Tortured Debate....Deegan vs. Tecoyah (1 Viewer)

[tecoyah]

As I was asked to pick a topic and Deegan Believes he has the ability to Debate Rationally, and with skill.....I have chosen one of the more....contentious issues in our community for this debate.

Define the inherent qualities of a Human Being, and therefore begin the Tortured Abortion Debate.

 

[Deegan]

While I don't particularly like debating this subject, I'll give it a try. The reason that I don't like to discuss this issue is simple really, I don't think it's an issue that a man can lend much other then his narrow opinion. I say narrow because it is very difficult to attempt to put myself in the shoes of a pregnant woman, and all that goes in to this very complicated female process, and then the obvious decisions that follow.

First, I do believe that life starts at conception, and don't think this can be disputed at all. The question then becomes, does this life have meaning, does this tiny, fragile life, deserve the same consideration that a fully developed child in womb receives? I think so, but then again, I am against any and all abortion, unless the life of the mother is in question. That said, I can't possibly pretend to know what must go on in the mind of a woman who is considering this very important decision. Thus I can't in good conscience, support laws that would make this option illegal for woman. What I can do, and what I believe is the right thing to do, is to set a rational time limit for which this procedure should be conducted.

I have long been haunted by the many pictures of dead fetus, and the thought of it even now makes my weak in the knees. I do believe there comes a time when the fetus becomes the child, and while I am not clear on that exact time, I think 12 weeks is certainly enough time to make this important decision. I think it is important to send a message that we care enough about the unborn, while allowing a woman her moral choice, I believe this is more then enough time, and that we should draw this very clear line, and NOW!

This about sums up where I stand on this issue, and I doubt very seriously that I could be swayed from this position, but I try to always remain open minded.

 

[tecoyah]

Indeed, a fetilized egg is alive, as was the sperm and Egg that combined to make the Zygote. Life is prevelant in this world, and certainly not confined to the Human species, let alone to those who can understand they are indeed....alive. There needs to be something more defining, in my opinion, to lend the protection of Law in favor of one life...over another.
We , tend to treat life with relative disregard in most cases, we eat its flesh, use it to further understanding, and eliminate it on a whim for comfort. Why are these creatures treated as material goods, and a fetus deserving of more. Do we value our genetic code so much as to protect these cells at the cost of an adult Humans freedom to decide what the "Self" requires?


I will ask again, as the question remains unanswered:

Please, Define the inherent qualities of a Human Being.

 

[Deegan]

The most important inherent quality would have to be the ability to reason, this is certainly what separates us from the animal, but as we all have seen before, even many animals enjoy this trait, if not always practiced. Rational thoughts are exactly what bring me to my opinion on a time limit for abortions, and the need as humans to draw clear lines as to what is acceptable in a civil society.

Emotions are another important quality we have, and that again, we share with the animal. While an animals emotions are often limited, the human can display many, many emotions, and this has been as important to society, as reason has been.

I could go on and on about this, but as it pertains to the subject at hand, I think that from these examples, this is where I have drawn my conclusions.

 

[tecoyah]

The most important inherent quality would have to be the ability to reason, this is certainly what separates us from the animal, but as we all have seen before, even many animals enjoy this trait, if not always practiced. Rational thoughts are exactly what bring me to my opinion on a time limit for abortions, and the need as humans to draw clear lines as to what is acceptable in a civil society.

Emotions are another important quality we have, and that again, we share with the animal. While an animals emotions are often limited, the human can display many, many emotions, and this has been as important to society, as reason has been.

I could go on and on about this, but as it pertains to the subject at hand, I think that from these examples, this is where I have drawn my conclusions.

Again....we can agree, the ability of our species to use rational thought defines what differentiates us from other Life. This ability is likely the reason we became the Dominant species on Earth. We are slower, weaker, and less well equiped physically than our early predators, We do not have great hearing, eyesight, or sense of smell. The only logical reason we survived is the ability to out think the creatures that hunted us.
Humankind has evolved significant Brainpower, at enormous energy cost, and often to the detriment of Physical capabilities that might have been handy in the past. Thus we might set a standard for Rights at a level where there is some small chance these aspects of our species become remotely possible.

