THINGS SURE HAVE BEEN BUSY SINCE I LAST HAD A CHANCE TO POST.
Here are some selected quotes; I'll refer to them by number as needed at the bottom. The reply is for Fantasea, but do thank steen and Kandahar for their contributions.
(1)FutureIncoming:
Almost all the rest of what you wrote is dependent upon the FACT that humans CLAIM that humans are somehow more special than other organisms, with hardly any objective evidence to support the claim.
I submit that humans are NOT more special than other life-forms, when seen from the grand perspective. If you can present evidence to the contrary, feel free to do so!!!
(2)Fantasea:
With respect, I prefer not to engage in philosopical discussions which cannot be concluded. However, when seen from the practical perspective, the intelligent human is superior to and light years ahead of every other life form.
(3)steen:
Until the brain connects with the inputs received from sensory nerves, it is just a lump of tissue sitting there. It does not do any processing until signals reach the brain's cortex. It is the equivalent to a computer that is not turned on.
And that final connection, the "turning on" of the brain doesn't happen until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, when the thalamocortical tract connects. Until then, the brain receives no inputs, until then, it does no processing, until then, it is non-functioning.
(4)Fantasea:
How does this render a living, growing, human fetus unworthy of continued life?
(5)Kandahar:
Because a fetus can't "think" if its brain doesn't have any input. Do you disagree that thinking should be the determining characteristic of whether or not an entity is entitled to the right to life? If so, what would you suggest instead? What other single characteristic sets humans apart from animals that you would not grant the right to life to?
(6)Fantasea:
A human zygote, a human embryo, a human fetus all have one thing in common; they are human. They are simply different stages of development of a human being. There is no difference in the quality of humanity from one to the other. Human life commences with conception. That is what entitles a zygote, an embryo, a fetus to the right to life.
(7)Fantasea:
In the vernacular, expressions such as, ‘Unborn child”, “Carrying a child.”, “With child”, and many others of that ilk have been popular for centuries. Dictionaries are replete with applicable definitions.
(8)Fantasea:
Sperm, unless it unites with an egg, will remain sperm. An egg, unless it unites with sperm, will remain an egg.
Neither, by itself, can produce a child.
(9)steen:
But both can produce a zygote by their own DNA. That's what a hydatidiform mole is. Didn't you know that?
(10)Fantasea:
You must know, by now, that I never discuss abortion on the basis of religion.
(11)Fantasea:
When a woman voluntarily engages in conduct which may result in pregnancy, she knowingly accepts the responsibility of the consequences.
(12)Fantasea:
I’m surprised that you are not also placing the blame for “Katrina” on his shoulders, too.
(13)Fantasea:
In order to make the abortion solution work, the unborn child must be reduced to the status of non-human. This is the only way that the pro-choice crowd can hope for acceptance of its message of death.
(14)Fantasea:
The fact remains that every abortion stills a beating human heart.
========
To Fantasea:
Almost all of the argumentation that followed my last post (1) is related to your UNPROVED CLAIM that human life is more special than other life. Your comment (10), regarding religion, is therefore mistaken. ALL religions are fundamentally based on unproved claims. Since you are persistently making the unproved claim that human life is so special it must be preserved whenever possible, you actually ARE discussing abortion on the basis of a religious stand (although a non-formalized religious stand).
But let me get back to your (2) comment about the superiority of humans. In actual fact you cannot honestly make the claim that humans are "light years ahead of every other life form", simply because we don't know about all the life forms in distant corners of the Universe. There may be types of life out there to which grown human beings have no more talent than the tube worms at various ocean-bottom hydrothermal vents. And even if we ignore the unknown, and focus only on the known life on Planet Earth, humans are not really light-years ahead of all of them. We have evidence that some gorillas and chimps are actually mentally ahead of some (severely retarded) humans. Which implies that when compared to ordinary humans, those gorillas and chimps are NOT light-years behind. Also, in measured scientific fact every single human mental ability except one has been found in other life-forms on Earth -- simply to lesser degree than possessed by the average human. (The one so-far-as-known unique mental trait of humans is the ability to see self in the situation of another.)
