Abortion is as unjust as slavery. An American historical perspective.

I do not really know what you mean - death begins at the cellular level. Human cells are dying all the time but, this does not mean the human is dying (other than the obvious fact that we all are dying .. it is just a matter of time). For sure life exists at the cellular level .. every living cell is alive as are sperm and egg.

Experts disagree on "when life begins". Clearly the life of the cell begins when it is formed ... and then ends a few hours later when it divides (ceasing to exist) creating two daughter cells. While this is part of the creation of a human, none of these cells will ever be part of the human being created.

The person will not improve.. it is impossible (so far as we know) that is why they pull the plug. The lights of the xmas tree have gone out and there is no way to turn them back on. The term "pre-born human" is fallacy unless you can show that a human actually exists.

If a pregnancy is allowed to continue the process of creating a human will continue - perhaps to the point of a human actually being created (if all goes well - think there is about a 50% chance).

There would be no human without a sperm... should we start calling them names ? There is no "who" at conception. There is a process that is creating the "Who". At the zygote stage .. not a single cell in that "who" exists. At the point where a few cells do exist .. this is not a "who either". A few heart cells are not a heart.

There is no developing human. There is something that is developing into a human. There is a timeline of development. At some point in that timeline - a human will come into existence. From that time on the human will continue to develop.

Does the human exist without the twinkle in your fathers eye ? There is no developing human at the zygote stage. (until such time as you prove that one exists - or at least make a compelling argument for the existence of a human) Assumed premise fallacy.

It starts with the twinke in your fathers eye Life is a continuum ... animate does not come from inanimate.

I take the neurobiological approach. Personhood can not exist without a brain that is turned on.

The idea that a human can exist without that entity having a brain ... does not resonate with me. The idea that a single human cell = a human. Makes no sense.

Why don't we forget the degrees and go back to kindergarten and play the game "Which one is not like the other" ?
3 pictures .... A human cell, A Man, A Monkey. Which one do you think gets picked by the kinder.

At the end of the day I throw out all the science. As soon as we get to the point of "Experts Disagree" - which is an easily demonstrable fact - the legal pro life argument dies a sudden death.

"Experts Disagree" = "We don't know" The case is one in which the rights of the woman are up against the rights of the zygote.

How do we weigh on the scales of Justice, the rights of each ?
Rights of the woman are highly valued for anyone that has any respect for the principles on which this nation was founded, the constitution, and also from a religious perspective .. The Golden Rule was the rock on which Jesus based his teachings. Do unto others as you would have done to you. If you do not want others forcing you to pass a large object through a small orifice in your body, then you have a moral obligation not to do the same to others.

On the other side we have the Zygote. How do we value "experts disagree"/ "We don't know". Clearly the rights of the women wins.

Some might argue "We don't know otherwise". OK .. does this constitute a valid justification for law ?

Lets test this justification. If we can force a woman to pass large object through small bodily orifice on the basis of "we do not know otherwise".. then How about we pass a law sending Big Bob the Sodomizer over to the homes of those who think "We don't know otherwise" is good justification for law on the basis that "We do not know that treatment by Big Bob will not do these people some good"..

I would argue that Big Bob would do these folks a great deal of good. Very quickly they would realize that "we don't know otherwise" is not such a good justification for law.

 

QUESTION ASKED AND ANSWERED:

● Are Democrats About To Reopen The Party To Pro-Lifers?

—The Federalist, April 21st.

● Unity or else: DNC Chair Tom Perez demands ‘ideological purity’ on abortion from candidates.

—Twitchy, April 22nd.

As Progressive role model Frank Burns once said on M*A*S*H, individuality is fine, as long as we all do it together.

 

Frank Burns was a "progressive" ? Nope.


...I believe all Democrat candidates should be Pro-Choice. There shouldn't be room for those who want to restrict the rights of half the population.....

 

I am not the one trying to force my beliefs onto others. You would force women to give birth only to turn your back once the child is born.

Maybe we can pass a law against homelessness while were at it! [/sarcasm]

 

No. I have no idea what you are on about.

 

Neither does he

 

How does one force their views onto others? By Free Speech? Is that how you see "force" having an"opinion?"

So one can conclude that you're doing nothing for the thousands (foster/adopted) you've questioned me over. But you are doing something...attempting to silence a voice that states what you claim to have in your heart. You are against abortion personally but publicly you promote it. You say that you personally value life but take a public position that the unborn and by extension children not adopted are better off dead. You're not promoting life, instead you make a case to take it. I don't think you are being honest with yourself.

