Here was my reply to the OP. I provide a clear timeline of 'when', & i provide the reasoning for 'why'.
I distorted nothing. YOU made it look like you were demeaning women as objects, whether you know it or not. But women are higher-order mammals. They have brains to determine how they want to use their own bodies. It's true millions of women have been forced to use their bodies against their will, but we have progressed beyond that. And millions of women have died an early death in poverty because they were forced to suffer perpetual pregnancy. Do you think abortion is a new invention? Knowledgeable women have been aborting for as long as there have been unwanted pregnancies. Pregnancy/childbirth is a life altering experience that risks a woman's health and life, and permanently damages her body. It is not an "inconvenience." But then, you would never demean women, would you?
Good deflections. When life begins is the topic, not the history of women's oppression, or how to distract from the central issue with ad hominems & hysteria.
My post was a direct response to your points. If my post was off-topic, yours had to be. But, congrats, you have successfully avoided addressing my points, which were free from ad homs and hysteria, btw.
It's not a different topic. What we're discussing is when life deserves protection under the law. From a humanistic point of view, I understand why you consider human beings to be set apart from other living creatures. But from a biological standpoint, there is no difference. Life is life. A beating heart in a pig performs the same functions as a beating heart in a human. Conception, implantation, and fetal development all follow roughly the same pattern in mammals. When you chip away the one thing that sets apart humans from other animals, their sentience and brain power, there is little difference at all between a human being and any other mammal you could choose. The same life processes lead to that lifeform being what it is. Human beings are exponentially more similar to other mammals than they are different. So there needs to be a basis on which a person judges that human beings are worthy of protections under the law, protections like anti-abortion laws when other mammals are not. I can have my dog put to sleep if or when I choose. Obviously we do not afford dogs the same legal protections that we do a human being despite being more similar in our biology than we are different. What I'm saying is, there has to be a reason that we afford human beings more rights than we do other living things if we're going to use biology as a basis for an argument. Tradition is never an argument for continuing a law or practice, especially one that infringes upon the bodily rights of women. The unborn child, as OkGrannie mentioned earlier, can only be implanted on a uterine wall once. That makes the woman whose uterus this occurs on the one specific woman in the entire universe who that fetus now relies on. In the cases of surrogacy, yes you can choose which woman is going to be that specific person, but once that choice is made the fetus is in the same position of necessity that it is when we're talking about traditional conception through sexual intercourse. Surrogacy simply adds an extra step, it doesn't change the process. It's the same debate because you're arguing this from a biological standpoint using biological processes that are present in other forms of mammalian life. Again here, tradition is not a valid argument for a law. You must demonstrate logically why anti-abortion laws should be in existence. You're approaching this from a biological standpoint but you're automatically excluding non-human mammalian life as if that is a given. I argue that it is not from a biological standpoint. I do not believe human beings have an inherent right to be dominant over other forms of life. We do not have some kind of cosmic mandate to rule over the lesser forms of life. We do it because we can, because we're the apex predator on this planet. So right there we are arbitrarily deciding what forms of life are worthy of protection and what forms are not, with 99.99% of life falling into the latter category. I'm okay with it working that way but it doesn't mean I'm not aware of the arbitrary nature of the whole deal. It's not a burning question for society because people are just fine with double standards even when they contradict their own arguments. Arguing from a biological standpoint that human life deserves protections while other forms of life do not is simply deciding that because we're human, we're automatically right about it. We get to set the rules. But if you're going to argue using biology, you can't just dismiss inconvenient biological truths just because they muddy up the argument you're trying to make. I'm not sure how the laws work concerning surrogacy and abortion, but the way I feel they should work is that once the surrogate mother is pregnant, she becomes the arbiter of that pregnancy. There may be contracts involved where the surrogate(of her own free will) may agree not to have an abortion, and penalties if she does, but the law should not(if it does) prohibit her from choosing abortion simply because she's not the biological mother of the fetus. The fetus is in her body connected to her relying upon her for everything, and once implanted in her body she is the only person in the universe that can do that. My conclusions here are that your arguments are invalid because you rule out all other non-human forms of life while at the same time arguing that biological processes that occur in all those forms of life are what warrant protection for human fetuses.
Already replied to on numerous occasions by numerous people, you just choose to ignore those responses and project your own inability to answer the rebuttals onto others . .a form of deflection. So instead of your continuous deflection why don't you answer the points made? already answered as There are a number of various ideologies concerning this and so far subject matter experts cannot agree, my personal opinion is when there is consistent brain wave activity. this is the only point that it can be shown that a fetus has the brain attributes of a born person. If you take the pro-life position of person (a human(noun) being) from conception then you open up the legal challenges involved with the restrictions placed on all human (noun) beings-being used in defence of legal elective abortion and the states having to pay for those abortions. Furthermore you also open up the challenge of abortion being legally available right up to birth. Pro-lifers in favour of the person at conception ideology tend to ignore or dismiss the restrictions on that status.
I like your responses, clear and without delving into religious ideology which is more than can be said for your opponent. From the OP itself that poster has veered away from the original remit they set into various other arguments related to religion and legalities, when this has been pointed out to them they resort to accusing others of being off topic while it was them that initially went off topic in the first place.
Haven't you realised that the poster can say what ever they wish, but should you or I or others refute them then we are the ones who are off-topic, when in fact it is them that pushed the topic away from their own remit. From the OP itself the author went into subjects away from the "discussion as a scientific one" The author of this thread is one of the most disingenuous, projecting and deflecting authors I have seen in a very long time.
this is true of all life that reproduces the way we do, so what is it that gives humans the "upper hand" to say that human reproduction is any different on a scientific bases than any other life, and as such deserving of greater protection and I remind you your answer requires to be based in science as per your OP. Even in surrogacy once the decision has been made as to who will be the surrogate, the process of gestation is exactly the same as when the "surrogate" is the biological "mother", the reliance is still on a single person with no possibility (yet) of another person taking their place. As a "bolt on point" I assume you, as a person at conception pro-lifer, are against IVF, as IVF kills more 'people' than it produces. No you are wrong, individual life is a continuation of a set of processes, miss any of those processes and the life never exists. There would be no individual person without sperm or ovum. Based on your ideology of conception being the start of an individual, we most certainly can reproduce this in a laboratory, fertilization happens outside of the natural environment in every case of IVF and there have also been experiments of fertilization without the requirement of the sperm - http://news.sciencemag.org/2001/07/egg-fertilized-without-sperm and while this experimentation is still in it's infancy it shows that your comment is in fact incorrect. Add to this the introduction of a third persons DNA into the fertilization process - http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-1 - it would appear that a male and female organism are NOT the only ways for producing life.
It should be obvious that anything before conception is out, and there is evidence aplenty of late term fetuses having human perception. Where in that interval the answer lies nobody knows; but I would suggest that anyone who believes brain activity is a necessary condition of personhood look into the case of Zack Dunlap, who claimed to have heard his physician pronounce him dead by virtue of absence of brain activity. Who in Hell do you think you're kidding?
Zack Dunlap was already born. Using him as an example about abortion, which only deals with the unborn, is silly. Zack Dunlap possessed the ability to have brain function. Whether he had it at the time of the claim about hearing his physician is moot because he had it prior. The same cannot be said about a fetus who lacks even the ability to have brain function.
A pro-life physician who understands and respects women's bodily integrity and autonomy? That can't be true!
He's just another gutless, lying weasel. No pro-lifer believes a fetus is a parasite - to say nothing of defending abortions at 36 weeks. BTW, it's not at all clear that he's a physician. The by-line says he's an ethics student.
