First of all, just because the government says something, doesn't make it true. Otherwise, no one would advocate for any type of reform of the government, and this entire website would be void. Second, it's not even consistent legally -- if you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with two murders. In this case, it seems you should only be arguing based off of the second principle that I laid out in my OP instead of the first. The woman has the right to expel the fetus. Also, if you believe that personhood begins at birth, and personhood is the only relevant factor, you should not use the word "fetus/foetus." Since this literally translates to "a very young one," by using the term, you're implicitly conceding that the baby within the womb is at an early stage of development as opposed to not being developed yet. I guess you still don't get my point. Pure and simple, saying "that's the way it's always been" cannot be used as an argument because that would mean slavery would be justifiable 200 years ago. Get it now? If you read my OP... The one from the abortion. I never said this nor implied it.
So your position was dumb. Given that none of us hold such a dumb position, why should we care that your logic was faulty? No wonder you turned pro-life, given your fondness for bad logic. Question begging fallacy on your part, declaring that what you want to be a "human being" is a "human being", and everything else isn't. You don't get to define yourself as correct, no matter how much you wish you could. As you do. Stop pretending that you don't. Your standards are entirely subjective, so you have no business lecturing anyone on that point. Ah, a PETA freak! You are using _exactly_ the same argument as the PETA freaks use to prove that "meat is murder". Thus, to be consistent, a pro-lifer must be a vegetarian. (I have difficulty telling pro-lifers and PETA freaks apart, given that both use their wacky subjective standards to declare I'm a murderer.) You need to explain why the subjective standards of the PETA freaks can be discarded, but why your similar subjective standards should be the law of the land, even if those standards contradict common sense, good morality and the long history of human tradition. Anti-slavery advocates met that challenge. You haven't even come close. (Insert PETA scare tactics here, thus again proving that, by your standards, meat is murder.)
Yes, I agree that is a stupid anomaly that makes no sense. The law doesn't apply in Britain, or anywhere else in Europe. In all other ways, a foetus is not a person. That is true. Have it expelled, yes. That makes no difference. The medical term for an unborn human entity from the 12th week of pregnancy until birth is foetus. I shall continue to use it. I get your argument. I always have. Well, slavery was justifiable 200 years ago, wasn't it? Yes you did.
So, if you're basing your argument off of the second principle, it should be irrelevant whether or not the fetus is a person. WHAT? When/where?
I commend you for making the distinction between a human being that exists and a human being that does not (Potential to exist). The majority of anti abortionists do not make it this far. IMO it would seem there are good arguments that can be made on the basis of potential but I have not heard any as of yet. What you have not done however is justify your conclusion. How do we value this "potential" such that termination of this potential is equivalent to murder ?
Compare it to a living cell then. Heart cell, skin cell, and so forth. Lib's argument is valid, he/she just used the wrong type of cell. You make the same argument in the end "potential", but give no support for your claim. A baby does not exist at the single cell zygote stage so it is hard to claim outright that destroying of a zygote is killing a baby simply because one can not kill something that does not exist. I think there are good arguments that can be made on the basis of "potential" but none are given.
I gave the pro-choice principles in the beginning of the post, and gave a little description of what the pro-choicers typically say. However, I showed the fact that a zygote is a human being in my OP.
I did not read down far enough the first time. My bad. First I would like to comment on the video. It is really disingenuous and contains almost no support for your claim. The only subject matter expert (the geneticist - doctors do not count) claims that life exists at conception. Well of course it does. There is no argument here. The claim that no "expert" testified that "life did not begin at conception" is also patently false. Life must exist prior to conception because only life begets life. (what is likely meant is "life of a human begins") The vast majority ( I have not heard of one that does not but Im sure on exists) of biologists that I can find, claim the zygote is not a human/Homo sapien and I have posted these references numerous times. Now to comment on your argument " the zygote is in the early stages of human development" This is a false use of words. "Human development" is the science that looks at all aspects of the development of a human, including the steps that lead up to the creation of a human. You are confusing "human development" with developing into a human. "the fetus is at a very young stage of human development" .. something has to be human first before it can develop. It is a stage of "human development" only because the science of "human development" considers the processes which lead to the creation of a human and this does "NOT" make the zygote a human. Dictionary definitions are of no value to the discussion because these often consist of common language usage. Understanding what someone means when they use a word. For example "with child" means a the person speaking means the woman is pregnant. The fact that a dictionary points this out does not mean that a child literally exists. Arbitrary. There is some arbitraryness as the fetus aquires more an more traits of a human. "How many traits is enough" ? It is clear however that the zygote does not have enough so this is not as arbitrary as one might think. It is true that landmarks such as a beating heart or significant brain function have bit of a fuzzy timeline, but what we can say for sure is that a zygote has neither so this is absolutely not arbitrary.
Could you link me to where you put these references? I have never heard of any expert claiming that a zygote is not human, so this will be very interesting to see. By claiming that dictionary definitions don't matter, are you talking about what "fetus" actually means? It's a fact that "fetus" is a latin term and translates to "a very young one." If you want to claim that the fetus is not a fetus, and all the experts who use the term are wrong, then you can do that, but pro-choicers should not use the word "fetus" if they think that the fetus is not yet in the human development process. How exactly is the zygote not developing, by the way? The multiplying of the cells happens almost instantly, so claiming that there is no development is quite absurd. Brain function and beating hearts is what makes someone human? What if someone is under surgery and they need to replace the heart? Does the patient seize to be a human being, and therefore can be killed, when the heart is removed?
I did. I pointed out that your argument depends entirely on you subjectively defining a fertilized egg as a human being, which is absurd, as well as something new in human history. So, I destroyed the basis of your argument. You don't get to define yourself as correct, any more than PETA does. Since you seem unwilling to explain why your self-serving subjective definitions should be accepted as truth, I conclude your argument can be discarded as nonsense, no matter how many appeals to authority you make in its defense. Given that you are spouting nonsense, a more interesting topic of discussion is why so many libertarians spout such similar nonsense. I surmise that it's because of the overwhelming political correctness which runs rampant in libertarianism, where mantras are now more important than common sense. Good libertarians must now oppose abortion to remain in good standing with the others, so they go seeking reasons to oppose abortion. Being unable to find any good ones, they justify settling for bad reasons.
Being "human" does not make something "a human" or "a human being" or "a person". If you won't distinguish between nouns and adjectives, there's little point in speaking with you. Got anything to offer besides the standard pro-life equivocation fallacy?
I showed how the scientific status of a human being is an objective matter in my OP, hence my suspicion that you read it.
This is from Dana Kremples, PH.D Biologist at the University of Miami. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Classification-Homo-Sapien-cells.htm . Not only does Dana claim that zygote is not a human being, but she further claims that this is not even a debate in serious scientific circles. I have other comments and journal articles from experts like this but have yet to ever see any Biologist claim that a zygote is a Homo sapien. There is a difference between development of an already existing organism and developing into something. One needs to be careful not to confuse the word usage. Being a stage of development of a human does not make that something "a human" Of course a fetus is "a fetus", but that does not make it "a human", nor does a really old latin terminology that appears to make your case. Much in Science is "by convention". Terms that we have used for hundreds of years in science and so forth are not generally changed just because there is a minute flaw in the "latin meaning" of the definition. The word empirical is derived from the latin word empiric. Empiric can mean a charlaton or quack .. something that based on falsehood or a trick, when the definition of empirical is something that is absolutely verifiable. You missed the point being made but to answer your question, no living human exists without a heart or significant brain function. This is a silly argument because the human already exists in one case and not in the other. Switching a part out of that existing human, complete with memories, life experience and so forth, is not comparable to a zygote not even having a heart, nor ever having had any attributes we consider human. For a brief instant the patient does indeed die and ceases to be a living human. When the new heart is replaced we bring the person back to life. If the heart is not replaced the patient is dead. The reason we value bringing the patient back to life is for reasons given above .. memories, past experience, and all the other things that are valued about this person. The zygote has no such value .. it has never had any of the things we value about being a human.
Since a zygote is not even available for abortion until it becomes a pre-embryonic blastocyst that is starting to attach itself to the endometrium, that term should be dispensed with when discussing abortion. It tends to place minimal value on a developing human life which is what the pro-aborters want.
If we can not get the beginning of the discussion right they there is little point in discussing anything afer that until such time as the fetus aquires significant brain function (or some other criteria we set as being necessary for a human being to exist) The blastocyst ends up as the placenta. None of those cells will even be part of the "potential human" being created. It is the embryoblast which is the cells that will go on to form the human. Even the term "pre-embryonic" refers to this. The are no cells which will be part of the eventual born human at the blastocyst stage. It is a hollow sphere of cells inside of which the embryoblast will form. If you do not want to talk about the zygote, what then do you think are the major criteria for assessment of whether or not an entity is "a human". Give a few traits or attributes that you think are minimally required ? (eyes, heart, human DNA, and so on) Rather than playing word games actually define some of the traits that make something "a human" in your opinion. Use any traits or characteristics you wish as many or as minimally as you like. Then we can look at a fetus, zygote, or blastocyst and say .. does this fit the definition created.