 

You are not in a position to tell anyone to be honest. You claimed to care about these precious human lives, but that turned out to be false. You only seek the appearance of caring. A law against abortion certainly goes beyond free speech and no reasonable person believes that laws will prevent anyone who wants one from getting one. You would only create customers for black market abortion drugs, medical tourism, and high risk procedures performed by unscrupulous, untrained hacks, but no hope for these little lives.

If you really want to make a difference, you can convince someone to let their baby live! You can offer your home, your love, your ability to make someone feel valued, and your commitment. There are not enough people for the amount of unwanted children we have now. What is stopping you?

If you are not willing to take on that much responsibility, maybe you can be a Big Brother and spend a few hours a week with a fatherless child. Anything is better than what you are doing now!

I was supposed to be aborted. My father didn't want another kid and my mother was told that carrying me full-term would be life threatening. She took the risk and here I am. (She did have to have a hysterectomy soon afterwards)

Growing up, I got to see both sides. My mother wanted me enough to risk her own life, and my father wanted nothing to do with me.

The only factor here is the "Unwanted" part of the problem. No progress can be made without addressing the real issue.

My kids know they are wanted and cherished.

 

The death of an organism begins at the cellular level (save exception previously cited), so may we assume, along with our resident expert in two fields of study, that the life of an organism begins at the cellular level?

So there are experts that believe that life begins at the cellular level?

So it is your expert opinion that the development of the organism within the womb has no relation to the organism born or aborted later? The process is segmented and unrelated to the developing organism?

Your brain dead human is not the best comparison as we are comparing end of life with the beginning. Someone who will not continue to develop to someone who is growing and developing.

SO there are experts who disagree and can find a preborn human (in contrast to a preborn giraffe or brussel sprout) in the womb? In your expert opinion what is the point of creation in the life of a human being?

More accurately there is no human without conception or do you know of any "who" who has existed without conception?

So no developing human but then "voila" a human from inhuman appears in an instant?

OK. So human cannot come from inhuman but there is no human in the womb until the "who" appears from the inhuman existing prior...? Confusing.

I would caution, in light of disagreeing experts, calling the death knell on the life begins at conception stance, there may be experts who support just that.

Human vs. the inhuman...not unlike the master's power vs slave's rights (non-existent)

Do no harm to either?

Rights are highly valued, why attach a gender? The Golden Rule, yes. Moral obligation, yes. Free will, yes. Supporting or promoting the destruction of the defenseless, not such a good thing. As you have referenced the Christ; Christian see Jesus as Lord, there before the beginning. As Creation, accepted by Jews and Christians and others, was by God's design, so then, who are we to promote taking or reaping the life during the time and in the place He created to protect, bear and nurture that life?

You may have doubts or other concerns that cause you uncertainty as to when life begins but I'm confident that human life begins at conception.

That is, in my opinion, a vulgar concept. There is a difference, a woman's body is designed for carrying her unborn child. Your sodomy/rape justification/fantasy of women and men who have a pro-life opinion/stance is bizarre Mr. Expert.

 

Serious question. Do you wish that you were aborted?

 

What are you talking about ? Obviously the organism in the womb has a relation to the organism born. That two things are related does not make them the same "unless" you can show that the the two are the same and you have not done so.

Fact: Experts disagree on when human life begins. This does not mean that "none" do not believe life begins at conception. Some in fact do maintain that belief.

If you want to claim that a zygote is a living human then, it is up to you to prove your claim. Destroying all the cells in the body of a human will kill that human. Destruction of a single human cell in the body of a human does not destroy a human.
This argument does more to prove that a single human cell is not a human than the reverse.

If there is no human, there is no "someone". Assuming the premise fallacy. You are assuming that a human exists rather than proving it exists (which is the point of this debate). I discussed the "development" fallacy in an earlier post. If you disagreed at that point you should have said so but, I can revisit this if you like.

Experts claim that a zygote is not a human. Obviously they can not then turn around and claim the zygote is a-preborn human.

It is either a human or it is not.

No kidding .. and there is no human without the sperm or the twinkle in your fathers eye. How does being a part of the process of human creation = a human ? Who has existed without the sperm or the twinkle in your fathers eye ?

Does this make the twinkle in your father's eye a human ?

The confusion comes from using confusing language. Animate does not come from inanimate. This is a statement of fact in relation to human reproduction.