He didn't say "a fetus is a parasite." He said, "A fetus, in a strictly descriptive term, is a parasite, i.e. it exists at the cost of the mother." Are pro-lifers not aware it exists at a cost to the woman? Or do they not care? Right, he said nothing of abortions at 36 weeks, because they don't exist. According to his bio, he is a resident physician and an ethics student. He was published at Kevinmd.com, which is a reputable source. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-ard/71/433/698
You've posted a lot of words, here, but i do not see an answer to the basic question: When & why is a human a protected person? I've restated it from the OP, but it is the same question. Ok, you clarify things better here... though i could do without all the pissy, demeaning remarks. So for you, it is brain activity, because that is how born persons are considered alive. Fine. Thanks for answering the question. We could debate the 'why's, but i don't think you are a pleasant debater, but seem driven to be rude & demeaning. But for a philosophical followup, I think there is a precedent for 'brain activity'. At least in death, it is often used to determine whether someone should be afforded continued life support, so it makes sense to use it in the beginning of life as well... at least as a legal definition of 'life'. Do you think catty remarks like this will draw me into a debate with you? Quite the opposite. I can do the hateful flame war $h*t, but i see it as boring & unproductive, & prefer logic & reason.
To those who believe "it is a human life" at the moment of conception.... does that mean you consider it "murder" if a woman takes an abortifacient one second after fertilization....same as if she had gone out, bought a gun, and shot a kindergartner? If you can't (or won't) answer that question "Yes"....then you are dishonest in your claimed belief. Simple as that.
I invite the peanut gallery to witness the depths of mendacity to which the pro-death crowd is willing to descend.
Answer direct questions with direct answers, yguy...and show your own supposed lack of mendacity. I dare you.
Practice what you preach. Funny that I have exactly the same feelings about you, and please don't try to play the victim here you were the one who started the rude and demeaning remarks not I. The actual precedent for brain death is a well documented procedure, one that is not based on legal standings but on medical ones ie it is left to the expertise of the doctors to make the decision as to when a person is "legally" dead, if the same were to be applied to the start of "legal" life then it would not be until past week 23 of pregnancy. try not to forget your own restrictions on this debate as follows; and then within the same OP you delved into religion and politics; Political - Religious - If you cannot even abide by the restrictions you place then please explain why anyone else should? You took this debate away from your own restrictions and when others question you on those things you cry "deflection" or attempt to paint others as trying to instigate a "hateful flame war $h*t" So WHY don't YOU stick to your own proposal of discussing this issue as a "scientific one" ------------------------------ Still waiting for you responses to the following; This is true of all life that reproduces the way we do, so what is it that gives humans the "upper hand" to say that human reproduction is any different on a scientific bases than any other life, and as such deserving of greater protection and I remind you your answer requires to be based in science as per your OP. Even in surrogacy once the decision has been made as to who will be the surrogate, the process of gestation is exactly the same as when the "surrogate" is the biological "mother", the reliance is still on a single person with no possibility (yet) of another person taking their place. As a "bolt on point" I assume you, as a person at conception pro-lifer, are against IVF, as IVF kills more 'people' than it produces. No you are wrong, individual life is a continuation of a set of processes, miss any of those processes and the life never exists. There would be no individual person without sperm or ovum. Based on your ideology of conception being the start of an individual, we most certainly can reproduce this in a laboratory, fertilization happens outside of the natural environment in every case of IVF and there have also been experiments of fertilization without the requirement of the sperm - http://news.sciencemag.org/2001/07/e...-without-sperm and while this experimentation is still in it's infancy it shows that your comment is in fact incorrect. Add to this the introduction of a third persons DNA into the fertilization process - http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...ist-explains-1 - it would appear that a male and female organism are NOT the only ways for producing life. I'll wait.
Or more correctly the depths that pro-forced birthers are prepared to sink to in order to control others. No where in the item produced does the author state that "a fetus is a parasite" or defend "abortions at 36 weeks." why do you feel the need to misrepresent? Please do provide your proof of the above statement, or do you consider yourself the sole advocate for ALL pro-lifers?
I answered this in the other thread. Yes, it is 'simple', but not the way you try to frame it. You are taking a moral issue, that has had laws for or against it for millennia, & trying to make black & white legislation. But that is not the question: the difficulty in enforcement & wording of an anti abortion law. The deeper question: Is Abortion moral? If it is not.. IF it is the taking of a human life that should be protected, THEN we go to the law crafting process. All you are doing is deflecting with the obviously problematic legal issues.
