Why I Became Pro Life

[Kant]

To jump in on a heated debate…

I feel as if, as long as it is a consensus that killing a living human is wrong, abortion should have no leg to stand on. I was discussing abortion once and someone mentioned that only a few things separate a fetus from a newly born infant.

1) its size is different
2) its level of development is lower
3) its location from the womb to outside the mother
4) the dependency of the said person

I do not see any other difference between a fetus and an infant.

If one looks at these:

1) size is irrelevant as a child that is 4 feet tall is valued as life just as much as a 6 foot tall man
2) development should have no bearing as someone with a mental disorder (like OCD) is developed less than a person with a normal life, yet that person with a mental disorder is not considered less of a human
3) location of someone obviously does not matter
4) dependency should also not matter, as a child is dependent on a father/mother to provide food and shelter while a man/woman is dependent on him/herself. The child is still considered just as much of a valued life as the adult.

This argument has most likely been used a decent amount in the debate, and if it has already been used in this thread I apologize -- I have not read all 78 pages. However, I feel as if it provides a logical progression of why the unborn child is worth saving.

 

[iangb]

To jump in on a heated debate…

I feel as if, as long as it is a consensus that killing a living human is wrong, abortion should have no leg to stand on. I was discussing abortion once and someone mentioned that only a few things separate a fetus from a newly born infant.

1) its size is different
2) its level of development is lower
3) its location from the womb to outside the mother
4) the dependency of the said person

I do not see any other difference between a fetus and an infant.

If one looks at these:

1) size is irrelevant as a child that is 4 feet tall is valued as life just as much as a 6 foot tall man
2) development should have no bearing as someone with a mental disorder (like OCD) is developed less than a person with a normal life, yet that person with a mental disorder is not considered less of a human
3) location of someone obviously does not matter
4) dependency should also not matter, as a child is dependent on a father/mother to provide food and shelter while a man/woman is dependent on him/herself. The child is still considered just as much of a valued life as the adult.

This argument has most likely been used a decent amount in the debate, and if it has already been used in this thread I apologize -- I have not read all 78 pages. However, I feel as if it provides a logical progression of why the unborn child is worth saving.

Your argument certainly applies to a foetus moments before birth, and almost as certainly doesn't apply to a zygote immediately after fertilisation (there's a big difference between a mental disorder and not having a brain). The question is - where we draw the line between thoes two points?

Personally speaking, I'd choose #2 on your list to focus on - I'd draw it when the foetal brain has developed sufficiently for it to be self-aware and generally cognicant - as it would appear happens at the 20/21-week point of pregnancy. Scientifically speaking, #4 is the most important, as an individual needs to be biologically capable of independent existance - this happens at viability, which is generally at the 23/24 week point.

Good post, though.

 

[OKgrannie]

To jump in on a heated debate…

I feel as if, as long as it is a consensus that killing a living human is wrong, abortion should have no leg to stand on. I was discussing abortion once and someone mentioned that only a few things separate a fetus from a newly born infant.

1) its size is different
2) its level of development is lower
3) its location from the womb to outside the mother
4) the dependency of the said person

I do not see any other difference between a fetus and an infant.

If one looks at these:

1) size is irrelevant as a child that is 4 feet tall is valued as life just as much as a 6 foot tall man
2) development should have no bearing as someone with a mental disorder (like OCD) is developed less than a person with a normal life, yet that person with a mental disorder is not considered less of a human
3) location of someone obviously does not matter
4) dependency should also not matter, as a child is dependent on a father/mother to provide food and shelter while a man/woman is dependent on him/herself. The child is still considered just as much of a valued life as the adult.

This argument has most likely been used a decent amount in the debate, and if it has already been used in this thread I apologize -- I have not read all 78 pages. However, I feel as if it provides a logical progression of why the unborn child is worth saving.

2. A mental disorder is not a matter of development. Whether or not an entity has a working brain does matter.

3. Location obviously DOES matter when that location is inside someone else.

4. People are dependent upon one another, that is social dependency. When an entity is dependent upon its attachment to one person only, that is physical dependency. There is a difference and the difference matters.

 

[prometeus]

Oh lordie... I knew somebody would take that comment out of context. Within the cycle of the food chain, life can be taken in order to preserve life... does that help you understand? All animal life survives by consuming things that are alive. A zygot and fetus are alive, but not part of the food chain. Starting to get it now?

I see that the point went over your head. Perhaps I should have included ALL instances that we take life instead of limiting it to just food.
But even without that, it is still OK to kill only for reasons YOU find justifiable?

 

[prometeus]

To jump in on a heated debate…

I feel as if, as long as it is a consensus that killing a living human is wrong, abortion should have no leg to stand on. I was discussing abortion once and someone mentioned that only a few things separate a fetus from a newly born infant.

1) its size is different
2) its level of development is lower
3) its location from the womb to outside the mother
4) the dependency of the said person

How about looking just a bit deeper? What do you call a life that can not sustain itself and needs the organs of another? How about a mammal that can not maintain homeostasis? My answer is "INSIGNIFICANT."