My point is that the zygote is not even available for abortion therefore to use that term is misleading. By the time the zygote has evolved to a blastocyst it is already past several stages of development. Trying to make it a human being only obfuscates the fact that it is still a developing human life. Abortion ends that life. If one wants to rationalize the taking of that human life-force under the guise of it not being a human being then one is ignoring the whole process that would have lead to that zygote becoming a human being. The point is there are pro-abortion folks right here on the Forum that continually refer to a 'zygote' or 'zef' when discussing abortion. That is misleading. A zygote cannot be aborted unless in the fairly rare case of a tubal pregnancy when a zygote-blastocyst tries to attach itself to the fallopian tube.
Several stages of blastocyst development. Big deal. No a single cell that will be part of the eventual human has been created. Of course it is "human life". Same as every cell. Why do you persist in trying to compare "human life" to the "life of a human". That is the only obfucation here. If you want to defend Potential .. then come up with arguments that defend potential. I agree that there is "potential", and I think one could make some interesting arguments in relation to potential. I just have not seen any yet. I am fine with not talking about the zygote at all ! The fact of the matter is that the Pro-Life camp has claimed the zygote is a human being so that anything after that is a human being so all abortion is killing a human being. It is the Pro life that makes these silly claims .. not the pro choice side. If you want to forgo zygote convo, then come up with a definition of human being and then try and validate it. What is about being a "human being" that humans value ? What do we find valuable about humans that a human should have rights including the right to life.
Ah, yes, that one online forum post that every pro-choicer seems to rely so heavily on. Many, many experts testified that a zygote is a human being. I'm going to pose a question to you which you posed to someone else: "what then do you think are the major criteria for assessment of whether or not an entity is 'a human'"?
But without that development no human cell COULD be created and not human being would be produced. You are still ignoring that from conception the human life process is on-going. A zygote is not the same as every cell. There is a unique replication process involved that will eventually create a unique human being. Seems to me YOU are the one obfuscating. You mean like an abortion effectively kills the human life process? Actually I have found that most pro-aborters make the leap to 'human being' when the subject of developing human life is set before them claiming that the pro-lifer is referring to a human being. That being said lets get to the heart of the matter. Abortion destroys an embryo which is a developing human life therefore precluding the emergence of a human being. True or False?
No exactly, I am simply asking, what is special about human life? Well lets beign with the first one questioned above.
No. if it was a person, then she would not be able to expel it. It would have the right to life that would override her right to bodily sovereignty. Why do you think some states are trying to give unborn human entities personhood status? I beg your pardon. I was confusing you with a different poster.
I have other good sources as well. The fact that folks use it so much does not make it a bad source. What makes it a good source is as follows. 1) It is a "subject matter expert" (SME) meaning from the field of Biology. Doctors are not. They take very little biology and certainly very little in relation to how to define a zygote. Any second year biology student has more. It is just not what they do. 2) the SME has a name and a place of work which means this persons reputation is at stake. Therefor, claims such as "this is not even considered serious debate - and no members of the Scientific community that I know of" are not likely frivolous on the basis of "reputation". Dana is also a Ph.D and a prof which is a highly political position. 3) the source is not from a biased web site. This does not mean the expert is not biased .. but at least we start off on the right path. 4) Last and most important. Dana explains the "why". There is a reason why a zygote is not classified as a Homo sapien and this reason is given. This does not mean the reason is valid ! It does however offer you the opportunity challenge the rational by making a counter argument. The giving of the "why" is critical. If the why is not given it is just an appeal to "authority" which is a logical fallacy. Compare this to your source: 1) Biased - it is an anti abortion website and the author is clearly biased 2) Full of claims from Doctors .. Appeal to an authority that is not an authority ?? 3) Bill 185 is talked about but none of the particulars that would make this valid are given. Jesse Helms - biased, Republican Senate - biased Who did they invite to speak ? If it was anything like when Bush changed the personhood definition the hearings were a joke because no valid SME's were allowed to speak. 4) Last and most important. The "Why" is not given. The citations from the folks who testified are full of ambiguous language. Scientists do not speak like this. They do not use terms like "human life" when they mean "a human" specifically (not including other forms of human life such as a heart cell or a sperm) If there was a well reasoned argument given at the S-185 hearings then why is it not given ? If I had invested enough time to set up an anti-abortion website and there was a valid "why" .. why is this well reasoned rational argument not given ?
You keep making the "potential" argument which is fine but why does "potential" matter. How do we value this potential or why does constitutes a valid argument for personhood/ recognizing rights and so forth. Then point out the obfuscation ?? The zygote is different only in that it is in the process of creating a human and so there is a potential that a human will be created. What is missing is why rights should be accorded or respected on the basis of "potential". It terminates "human life processes of cell" .. which is a fancy way of saying that it terminates a human cell that is in the process creating a human so the creation process is terminated. I have no clue why this matters. I am not "most". False: the embryo is not "a human life" developing or otherwise. It is developing into a human. It is not "a human" It is true that termination precludes the emergence of a human being.