Would you agree?

 

[Deegan]

Again....we can agree, the ability of our species to use rational thought defines what differentiates us from other Life. This ability is likely the reason we became the Dominant species on Earth. We are slower, weaker, and less well equiped physically than our early predators, We do not have great hearing, eyesight, or sense of smell. The only logical reason we survived is the ability to out think the creatures that hunted us.
Humankind has evolved significant Brainpower, at enormous energy cost, and often to the detriment of Physical capabilities that might have been handy in the past. Thus we might set a standard for Rights at a level where there is some small chance these aspects of our species become remotely possible.

Would you agree?

I do, with the exception of this bold section, I am not quite certain what you are trying to convey here, perhaps I have confused the context for which you are attempting to explain?

 

[tecoyah]

My point would be the wiring required for Reasoning thought....even on a most basic level. For Human thought to become active, we must have the hardware to do so, this means a brain. In so much as we are a Human being, defined by these thoughts, and differentiated from the animals we eat, or otherwise use because of it, would it not then be a given that we cannot be a Human being until this Brain is formed? And indeed, not intil the brain manages to form the needed connections to think in this way?

 

[Deegan]

My point would be the wiring required for Reasoning thought....even on a most basic level. For Human thought to become active, we must have the hardware to do so, this means a brain. In so much as we are a Human being, defined by these thoughts, and differentiated from the animals we eat, or otherwise use because of it, would it not then be a given that we cannot be a Human being until this Brain is formed? And indeed, not intil the brain manages to form the needed connections to think in this way?

I guess so, but this is a little out of my realm of understanding, you would have to find a Neurologist to consult with, I'm just a flower saleman.:lol:

 

[tecoyah]

I guess so, but this is a little out of my realm of understanding, you would have to find a Neurologist to consult with, I'm just a flower saleman.:lol:

Actually...A base level understanding of Neural science is all that is required, from this we can infer what parts of our anatomy go into Human cognative ability. It is well understood that thought does not occur in the heart, Liver, Testacle or Ovaries....It occurs in the brain. Science has also attempted to define at what point these required connections occur within the organ we call the Brain:

"The human brainstem is fashioned around the 7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movement of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 9th gestational week the fetus will display spontaneous movements, one week later takes its first breath, and by the 25th week demonstrates stimulus-induced heart rate accelerations. As the pons, which is later to mature, mediates arousal, body movements, and vestibular and vibroacoustic perception, from around the 20th to 27th weeks the fetus responds with arousal and body movements to vibroacoustic and loud sounds delivered to the maternal abdomen. The midbrain inferior-auditory followed by the superior-visual colliculi is the last to mature, and in conjunction with the lower brainstem makes fine auditory discriminations, and reacts to sound with fetal heart rate (FHR) accelerations, head turning, and eye movements--around the 36th week."

Thus we can see the timeline for these "Pieces" of the brain to form and connect. But do these stages allow us to define an ability to think....not by themselves it seems:

"It is now well established that the human fetus is capable of some degree of behavioral complexity. In fact, as early as the 9th week of gestation the fetus is able to spontaneously move the extremities, head, and trunk (de Vries, Visser, & Prechtl, 1985). It has also been suggested that the near term fetus may be endowed with some degree of cognitive capability (e.g., Hepper & Shahidullah, 1994; Kisilevsky, Fearson & Muir, 1998). Cognition has been inferred based on alterations in fetal heart rate (FHR) and habituation to airborne sound (Kisilevsky & Muir, 1991), response-declines to vibroacoustic stimuli (Kisilevsky et al., 1998; Kuhlman, Burns, Depp, & Sabagha, 1988), and what appears to be neonatal preferences for the maternal voice as well as melodies and stories presented up to six weeks prior to birth (DeCasper & Fifer, 1980; DeCasper & Spence, 1986; DeCasper, Lecanuet, Busnel, Granier-Deferre & Maugeais, 1994; Lecanuet, Granier-Deferre, & Busnel, 1989).

