point is?

 

[FISHX]

Firstly apologies to shuamort no flaming intended but there was no need for the response given by Korimyr the Rat as you can see in my origianl post i was answering the main topic question so there was no need for him to say go read before you get involved.

Future incoming much as i respect steen he is not the be all end all of science.

I do not dispute the fact that women die in child birth but that wasn,t the question at hand.

the question was does abortion kill people and as provided in the previous link yes it does that was and still is my point.

 

[FallingPianos]

I do not dispute the fact that women die in child birth but that wasn,t the question at hand.

the question was does abortion kill people and as provided in the previous link yes it does that was and still is my point.

what is unclear is whether abortion actually was the cause of death. these women might have had complications in their pregnancy or other health problems to begin with.

 

[talloulou]

what is unclear is whether abortion actually was the cause of death. these women might have had complications in their pregnancy or other health problems to begin with.

Well the same could be said about women dying in childbirth...they could have other factors that made delivery harder.

Either way what's the point? Luckily today most women will not die from labor and delivery or abortion. At least modern medicine has given us that!:mrgreen: