An Unborn Child is in Fact, Human

[CyberGnu]

Akka, good postings, excellent language, logical reasoning. Glad to have you here.

[CyberGnu]

Ramo, I think you are to quick to say 'semantics'. I understand how you feel, it is incredibly annoying to be answered with a semantic argument, but in this case it might really be confusion.

I think english is a particularly unsuitable language to conduct this debate in... Or any language, where human is both an adjective and a noun.

Several posters have already tried to clear up the difference between 'human ' and 'a human', but it apparently haven't registered...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Prayer before birth

I am not yet born; O hear me.
Let not the bloodsucking bat or the rat or the stoat or the
club-footed ghoul come near me.

I am not yet born, console me.
I fear that the human race may with tall walls wall me,
with strong drugs dope me, with wise lies lure me,
on black racks rack me, in blood-baths roll me.

I am not yet born; provide me
With water to dandle me, grass to grow for me, trees to talk
to me, sky to sing to me, birds and a white light
in the back of my mind to guide me.

I am not yet born; forgive me
For the sins that in me the world shall commit, my words
when they speak to me, my thoughts when they think me,
my treason engendered by traitors beyond me,
my life when they murder by means of my
hands, my death when they live me.

I am not yet born; rehearse me
In the parts I must play and the cues I must take when
old men lecture me, bureaucrats hector me, mountains
frown at me, lovers laugh at me, the white
waves call me to folly and the desert calls
me to doom and the beggar refuses
my gift and my children curse me.

I am not yet born; O hear me,
Let not the man who is beast or who thinks he is God
come near me.

I am not yet born; O fill me
With strength against those who would freeze my
humanity, would dragoon me into a lethal automaton,
would make me a cog in a machine, a thing with
one face, a thing, and against all those
who would dissipate my entirety, would
blow me like thistledown hither and
thither or hither and thither
like water held in the
hands would spill me.

Let them not make me a stone and let them not spill me.
Otherwise kill me.

- Louis MacNiece.

[Sava]

He loses an argument, so he puts me on his ignore list...

Way to go Cloud9!

[Jaakko]

Gah, this thread degenerated fast, I think I've been too much on Straight Dope...

But now I have to go murder some unborn babies, as my lord Satan commands.

Edit: I'd still like an answer to the following question from Cloud9:

Since you want to make abortion illegal, what should be the proper punishment for doing such a deed?

What should be done with pregnant women who want an abortion regardless of the law forbidding it?

[Boris Godunov]

Sava, you're surprised? See the Noah's Ark thread. I showed how the person he was believing was a con artist and how the whole thing was a crock. Didn't insult him, mind you. So he put me on ignore, just because he didn't like what he heard. It's his tactic. That way he can stay secure and snug in his blindly dogmatic beliefs without ever having to worry about if they make a bit of sense or not...

[DarthVeda]

I seem to recall something about a letter from Peter telling his associates to bless those who welcomed the message of Christ, and to simply dust off their feet and walk onwards from those who refused to accept it. I think that cloud9 is exercising the second option.

[Gibsie]

One thing on the issue of "responsibility"... if people have to take responsiblity and live with the consequences of their actions, this would mean that if a woman gets into bed with a man and has sex, she must live with the consequences, and should be denied an abortion if she wants. But what if that same pregnant woman gets into a car, and crashes it? Must she still live with the consequences of her actions there, and thus if her unborn child sustains fatal injuries, it ought be left to die..?

Funny thing, that responsibility. =o

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If it sustains fatal injuries it's going to die whether she accepts the consequences or not.

[DarthVeda]

Now the only problem I have with making abortion illegal is that women will still want to have it done anyway, the only difference is that there will no longer be regulated profesionals doing it.

So it's a Catch 22 situation...

[November Adam]

Wow, gone for a couple of days and look whats happened.

UR, I'm not sure how you can compare a zygote with a sperm? I understand that a sperm is alive, but for its own reproductive purposes its ineret. It does not split and devlope further, it is a single cell that will always be a single cell. Same with the egg, as a cell it is inert, it is the combination of the two cells that creates a reaction. Sure we are now develoing methods where the sperm is not a necessary method to transfer DNA into the egg, but that doesn't mean that other cells are the same as a zygote, maybe the same a sperm, but they are different anyways.

When scientists wish to create an embryo, they have to create a zygote first. If scientists wish to create a fetus they must create a zygote first. If scientists wish to create an infant they must create a zygote first. After creating the zygote they only have to nuture it with its biological requirements for it to devlope further. All of these stages are biological steps of one organisms life cycle. They are all part of that one organism. When an organism is required to take its biological requirements from a host it doesn't change that it is still an individual organism.

A zygote isn't an organ of the mothers, it IS the new organism, as long as everything works out, it will continue to develope. It will devlope a organs, nervous system, and a sense of self identity. We are all zygotes plus a few days.

I will ask whats the value of sentience? many of my fellow debators are saying that is what is of value, not the sack of cells we live in.

What if I disagree, what if what I put a value on is not only the sentience, but the sack of cells that provides a home for it. For in fact, sentience is a product of that sack of cells. What if I put a value on a human being able to have protection of itself from the beginning of its lifecylce?

I don't like the whole concept of "person" as it is often those who are in a majority who get to dictate what a "person" is. Try as you might, biologically humans start the same way, we all start as a zygote.

[Akka]

Thanks Cybergnu

Considering that no pro-lifer were able to disprove anything, and that Cloud9, who STARTED the topic, fled in the warm blind faith that allows him not to deal with anything but his fanatism, I suppose that the argument has been won by pro-choicers.

As usual.


Still, if someone still think that abortion is bad, I gladly wait him to prove it.
If he refuses to, then he's considering abortion bad just because it's convenient for him, hence he's an hypocrite.
If he can't, then perhaps he should wonder if he was not wrong about it.
If he can, I'm ready to stand corrected.

[November Adam]

Akka, please respond to my post...

If you choose not to put any value on the physical aspects of our species, than of course their is nothing wrong with abortion.

If you do then, there is something wrong with abortion.

Akka a humans life begins as a zygote, if you terminate its devlopment you have killed a human.

[Akka]

Originally posted by November Adam
UR, I'm not sure how you can compare a zygote with a sperm? I understand that a sperm is alive, but for its own reproductive purposes its ineret. It does not split and devlope further, it is a single cell that will always be a single cell. Same with the egg, as a cell it is inert, it is the combination of the two cells that creates a reaction. Sure we are now develoing methods where the sperm is not a necessary method to transfer DNA into the egg, but that doesn't mean that other cells are the same as a zygote, maybe the same a sperm, but they are different anyways.

I can ask : how can you compare a zygote with a full human being ? A human does not split and develop further.
Do you consider an egg to be a chicken ?
No, it has the potential to be, but it's still not.

A zygote isn't an organ of the mothers, it IS the new organism, as long as everything works out, it will continue to develope. It will devlope a organs, nervous system, and a sense of self identity. We are all zygotes plus a few days.

We are all spermatozoid + egg + a few days. Why limiting it to the zygote ?

And why do the fact that the zygote is an independant organ matter ? A heart can survive and be an independant organ if extracted from the chest of someone and put in an adequate environment that nurturish it. Just as a zygote survives when put in an adequate environment that nurturish it (the womb).

One can develop in a baby in the future, the other cannot. But until it develops, both are the same.

I will ask whats the value of sentience? many of my fellow debators are saying that is what is of value, not the sack of cells we live in.

What if I disagree, what if what I put a value on is not only the sentience, but the sack of cells that provides a home for it. For in fact, sentience is a product of that sack of cells. What if I put a value on a human being able to have protection of itself from the beginning of its lifecylce?

If you put value on the pack of cells that provides a home for the sentience, there is two cases :

1) you put value BECAUSE it provides a home for the sentience. Hence, the only value it has comes from this sentience. Hence, without the sentience it has no value. Hence, destroying it if there is no sentience is okay. Hence, abortion is ok.

2) you put value independantly of the existence of this sentience, and you consider that this pack of cells has a value of its own. Then I ask : "why ?". If it just need to be a pack of cell, then any part of the body should have the same value, hence a finger could be considered as a human being.
Which is absurd.

I don't like the whole concept of "person" as it is often those who are in a majority who get to dictate what a "person" is. Try as you might, biologically humans start the same way, we all start as a zygote.

The "person" is the basis of any moral system : if you don't hurt anyone, it's not something bad. Nobody consider it bad to break a stone or slash in water, because you don't hurt anyone. Nobody consider bad to cut one of your own limb, because you hurt only yourself. What is considered bad is to hurt someone else, as a person.
If you deny the value of the person, then you deny the entire moral system.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I can ask : how can you compare a zygote with a full human being ? A human does not split and develop further.
Do you consider an egg to be a chicken ?
No, it has the potential to be, but it's still not.

humans are always developing, and splitting. The zygote is the name for the whole human at that stage. Same with an adult, this is the name for the whole organism.

The organism within the egg shell is a chicken.

We are all spermatozoid + egg + a few days. Why limiting it to the zygote ?

the reason I limit to zygote is that, given the resources to survive a zygote will continue to develope, a sperm, or an egg will not, it will stay exactly as it is.

And why do the fact that the zygote is an independant organ matter ? A heart can survive and be an independant organ if extracted from the chest of someone and put in an adequate environment that nurturish it. Just as a zygote survives when put in an adequate environment that nurturish it (the womb).

One can develop in a baby in the future, the other cannot. But until it develops, both are the same.

First the zygote isn't an independent organ, it is an organism. The difference is that an organ is a part of the whole, and an organism is the whole.

A good comparision of a zygote, embryo, fetus, would be that of an astronaut on a space walk or a scuba diver. Not that of a zygote and an organ, as they are two different things entirely.

If you put value on the pack of cells that provides a home for the sentience, there is two cases :

1) you put value BECAUSE it provides a home for the sentience. Hence, the only value it has comes from this sentience. Hence, without the sentience it has no value. Hence, destroying it if there is no sentience is okay. Hence, abortion is ok.

2) you put value independantly of the existence of this sentience, and you consider that this pack of cells has a value of its own. Then I ask : "why ?". If it just need to be a pack of cell, then any part of the body should have the same value, hence a finger could be considered as a human being.
Which is absurd.

I put value on the body due to the fact that it is a shell for sentience. I also think that it is necessary to protect the shell when we know that sentience will be present.
We know that sentience will be present as we are in such a rush to terminate prior to that point.

The "person" is the basis of any moral system : if you don't hurt anyone, it's not something bad. Nobody consider it bad to break a stone or slash in water, because you don't hurt anyone. Nobody consider bad to cut one of your own limb, because you hurt only yourself. What is considered bad is to hurt someone else, as a person.
If you deny the value of the person, then you deny the entire moral system.

Fair enough.