The pro choice philosophy...

[Iriemon]

I forgot to address that directly.
In a nutshell, the production of a ZEF is the mother and father's "Implied Concent" for that ZEF to achieve birth.
http://dictionary.law.com
Conception is the physical, mechanical, literal act of giving the sole a body. It's a gift. When the sole enters the gift, I don't know, but the gift is given at conception.

That's fine, though it doesn't explain to me how the single celled egg is a human body.

 

[Busta]

Perhaps not a "litmus test" -- but there are certainly characteristics of a human body (as opposed to the body of any other creature) none or few of which the single celled egg simply has.

Similarly, while I understand both sides in this debate like to frame the issues using words most favorable to their position, it is difficult for me to see the single cell egg as a "child" -- it does not have a human body, it doesn't breathe, cry, play etc. It is no more a "child" than a tadpole.

No other creature has a soul. It has cognative life, sure, but their is a difference: one is the Divine Breath of Life, one is a fragment of the cosmos.

"..it does not have a human body.."
We disagree on that point.

"..it doesn't breathe, cry, play etc."
I don't have the information handy, but some time ago I read of fetal activity which seemed to imitate crying and playing. Perhaps someone ells out there in the neural-void knows of such an observation.

"It is no more a "child" than a tadpole."
There in lays an interesting question regarding one's humanity: If a ZEF is nothing more then a tadpole, then why is it morally considered "wrong" to dismember a tadpole, but not the ZEF? Why is the ZEF considered less?

 

[Busta]

That's fine, though it doesn't explain to me how the single celled egg is a human body.

If I held up a fertilized Chicken egg in my hand and said "this is a chicken 'body", you would not understand?

 

[Iriemon]

No other creature has a soul. It has cognative life, sure, but their is a difference: one is the Divine Breath of Life, one is a fragment of the cosmos.

"..it does not have a human body.."
We disagree on that point.

We do. IMO a single cell simply does not consititute a "human body" in the normal sense of the word. No arms legs ears nose eyes hands feet organs hair etc.

"..it doesn't breathe, cry, play etc."
I don't have the information handy, but some time ago I read of fetal activity which seemed to imitate crying and playing. Perhaps someone ells out there in the neural-void knows of such an observation.

Exhibition of those kind of characteristics would be some indicia of a human child, IMO. I doubt these characteristics are observed in a single celled egg. "Breathe cry play" does not represent the universe of the characteristics of a human child.

"It is no more a "child" than a tadpole."
There in lays an interesting question regarding one's humanity: If a ZEF is nothing more then a tadpole, then why is it morally considered "wrong" to dismember a tadpole, but not the ZEF? Why is the ZEF considered less?

First, I did not say that a ZEF (which I assume means zygot embryo or fetus) was nothing more than a tadpole; I said a single celled egg has no more (or few more) characteristics of a human child than a tadpole.

I don't consider it morally wrong to dismember a tadpole. To help move the debate along, tho' I'll say that I may the gratuitous killing of living organisms wrong, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Iriemon]

If I held up a fertilized Chicken egg in my hand and said "this is a chicken 'body", you would not understand?

I would understand; but I wouldn't agree. An chicken egg is not a chicken body. We don't say "I'll have two scrambled chicken bodies and a side of sausage." We don't even say, "I'll have two chickens over easy with toast" We say "eggs." Eggs are not the same as chickens.

 

[Felicity]

Yes, the nurturing is a separate issue...I should have been more clear about this. On the topic of personhood, no the blueprint, though uniquely human in terms of its dna, does not have personhood because it lacks any development. Once the brain is fully connected to the central nervous system and awareness is established, then we can confer upon the fetus the status of personhood.

So basically--the cut off to you is the brainwaves...what sort of brain waves specifically...?

 

[Busta]

No other creature has a soul. It has cognative life, sure, but their is a difference: one is the Divine Breath of Life, one is a fragment of the cosmos.
We do. IMO a single cell simply does not consititute a "human body" in the normal sense of the word. No arms legs ears nose eyes hands feet organs hair etc.
Exhibition of those kind of characteristics would be some indicia of a human child, IMO. I doubt these characteristics are observed in a single celled egg. "Breathe cry play" does not represent the universe of the characteristics of a human child.
First, I did not say that a ZEF (which I assume means zygot embryo or fetus) was nothing more than a tadpole; I said a single celled egg has no more (or few more) characteristics of a human child than a tadpole.
I don't consider it morally wrong to dismember a tadpole. To help move the debate along, tho' I'll say that I may the gratuitous killing of living organisms wrong, depending on the circumstances.

That's what I get for acquiescing to the wishes of word-sensitive people. In the past when I have used "Unborn Child" I was instantly accused of...what was it now...."dishonest pro.life rationalist linguistic hyperbole and sophistry, lies and deceptive enslavement of women"....I hate social polotics.

I was extending the same biologically accurate curticy to you since you were speaking from a biological view.

However, perhaps learning of the legal term "Unborn Child" (= 'a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.' http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html )
will help you accept "child" more readily.

"I said a single celled egg has no more (or few more) characteristics of a human child than a tadpole."
As I said in my first post, I "disregard the biological rationality as irrelevant", because if one must meet certain mental capacity and physical ability requirements in order to be considered a 'human being', then when one looses any number of those capacities or abilities they are deemed less human by the same measher; because one is either a human being or one is not.

 

[aquapub]

When you boil down the pro-ABORTION philosophy to what it is ACTUALLY saying, all excuses, distortions aside, it comes down to this incredibly irrational assertion: The less developed human form generates less sympathy, hence destroying it ceases to FEEL like murder, even though logically there is no distinction between the unborn and the born but age.

 

[Felicity]

When you boil down the pro-ABORTION philosophy to what it is ACTUALLY saying, all excuses, distortions aside, it comes down to this incredibly irrational assertion: The less developed human form generates less sympathy, hence destroying it ceases to FEEL like murder, even though logically there is no distinction between the unborn and the born but age.

...:agree ....

 

[jallman]

When you boil down the pro-ABORTION philosophy to what it is ACTUALLY saying, all excuses, distortions aside, it comes down to this incredibly irrational assertion: The less developed human form generates less sympathy, hence destroying it ceases to FEEL like murder, even though logically there is no distinction between the unborn and the born but age.

First and foremost, there is no pro-ABORTION movement. That is a blatant lie on the part of the pro-lifers used to demonize their opponents and make their quest to enslave a woman's body feel more superior. Now, your misrepresentation aside, when you boil down the pro-life philosophy to what it is ACTUALLY saying, all excuses, distortions, emotional appeals, and lies aside, it comes down to this incredibly irrational assertion: a part of the womans body is conferred protections and rights and sympathies as if it were its own creature simply because it possesses a unique DNA structure. Logically, there is no similarity other than this between the ZEF and a baby. :roll:

 

[tecoyah]

The less developed human form generates less sympathy, hence destroying it ceases to FEEL like murder, even though logically there is no distinction between the unborn and the born but age.

Logically , the differences are actually quite extreme.As is the distinction because of these differences. The fetus lacks the primary characteristic a Human uses to distinguish itself from the animal kingdom. A functional Human Brain.

 

[Felicity]

a part of the womans body is conferred protections and rights and sympathies as if it were its own creature simply because it possesses a unique DNA structure. Logically, there is no similarity other than this between the ZEF and a baby.
:

I'm a woman...My body doesn't have this particular part...it did have a part like this...5 different times...and then after about 9 1/2 months...it didn't anymore. Each time it was a unique "part," and now those unique parts have names and personalities and special individual qualities. And these "parts" of me never took anything from me to become these unique individuals--they are themselves in their own right and have been since the beginning of their existence. I have lost nothing of myself to them, and I have gained much in coming to know these "parts" of me--that never where me in the first place.

 

[jallman]

Logically , the differences are actually quite extreme.As is the distinction because of these differences. The fetus lacks the primary characteristic a Human uses to distinguish itself from the animal kingdom. A functional Human Brain.

That is probably the most concise and direct way to put it.

 

[Felicity]

So basically--the cut off to you is the brainwaves...what sort of brain waves specifically...?

Will you answer this? Is it "detectable" brain waves? or some specific sort of brain activity?

 

[jallman]

I'm a woman...My body doesn't have this particular part...it did have a part like this...5 different times...and then after about 9 1/2 months...it didn't anymore. Each time it was a unique "part," and now those unique parts have names and personalities and special individual qualities. And these "parts" of me never took anything from me to become these unique individuals--they are themselves in their own right and have been since the beginning of their existence. I have lost nothing of myself to them, and I have gained much in coming to know these "parts" of me--that never where me in the first place.

Your emotional appeal to parental instinct and affection is touching, but has no place in the legislation of a woman's rights. Your feelings about your own children are distinct to you and your children but are not a worthy basis for forcing these feelings upon other women.

Further, your assertion that each was not a part of you is absolutely absurd. That each took nothing from you is even more laughable. One only has to look at the role of the placenta and the umbilical cord to recognize the gross misrepresentation you just put forth. Come on now, pink ranger...lets try and do better.

 

[Iriemon]

That's what I get for acquiescing to the wishes of word-sensitive people. In the past when I have used "Unborn Child" I was instantly accused of...what was it now...."dishonest pro.life rationalist linguistic hyperbole and sophistry, lies and deceptive enslavement of women"....I hate social polotics.

I was extending the same biologically accurate curticy to you since you were speaking from a biological view.

However, perhaps learning of the legal term "Unborn Child" (= 'a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.' http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html )
will help you accept "child" more readily.

What this all comes down to is that this is semantics. Calling a single celled egg a "human" or a "child" or a "baby" doesn't make it so. Neither does calling a single celled egg a "single celled egg" mean that the egg cannot possess characteristics deemed worthy of rights that would prohibit abortion.

So that is the issue, and applying whatever labels you want does not change the analysis. I agree that a newborn baby possess characteristics worthy of the rights. And I agree that prior to birth, the fetus has the characteristics. But, an 8 1/2 month old fetus is not biologically or physically the same as a single celled egg.

What are the characteristics of a human being that warrant giving it the rights that would prohibit abortion?

If you believe based on your religion that the spirit of a human enters the single celled egg at the moment of fertilization, and upon that basis it has the characteristics of a human life worthy of the rights, fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their religious views, but I would argue that support for that position is not found in the Bible.

Putting aside religious views, if you look at the human characteristics exhibited in the single celled fertilized egg, we find only 1) DNA, and 2) the potential to develop into a human being. It is missing almost all other human characteristics. IMO, these characteristics are insufficient to warrant the rights the supercede other interests at stake -- including the child that would be born if gestation is allowed to continue.

The next question becomes, then, at what point in the gestation peiod does the single celled egg develop sufficient characteristics of a human being to warrant affording it those rights we give other human beings. I agree, that is a tough question.

"I said a single celled egg has no more (or few more) characteristics of a human child than a tadpole."

As I said in my first post, I "disregard the biological rationality as irrelevant", because if one must meet certain mental capacity and physical ability requirements in order to be considered a 'human being', then when one looses any number of those capacities or abilities they are deemed less human by the same measher; because one is either a human being or one is not.

I do not see the logical basis for your distinction. If we say humans have a head and two legs, and two arms, and eyes, and ears, and a functioning brain, and awarness, and potential, or whatever we want to make, at some point, a human who loses enough (or certain vital) characterists IMO does cease to be a human being. A guy who has his head chopped off, for example, I have no problem saying is no longer a human being and I would argue that his interests should not supersede living human being that have their heads. Same thing with the brain. A functioning brain is probably the one thing that makes us most human, and I can see the basis for the argument for focusing on that in terms of determining whether we have a human being or not.

 

[jallman]

Will you answer this? Is it "detectable" brain waves? or some specific sort of brain activity?

Sorry, I overlooked this. I personally think the brainwaves have nothing to do with it. However, some scientists argue that until the brain waves show order, then the brain is not fully aware and active. I however, feel that once the structure is in place and fully connected, then you must recognize the sentience and individuality at that point.

 

[Felicity]

Sorry, I overlooked this. I personally think the brainwaves have nothing to do with it. However, some scientists argue that until the brain waves show order, then the brain is not fully aware and active. I however, feel that once the structure is in place and fully connected, then you must recognize the sentience and individuality at that point.

So you think it some esoteric point in time that a fetus becomes "person?"

 

[tecoyah]

This might help:

Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The momentous meeting of sperm and egg generally occurs in one of the two fallopian tubes. One cell becomes two, two become four, and so on—an exponentiation of base-2 arithmetic. By the tenth day the fertilized egg has become a kind of hollow sphere wandering off to another realm: the womb. It destroys tissue in its path. It sucks blood from capillaries. It bathes itself in maternal blood, from which it extracts oxygen and nutrients. It establishes itself as a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus.

# By the third week, around the time of the first missed menstrual period, the forming embryo is about 2 millimeters long and is developing various body parts. Only at this stage does it begin to be dependent on a rudimentary placenta. It looks a little like a segmented worm.

# By the end of the fourth week, it's about 5 millimeters (about 1/5 inch) long. It's recognizable now as a vertebrate, its tube-shaped heart is beginning to beat, something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail. It looks rather like a newt or a tadpole. This is the end of the first month after conception.

# By the fifth week, the gross divisions of the brain can be distinguished. What will later develop into eyes are apparent, and little buds appear—on their way to becoming arms and legs.

# By the sixth week, the embryo is 13 millimeteres (about ½ inch) long. The eyes are still on the side of the head, as in most animals, and the reptilian face has connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be.

# By the end of the seventh week, the tail is almost gone, and sexual characteristics can be discerned (although both sexes look female). The face is mammalian but somewhat piglike.

# By the end of the eighth week, the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human. Most of the human body parts are present in their essentials. Some lower brain anatomy is well-developed. The fetus shows some reflex response to delicate stimulation.

# By the tenth week, the face has an unmistakably human cast. It is beginning to be possible to distinguish males from females. Nails and major bone structures are not apparent until the third month.

# By the fourth month, you can tell the face of one fetus from that of another. Quickening is most commonly felt in the fifth month. The bronchioles of the lungs do not begin developing until approximately the sixth month, the alveoli still later.

So, if only a person can be murdered, when does the fetus attain personhood? When its face becomes distinctly human, near the end of the first trimester? When the fetus becomes responsive to stimuli--again, at the end of the first trimester? When it becomes active enough to be felt as quickening, typically in the middle of the second trimester? When the lungs have reached a stage of development sufficient that the fetus might, just conceivably, be able to breathe on its own in the outside air?

The trouble with these particular developmental milestones is not just that they're arbitrary. More troubling is the fact that none of them involves uniquely human characteristics--apart from the superficial matter of facial appearance. All animals respond to stimuli and move of their own volition. Large numbers are able to breathe. But that doesn't stop us from slaughtering them by the billions. Reflexes and motion are not what make us human.

Other animals have advantages over us--in speed, strength, endurance, climbing or burrowing skills, camouflage, sight or smell or hearing, mastery of the air or water. Our one great advantage, the secret of our success, is thought--characteristically human thought. We are able to think things through, imagine events yet to occur, figure things out. That's how we invented agriculture and civilization. Thought is our blessing and our curse, and it makes us who we are.

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.