As will be detailed below, the behavior of the fetus and newborn is likely a reflection of reflexive brainstem activities which are produced in the absence of forebrain-mediated affective or cognitive processing, i.e. thinking, reasoning, understanding, or true emotionality (Joseph, 1996a, 1999; Levene, 1993; Sroufe, 1996). It is the much slower to develop forebrain which generates higher order cognitive activity and purposeful behaviors, and which is responsible for the expression and experience of true emotions including pleasure, rage, fear and joy and the desire for social-emotional contact (Joseph, 1992, 1996ab, 1999; MacLean, 1990). "

Thus science attempts to understand the many facets of Human thought, and the ability we might attribute to the forming brain. If we use the criteria of Human Thought pattern, and reason, a Fetus is not a Human being. Now would be the Time Deegan, to set a new criteria for defining what makes us special....if you wish.


Though I will add this little tidbit as well:

"It is rather obvious that the neonate is able to scream and cry and can even slightly lift the corners of the mouth as if smiling. However, these do not appear to be true emotions (Sroufe, 1996; however, see Izard, 1991). In fact, smiling, as well as screaming and crying can be produced from brainstem stimulation even with complete forebrain transection or destruction (Larson et al., 1994; Zhang et al., 1994; reviewed in Joseph, 1996a). Hence, neonatal and premature infant "smiling" or distress reactions to noxious stimulation (e.g. heel lance) are also likely brainstem mediated, particularly in that they may be triggered in the absence of any obvious stimulus source and following forebrain destruction or lack of development (anencephaly). However, as brainstem maturation continues in a caudal-rostral arc (Debakan, 1970; Langworthy, 1937), at term and over the following weeks and months, the immature hypothalamus (which sits atop the midbrain), and thus the forebrain, increasingly contributes to and gains control over these behaviors (Joseph, 1992, 1999)."


http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

 

[Deegan]

That's very interesting, but with all due respect for your time and research, I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand? That said, I am not sure where we are heading with this debate, we seem to agree more then we disagree. Is there anything that I said that would give you pause, or that you would disagree with, as the issue of abortion quite often falls on the side of right or wrong. There is also the issue of limiting these abortions to a certain time frame, I have said 12 weeks seems more then sufficient, what is your time limit, if any?

 

[tecoyah]

My intent was to bring this debate to Roe vs Wade....and the 6 month guideline placed on Legal Abortion. Though RvWade did not use the science to make this cutoff (as it did not exist) The timeline is nevertheless, in agreement with scientific thought for the most part, and in fact allows months of error on the side of possibility for Cognative thought.
My impression of your stance was one opposed to Roe v Wade, and inclined to have it Overturned...was I mistaken?

 

[Deegan]

My intent was to bring this debate to Roe vs Wade....and the 6 month guideline placed on Legal Abortion. Though RvWade did not use the science to make this cutoff (as it did not exist) The timeline is nevertheless, in agreement with scientific thought for the most part, and in fact allows months of error on the side of possibility for Cognative thought.
My impression of your stance was one opposed to Roe v Wade, and inclined to have it Overturned...was I mistaken?

I was, and am, I just believe it to be a state issue. That said, I still would not support a state ban, but rather a strict time limit, and 6 months is not at all acceptable to me. This is not just a guess in my case, it comes from a very painful experience that I had as a young man, and with my wife miscarriage. I won't go in to that unless pressed, as I don't want to make this debate personal, but I will if you are willing to allow it.

 

[tecoyah]

I was, and am, I just believe it to be a state issue. That said, I still would not support a state ban, but rather a strict time limit, and 6 months is not at all acceptable to me. This is not just a guess in my case, it comes from a very painful experience that I had as a young man, and with my wife miscarriage. I won't go in to that unless pressed, as I don't want to make this debate personal, but I will if you are willing to allow it.

The primary problem with personal testimony regarding this issue....is the emotional nature it places on descision making. While there is most certainly a powerful place in ones own life choices due to these often painful, and deep experiences, they need to remain a part of individual choice....not public policy.
I was rather hoping you would direct this debate into this realm, as it is the crux of WHY there is debate at all on this issue. My own personal choice does not hold more weight in the eyes of Society that your should, Nor does my personal dislike of Abortion dictate what Mrs. Jones should be required by law to do.
If we can manage to remove the heartfelt emotion from this....we have only the Data given to us by science, and within these Reams of Information comes Raw and Logical reason....the very criteria we use to define a Human.

Share if you must, but resorting to Emotion to carry such a complex issue will likely make your case less compelling....to me at least.

 

[Deegan]

The primary problem with personal testimony regarding this issue....is the emotional nature it places on descision making. While there is most certainly a powerful place in ones own life choices due to these often painful, and deep experiences, they need to remain a part of individual choice....not public policy.
I was rather hoping you would direct this debate into this realm, as it is the crux of WHY there is debate at all on this issue. My own personal choice does not hold more weight in the eyes of Society that your should, Nor does my personal dislike of Abortion dictate what Mrs. Jones should be required by law to do.
If we can manage to remove the heartfelt emotion from this....we have only the Data given to us by science, and within these Reams of Information comes Raw and Logical reason....the very criteria we use to define a Human.

Share if you must, but resorting to Emotion to carry such a complex issue will likely make your case less compelling....to me at least.

No, I would rather not comment on that, though I have in other threads, perhaps we could just stick to the 6 month rule, and as I said, that is not acceptable to me.

What say you?

 

[tecoyah]

No, I would rather not comment on that, though I have in other threads, perhaps we could just stick to the 6 month rule, and as I said, that is not acceptable to me.

What say you?

Works for me.........This debate is now open to all comers interested.

 

[Gardener]

Works for me.........This debate is now open to all comers interested.

All comers, huh? Are you sure you want that?

My own attitude towards abortion, though, is something akin to the logic behind Pascal's wager, which I'm sure both you gentleman would be quick to point out concerns the existance of God rather than the manifest humanity of an embryo. Still, I do believe in playing similar odds as did old Blaise there when I ask the question "Is this thing human?" instead of "Does God exist?"

There. That should make my position perfectly clear.

 

[talloulou]

If I were Deegan I'd have said that eggs and sperm do not constitute complete living organisms the way a fertilized embryo does. An embryo is a completely new human.

Also in regards to intelligence....none of us are intelligent in utero. Reasonable or rational thought above all other animals isn't even evident in newborns. Thus since none of us start out with this quality how can you possibly say that these qualities are inherent to humanity? While none of us start out with them we all start out with the potential for them. Other animals don't start out with the potential to have human intelligence, only humans do. So that can't be ignored.

The only thing that is "inherent" to being a human at all stages of development in human life is that you are a member of the species homosapiens.

 

[tecoyah]

If I were Deegan I'd have said that eggs and sperm do not constitute complete living organisms the way a fertilized embryo does. An embryo is a completely new human.

Also in regards to intelligence....none of us are intelligent in utero. Reasonable or rational thought above all other animals isn't even evident in newborns. Thus since none of us start out with this quality how can you possibly say that these qualities are inherent to humanity? While none of us start out with them we all start out with the potential for them. Other animals don't start out with the potential to have human intelligence, only humans do. So that can't be ignored.

The only thing that is "inherent" to being a human at all stages of development in human life is that you are a member of the species homosapiens.

While it is indeed true, that a new born Babys brain lacks the ability to process information as an adult would...the hardware is in place, and the wave patterns created by said brain do match those found in Homo Sapiens. This in fact....can occur even as early as the Seventh Month of Gestation.

 

[talloulou]

While it is indeed true, that a new born Babys brain lacks the ability to process information as an adult would...the hardware is in place, and the wave patterns created by said brain do match those found in Homo Sapiens. This in fact....can occur even as early as the Seventh Month of Gestation.

So why are born babies who still have to develop more in order to be considered "intelligent" but have the hardware in place deserve more protection than unborn babies under 7 mo gestation that are focusing all of their energy on building the hardware? Noone builds the developing fetus. Right? Those babies in utero are quite busy in the process of building themselves!

 

[tecoyah]

So why are born babies who still have to develop more in order to be considered "intelligent" but have the hardware in place deserve more protection than unborn babies under 7 mo gestation that are focusing all of their energy on building the hardware? Noone builds the developing fetus. Right? Those babies in utero are quite busy in the process of building themselves!

Well...the babies are not actually building themselves, DNA is guiding Cellular activity thru preprogrammed instructions to guide individual groupings of cellular communities to differntaite, and form the pieces that will allow a Baby to form.
Regardless, this thread attempted to set the parameters of a human being, and thus define what makes us what we are....it seems it may have done so to an extent.
By this definition the number one aspect of Humanity is non existant in an early fetus...and indeed at 6 months gestation. This is my cutoff forHuman Rights, until that point....the mother controls her body, after that point, there is a chance we walk the Murder line.....and we should not allow someone to stroll there.

But of course....this is only my informed opinion.

 

[talloulou]

Well...the babies are not actually building themselves, DNA is guiding Cellular activity thru preprogrammed instructions to guide individual groupings of cellular communities to differntaite, and form the pieces that will allow a Baby to form.
Regardless, this thread attempted to set the parameters of a human being, and thus define what makes us what we are....it seems it may have done so to an extent.
By this definition the number one aspect of Humanity is non existant in an early fetus...and indeed at 6 months gestation. This is my cutoff forHuman Rights, until that point....the mother controls her body, after that point, there is a chance we walk the Murder line.....and we should not allow someone to stroll there.

But of course....this is only my informed opinion.

Well I think that assumption while politically convenient flies in the face of science. Scientists have no trouble telling the difference between a living human organism and something else. So while you can set arbitrary definitions for what it means to be human science doesn't. Scientists have no trouble seeing the difference between "human tissue" such as sperm, heart, liver, skin, hair, egg, ect and a "complete individual human organism." They also have no trouble telling which embryos are human vs. some other species. Furthermore they can even tell which embryos will be boys vs. girls. So a human embryo is scientifically "a human" not human like my blood is human but literally and biologically a human. To suggest that these humans don't possess traits that are inherently human is absurd and ignorant. While humans develop many different traits throughout their lifetime we all start out as embryos. There are many stages of development and the very first stage takes place in utero. All the development that takes place in utero is inherently human and inherently part of the process of human development that starts at conception and continues until death.

 

[tecoyah]

Well I think that assumption while politically convenient flies in the face of science. Scientists have no trouble telling the difference between a living human organism and something else. So while you can set arbitrary definitions for what it means to be human science doesn't. Scientists have no trouble seeing the difference between "human tissue" such as sperm, heart, liver, skin, hair, egg, ect and a "complete individual human organism." They also have no trouble telling which embryos are human vs. some other species. Furthermore they can even tell which embryos will be boys vs. girls. So a human embryo is scientifically "a human" not human like my blood is human but literally and biologically a human. To suggest that these humans don't possess traits that are inherently human is absurd and ignorant. While humans develop many different traits throughout their lifetime we all start out as embryos. There are many stages of development and the very first stage takes place in utero. All the development that takes place in utero is inherently human and inherently part of the process of human development that starts at conception and continues until death.

And so...for you at least, none of the Data in this thread makes any difference, or point. This is your perogative, and thus I would recommend you refrain from doing anything to damage the fetus during your pregnancy.

This is the beauty of individual freedoms....no one is asking you to do anything you do not believe in, So there is actually....no issue.

 

[talloulou]

And so...for you at least, none of the Data in this thread makes any difference, or point. This is your perogative, and thus I would recommend you refrain from doing anything to damage the fetus during your pregnancy.

This is the beauty of individual freedoms....no one is asking you to do anything you do not believe in, So there is actually....no issue.

This is debate politics....everything can be seen as an issue! Plus if it were a live and live issue I wouldn't care. Unfortunately it's live and let die which is a bit different.

And your reply was pretty weak especially given what I've come to expect from you tecoyah! :doh

 

[tecoyah]

This is debate politics....everything can be seen as an issue! Plus if it were a live and live issue I wouldn't care. Unfortunately it's live and let die which is a bit different.

And your reply was pretty weak especially given what I've come to expect from you tecoyah! :doh

Actually....if it is an issue, its because you make it one. My opinion on this really has no effect at all on your life. Roe Vs. Wade has no effect on your life....unless you decide to allow it to. There is currently no law which forces ANYONE to go the abortion route, and in fact there are many laws which limit such a thing.
The point is....you can have all the Babies you could ever want, and others can decide against this through Birth control, or that failing Abortion. That you decide to take the descision of someone else personally, and feel its OK to place your opinion into the very personal lives of a large part of the population is not a noble cause.
My problem with the Pro Life mentality is not the issue itself per se....it has to do with the Freakin' Gaul of these people, thinking they should force everyone else into an opinion change. I liken it to religion in many ways, in that there is usually no middle ground for an understanding to be found. Instead each side simply decides it is right, and the other needs to go away. I would prefer a live and let live agreement in this, as I have no intention of telling someone they must eliminate a pregnancy to make me more right. Yet, you wish to set your opinion....And Yes, That Is All It Is....as the guiding force behind MY Life.

Sorry Babe....that isnt going to happen.

 

[talloulou]

Actually....if it is an issue, its because you make it one. My opinion on this really has no effect at all on your life. Roe Vs. Wade has no effect on your life....unless you decide to allow it to. There is currently no law which forces ANYONE to go the abortion route, and in fact there are many laws which limit such a thing.

Well actually there are all kinds of laws including some states in which my minor daughter could have an abortion without my knowledge. Now I don't know how you look at that but I see it as definitely something with the potential to affect my life.

Furthermore tons of people have opinions on laws that may never affect their life. For instance if homosexuals are ever allowed to marry it will most likely be because they have finally convinced enough heterosexuals that same sex marriage isn't a problem. Failing to do so they will likely never be able to marry as they will always be the minority unless the supreme court decides to take the issue away from the states and make the claim that a ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Which they could as they did with abortion.

The point is....you can have all the Babies you could ever want, and others can decide against this through Birth control, or that failing Abortion.

Are you kidding? What about when slavery was legal? Should those who felt slavery was wrong just not own slaves personally?

That you decide to take the descision of someone else personally, and feel its OK to place your opinion into the very personal lives of a large part of the population is not a noble cause.

Why? Cause you say so?
:rofl If it were an issue that didn't involve the direct killing of a human I'd agree with you.

My problem with the Pro Life mentality is not the issue itself per se....it has to do with the Freakin' Gaul of these people, thinking they should force everyone else into an opinion change.

Yes well almost every single civil rights issue involves this type of GAUL. A group of people whose lives arn't affected get involved to protect a smaller group of people who can't affect change on their own.

I liken it to religion in many ways, in that there is usually no middle ground for an understanding to be found. Instead each side simply decides it is right, and the other needs to go away.

Actually if abortion were more heavily regulated and there was a general agreement that abortion is "wrong" and an understanding that it involves the killing of a fellow human and thus should be used in only situations where such a killing is warranted I would compromise. I don't think abortion must be completely banned. There are instances where it is justified. Convenience isn't such an instance.

I would prefer a live and let live agreement in this, as I have no intention of telling someone they must eliminate a pregnancy to make me more right. Yet, you wish to set your opinion....And Yes, That Is All It Is....as the guiding force behind MY Life.

I believe in letting people do what they want as long as it harms noone else. Once harm is brought on one by another that's where I draw the line.

Sorry Babe....that isnt going to happen.

Okay sugar ****. :rofl