 

[Kant]

Your argument certainly applies to a foetus moments before birth, and almost as certainly doesn't apply to a zygote immediately after fertilisation (there's a big difference between a mental disorder and not having a brain). The question is - where we draw the line between thoes two points?

I see what you are saying, but I personally believe that as soon as the development occurs and basic functions began to occur that it should be considered life.

The other area I believe we disagree on is that life entails the immediate ability to be biologically independent. I do not disagree that this is a quality of life, but then again so is reproduction. No child can reproduce until puberty, but that does not mean before that he/she is less of a human. Just because the biological independence as not occurred yet does not mean it is not a life yet.

How about looking just a bit deeper? What do you call a life that can not sustain itself and needs the organs of another? How about a mammal that can not maintain homeostasis? My answer is "INSIGNIFICANT."

You are saying that the fact that a being is dependent on something other than himself for life makes him not a human... what about a person on dialysis because his kidneys do not work? Someone who is in a hospital on a respirator because their lungs are not working? Claims of insignificance due to a need of outside source for life should not be a valid reason claiming worthiness to save/kill.

 

[prometeus]

I see what you are saying, but I personally believe that as soon as the development occurs and basic functions began to occur that it should be considered life.

What do you call basic functions?

You are saying that the fact that a being is dependent on something other than himself for life makes him not a human... what about a person on dialysis because his kidneys do not work? Someone who is in a hospital on a respirator because their lungs are not working? Claims of insignificance due to a need of outside source for life should not be a valid reason claiming worthiness to save/kill.

All life necessitates "something" mostly nutrients and conditions that allow it to continue, so your comment on this is misplaced. When an organism can not sustain itself with its own organs it is not the same as being on a respirator. When an organism has no organs to process the nutrients that it necessitates and can not maintain its life in the environment it is intended to live, then it is really not a significant life is it?

 

[Chuz Life]

When an organism has no organs to process the nutrients that it necessitates and can not maintain its life in the environment it is intended to live, then it is really not a significant life is it?

First ofall "completely functioning and fully developed organs" is not a requirement for an organism to be recognized for the organism that it is. (strawman deconstructed).

Secondly, an "insignificant" life is still a "life." A life whose "significance" may be highly subjective to some,.... but such determinatios are not relevant to the fact that it's a "life."

 

[iangb]

I see what you are saying, but I personally believe that as soon as the development occurs and basic functions began to occur that it should be considered life.

As has been said - which basic functions do you think need to have occurred? I've already stated mine - self-awareness.

The other area I believe we disagree on is that life entails the immediate ability to be biologically independent. I do not disagree that this is a quality of life, but then again so is reproduction. No child can reproduce until puberty, but that does not mean before that he/she is less of a human. Just because the biological independence as not occurred yet does not mean it is not a life yet.

The 'reproduction' requirement is always a silly one - it implies that anyone who has been castrated is no longer 'alive'. With regards to the others, though - 'potential' to do something cannot count, seeing as sperm and eggs fall into the category of 'potential'.

Secondly, an "insignificant" life is still a "life." A life whose "significance" may be highly subjective to some,.... but such determinatios are not relevant to the fact that it's a "life."

Again, sperm shows you up. It's nice to see a recognition of subjectivity, though.

Any response to my earlier questions, Chuz?

 

[Chuz Life]

Again, sperm shows you up. It's nice to see a recognition of subjectivity, though.

Any response to my earlier questions, Chuz?

Sperm shows me up how?

And,.... as for your other questions?

I don't recall you posig your comments that you want me to respond to in the form of a question.

Maybe you did. Meh.

Feel free to pose them again.

 

[prometeus]

First ofall "completely functioning and fully developed organs" is not a requirement for an organism to be recognized for the organism that it is. (strawman deconstructed).

You haven't deconstructed anything. Where did I mention the drivel you re attributing to me? How about NO ORGANS?

Secondly, an "insignificant" life is still a "life."

So what? The tree that became the 2 X 4 in your hose was a life too as was the cow that became the burger I had for lunch.

A life whose "significance" may be highly subjective to some,

BINGO. You hold it to be sacred, good for you, I do not care, just do not force that upon anyone else.

... but such determinatios are not relevant to the fact that it's a "life."

And yet again, so what?

 

[Kant]

The 'reproduction' requirement is always a silly one - it implies that anyone who has been castrated is no longer 'alive'. With regards to the others, though - 'potential' to do something cannot count, seeing as sperm and eggs fall into the category of 'potential'.

The thing is, though, that it falls under the same definition of what scientist (and you) used for life. It is debatable if you agree with that facet of the definition or not, but the fact that it falls under the definition that you want to use means it cannot be ignored. I disagree that the castrated issue negates it, as that person still had the biological ability to reproduce, just an outside source (like a knife) prevented it. The person originally had the capatacity to reproduce. The sperm and egg, independently, are merely cells -- when they combine, however, that is when the potential occurrs (or so my stance goes).

Ah, almost forgot. The basic functions. It basically goes back to my previous paragraph that as soon as the sperm and egg fertalize and begin the process of development. So, to answer your question, when growth to become a fully developed human begins is the basic function.

 

[Chuz Life]

You haven't deconstructed anything. Where did I mention the drivel you re attributing to me? How about NO ORGANS?

As much as I like guitars and drums,... some songs just wouldn't be the same without some good organ music.

What?? oh....

As far as "organisms" goes and how they are defined?

"Any living thing" That's pretty incusive.

"Has or will have organs, organelles,.. etc...." That too is pretty inclusive.

I don't see how those definitions support yourclaims and not my own.

 

[iangb]

Sperm shows me up how?

And,.... as for your other questions?

I don't recall you posig your comments that you want me to respond to in the form of a question.

Maybe you did. Meh.

Feel free to pose them again.

Sperm is alive, yes? Which makes it (in your view) an 'insignificant' life - but one that is undeniably a life. Just like me and zygotes.

As for my questions: look here. Feel free to call them 'challenegs', if the lack of a question mark offends you.

 

[Chuz Life]

Sperm is alive, yes? Which makes it (in your view) an 'insignificant' life - but one that is undeniably a life. Just like me and zygotes.

STOP!

Did you just admit concede that a zygote is an organism?

 

[Chuz Life]

As for my questions: look here. Feel free to call them 'challenegs', if the lack of a question mark offends you.

Actually, I prefer you pose your talking points that you want me to address,.... in the form of a question.

 

[iangb]

STOP!

Did you just admit concede that a zygote is an organism?

...no? How did you read that from my post?

I said zygotes were alive - just like sperm. Nothing else.

Actually, I prefer you pose your talking points that you want me to address,.... in the form of a question.

One of those already is a question. As for the others - my points are there. Whether you prefer them to be worded in a different way or not doesn't change that fact.

 

[Chuz Life]

...no? How did you read that from my post?

I said zygotes were alive - just like sperm. Nothing else.

One of those already is a question. As for the others - my points are there. Whether you prefer them to be worded in a different way or not doesn't change that fact.

It will have to be later,... I have a date with a married woman.

 

[iangb]

The thing is, though, that it falls under the same definition of what scientist (and you) used for life. It is debatable if you agree with that facet of the definition or not, but the fact that it falls under the definition that you want to use means it cannot be ignored. I disagree that the castrated issue negates it, as that person still had the biological ability to reproduce, just an outside source (like a knife) prevented it. The person originally had the capatacity to reproduce. The sperm and egg, independently, are merely cells -- when they combine, however, that is when the potential occurrs (or so my stance goes).

I'm not sure there is a decent definition for 'life'. There's a big difference between the scientific 'life' that we use when talking about cells, and the 'life' of an individual person. For example, a corpse attached to a life support machine can be composed mainly of living cells. And, as you say, there's all sorts of issues with 'reproduction', etc.

As far as I see it, a sperm needs an egg to go on and become a zygote, which needs a uterine wall to fuse with and become an embryo, which needs.... it's all just steps in the chain.

Ah, almost forgot. The basic functions. It basically goes back to my previous paragraph that as soon as the sperm and egg fertalize and begin the process of development. So, to answer your question, when growth to become a fully developed human begins is the basic function.

Ah, fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with you, but... fair enough.

EDIT:

It will have to be later,... I have a date with a married woman.

Enjoy!

 

[Bodi]

I see that the point went over your head. Perhaps I should have included ALL instances that we take life instead of limiting it to just food.
But even without that, it is still OK to kill only for reasons YOU find justifiable?

Over my head? Please tell me that you are joking. Perhaps you did not read my response well enough, becuase I clearly discuss ALL instances when I discuss the food chain and ALL animal life. Miss that part? hmmm?

 

[iangb]

Over my head? Please tell me that you are joking. Perhaps you did not read my response well enough, becuase I clearly discuss ALL instances when I discuss the food chain and ALL animal life. Miss that part? hmmm?

See, now I can't decide what's satire and what isn't....

 

[prometeus]

STOP!

Did you just admit concede that a zygote is an organism?

Of course it is a ****ing organism. Can you show anyone denying that?

 

[iangb]

Of course it is a ****ing organism. Can you show anyone denying that?

*raises hand*

Depends on your definition of 'organism'. If you want to define a sperm cell as one, you can define a zygote as one - but strictly speaking, I don't think that's the case.

You can see here for my reasons.

 

[prometeus]

*raises hand*

Depends on your definition of 'organism'. If you want to define a sperm cell as one, you can define a zygote as one - but strictly speaking, I don't think that's the case.

You can see here for my reasons.

Fair enough. Loose interpretation of something living that will continue to live under certain circumstances. The way I look at it is that it is NOT really "non-organism."

 

[iangb]

Fair enough. Loose interpretation of something living that will continue to live under certain circumstances. The way I look at it is that it is NOT really "non-organism."

Aye, but so is anything alive - hence the 'sperm' comment.

I see it more (at that point) as 'part of the mother', as opposed to 'a separate organism within her'.

Semantics shepantics. I'm only careful to be precise because Chuz will equivocate at me if I'm not.