By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

Acquiescing in the killing of any living creature, especially one that might later become a baby, is troublesome and painful. But we've rejected the extremes of "always" and "never," and this puts us--like it or not--on the slippery slope. If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.

 

[jallman]

So you think it some esoteric point in time that a fetus becomes "person?"

There is nothing esoteric about it. It is pure observation and biological fact. The hypothalamus connects the central nervous system in the cerebral cortex. At this point all structures are in place and the awareness of the fetus is such that it can be considered a person in all respects. Basically, the fetus now has a functioning human brain.

 

[Felicity]

Your emotional appeal to parental instinct and affection is touching, but has no place in the legislation of a woman's rights. Your feelings about your own children are distinct to you and your children but are not a worthy basis for forcing these feelings upon other women.

Further, your assertion that each was not a part of you is absolutely absurd. That each took nothing from you is even more laughable. One only has to look at the role of the placenta and the umbilical cord to recognize the gross misrepresentation you just put forth. Come on now, pink ranger...lets try and do better.

You called it "part of the woman's body"--the placenta, cord, embryo--are all SEPERATE. Not part of the mother. Mothers with AIDS give birth to non-infected babies something like 75% of the time. The baby is NOT part of the mother. So your "emotional appeal" accusation is you feeling guilty or something ....My children are not their mother.

 

[jallman]

You called it "part of the woman's body"--the placenta, cord, embryo--are all SEPERATE. Not part of the mother. Mothers with AIDS give birth to non-infected babies something like 75% of the time. The baby is NOT part of the mother. So your "emotional appeal" accusation is you feeling guilty or something ....My children are not their mother.

My dear, I have seen the angst with which you present your arguments and the tone of anger your frequently take. Let me just be upfront in stating that I will tolerate no such beligerence from you.

Now, that being said, I have no guilt over a mass of cells that does not deserve the moral elevation of inflicting guilt. The placenta and cord are all part of the mother's body. I would challenge you to find me a reference which states otherwise. I further find your assertion concerning the rate of HIV transfer between the mother and baby doubtful, but will acquiesce upon your presentation of a source.

 

[Felicity]

There is nothing esoteric about it. It is pure observation and biological fact. The hypothalamus connects the central nervous system in the cerebral cortex. At this point all structures are in place and the awareness of the fetus is such that it can be considered a person in all respects. Basically, the fetus now has a functioning human brain.

Yeah...around 45-48 days gestation--right?

 

[Felicity]

My dear, I have seen the angst with which you present your arguments and the tone of anger your frequently take. Let me just be upfront in stating that I will tolerate no such beligerence from you.

Now, that being said, I have no guilt over a mass of cells that does not deserve the moral elevation of inflicting guilt. The placenta and cord are all part of the mother's body. I would challenge you to find me a reference which states otherwise. I further find your assertion concerning the rate of HIV transfer between the mother and baby doubtful, but will acquiesce upon your presentation of a source.

Oh God...not you too?:doh :rofl You must really think that tactic works...OOOOkay....:roll:

BTW...whould YOU be willing to provide me with an example of the "angst" or "anger" since no one else who has accused me of this has done so?

About HIV..."If she takes no preventive drugs and breastfeeds then the chance of her baby becoming infected is around 20-45%."

http://www.avert.org/pregnancy.htm

 

[jallman]

Yeah...around 45-48 days gestation--right?

No. There is a glanglia present then, what one might liken to a lower brain, but the brain is neither developed nor functioning at what we consider to be human capability. It is present at that time only to direct lower, involuntary functions which are starting to form. Around the 24-26 week range, the brain is fully developed AND connected to the rest of the CNS. Capability for awareness and thought occurs and I believe once this structural stage completes, only then can you have mental capabilities. Its like before, you have a lamp, a cord, and a light socket. You can turn the lamp on and off all you want, but unless the cord is in the socket, you dont get light because the structural integrity is not there. Does that make sense or do I approach it from another angle?