Next, I thank you for admitting that the key thing that distinguishes humans from animals is their minds. AND I thank you for preferring to reference the vernacular (7). Because you seem to have never really thought about how the word "Being" is used in the vernacular. That is, how many times have you ever met any of these phrases (outside science fiction)? "Cat Beings", "Dog Beings", "Mouse Beings", "Frog Beings", "Grasshopper Beings".... DO YOU ADMIT that in the vernacular, the word "Being" is reserved for creatures that have MINDS? ("Alien Beings", "Intelligent Beings", "Sentient Beings"....) BY YOUR OWN PREFERENCE FOR THE VERNACULAR, THERFORE, THE ZYGOTE, EMBRYO, OR YOUNG FETUS CANNOT QUALIFY AS A HUMAN BEING. It is a PERFECTLY HUMAN ANIMAL BODY ONLY, "empty" until it acquires a MIND (3). ONLY THEN can it deserve the label of "Human Being", per your own preference for the vernacular!!! This directly relates to what you wrote at the end of (13). WE DO NOT have to reduce the status of (per vernacular) "an unborn child" to non-human. We merely have to recognize the simple truth that for most of a pregnancy it is not a (per vernacular) "Being".
Paraphrasing (6), "human life begins at conception; that is what entitles the early forms of human to the right to life" --Does this mean that because "Alien Beings" would probably be non-human, they must be denied the right to life? I'm curious to see EXACTLY how you would define "that which is deserving of the right to life" such as to include Human Beings and nonhuman Alien Beings, BUT EXCLUDE ORDINARY ANIMAL NON-BEINGS -- and then manage to somehow include the mindless zygote, embryo, or young fetus (even YOU have said that the important more-than-animal factor is the human mind). Really! I want to see your definition!
Regarding (8) and (9), it might be interesting to see what steen has to tell you about "parthenogenesis".
Regarding (12), I can't resist commenting that Bush CAN AND WILL be blamed for spending 200 billion dollars to rebuild New Orleans, when he knows full well (after years of ignoring --worse! EDITING-- evidence) that Global Warming is getting ready to melt the icecaps and raise ocean levels anywhere from 18 to 200 feet. Wasted money, unless spent (A) moving N.O. to high ground and (B) considering it practice for all the OTHER cities that will have to be moved to high ground later. (And if anyone agrees with this logic, pass it on!!!)
Regarding (14), you are PARTLY mistaken. The zygote and embryo do not have a beating human heart, and so early-enough abortion (say by Morning After pill) cannot possibly still it. I'm not sure when the fetus begins to grow a heart. Perhaps steen will let you know.
Finally, regarding (13), you are again only partly correct. YES, dealing with the consequences of acts that cause pregnancy is indeed initially entirely a woman's responsiblity. You neglect to consider she may choose to share some of that responsibility with the man who was also involved in the initial acts. But MOSTLY you ignore the fact that "being responsible" includes a wider range of options than you think. Remember, it is because of the unproved claim-that-human-life-is-special that you think it must be preserved, and therefore certain responsibilities automatically apply. And yet you have indicated that it is the human mind that makes human life special --which you also know does not exist in early pregnancy. THE RESPONSIBILITY TO WHICH I REFER IS THAT OF MAKING THE CHOICE, either to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort. Any claime that that is not a valid responsibilty is a false claim.
As a variant on the preceding, consider the research being devoted to Artificial Intelligence (or "AI"). If it succeeds, then a human-level mind will come into existence as a result of technological hardware/software progress (if nothing else, by COPYING the physical traits and functionality of the human brain). Note that there is a distinct equivalence between the development of such a technology, compared to the development of a human being from a fetus. That is, manufacturing pieces of an AI is essential for the AI to exist, just as the reproduction of cells in a fetus is essential for an independent human being to exist. NOTE: Future manufacturing will be more and more automated. This leads us to an absurdity. If you require every fetus to be allowed to automatically grow a mind, just because it can, then logically you should also require Artifical Intelligences to be automatically manufactured just as soon as technically possible -- just because they can! The two notions really are that equivalent. SO, to declare the mandatory automated production of AIs to be absurd is also to declare a stand against abortion to likewise be absurd. More specifically: Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist.