There is no human until a human (noun) is created. This does not mean that a cell created prior to the creation of this human is inhuman (descriptive adjective). The cell is human (descriptive adjective), it is just not a human (noun).

I do not claim that "experts disagreeing" with a given hypothesis means that hypothesis is false. This is not logical and has been disproven many times throughout history.

What I do clam is that "experts disagree" does sound the death knell for rational justification of a law against abortion.

One of the truths of our existence is that human's have to kill life, in order to exist.

We do however try not to kill other humans and doing otherwise would be a violation of the Golden rule principle. This particular moral argument begin's and ends there.

If you wish to make a moral argument on the basis of protection of all life .. that is a different argument.

What you could try - and I think there may be merit in this path - is make an argument on the basis of Potential.

While the zygote is not a human - the potential for creation of a human exists within the zygote. Killing the zygote then kills the potential that a human will be created.

You did not understand the context of the argument. The question was one of law - in particular making law that ban's women from having abortion.

The rights in question are then the rights of the woman to control of her own body vs the rights of the zygote.

 

No. Being "wanted" saved my life. Are you familiar with the difference between wishing and wanting?

 

Good! Why not allow some poor preborn soul the same chance to be wanted? If the roles/stance (between your folks) were reversed you'd be long gone. Thankfully it worked out for you and those who love you. But it does inspire a thoughtful consideration for the Oklahoma (?) bill regarding the abortion of a father's child and the need for his consent. Assuming that the mother is carrying his offspring too.

I know some people wish for what they want, while others want what they wish for.

 

The relationship. The timeline of humans begins with conception. No human exists without conception thus humans begin at conception.

So, in your expert opinion, its is by faith (belief) some experts believe that life begins at some point in a future timeline while others at conception?

All humans spend time in a developmental time period termed zygote. The human zygote contains specific coded genetic material unique and specific to a single human. If a human zygote is destroyed a unique being's timeline, life and future has ended. There are billions of examples of humans who have successfully moved along this zygote timeline walking about the planet.

The SCOTUS R v W decision had justices (experts?) that disagreed as the vote was not unanimous, does that sound a death knell on the rationale of the decision? If uncertainty exist then do no harm.

Actually a human life is created at conception (per your admission that there are experts that agree with that status). When an expectant mother is in need of medical treatment or suffering from a medical condition, those in the medical field are taught, that there are two patients that will be treated/monitored, mother and her unborn child/baby etc.

 

We have been through this argument a number of times now so you should not need me to explain this - yet again.

No human exists without the sperm (refuting your claim). Why does the timeline not start at the sperm?

There are many in the anti abort movement who are there do to religious belief. It does not take an expert to figure this out.

I have been through the arguments of "experts - people who have the requisite subject matter expertise". After reading these arguments one can not help but wonder when they lost their objectivity and academic rigor.

Just find some argument from a credible source and I will show you.

You keep on making the same fallacy (assuming the premise). Here you just "assume" the zygote is human.

Repetition of claim ( A zygote is human because a zygote is human) is not proof of much.

Why should I accept your claim that a zygote is human? Your response: "because its human".

There were experts who testified. The Judges then ruled on the evidence.

I would hope that the Judges had some training in Philosophy - one of the subject matter domains.

This is ad hom fallacy - "appeal to authority". Just because a small percentage of experts have an opinion - does not make that opinion true.

The fact of the matter is that most experts do not agree that a zygote is a human.

The fact that there is no consensus among experts means "we don't know"

 

Excellent question professor! Though this has been explained prior. A sperm must join with the egg for conception to take place. That is the start of the timeline for the specific individual who, if not aborted, is born.

As an expert your time is undoubtedly taken up with providing expert advice for so many that I don't want to take you from the multitude of others you so grace with your wisdom.

a zygote is a term/title that defines a time period of development for a human being. No human being existing/walking this earth has come to this point in their life without first passing through their zygote timeline. As all humans must develop starting with conception/zygote timeline all human zygotes (in contrast to a giraffe zygote) are human. Again, are you suggesting that the zygote is inhuman and transforms into human at some later timeline?

Though 22% is not a majority, 22% is sizeable.

 

The question was "why" the timeline starts at conception and not the sperm. You did not answer this question.

I think this question might be above your pay grade. (explained earlier? - give me a break - if you had made anything resembling a valid argument I would have noticed)

What part of "without the sperm no human can exist" do you not understand ?

The rest of your post consisted of the same old assuming the premise fallacy.

Look. An argument consists of 2 things. 1) as statement of claim or premise and 2) a valid (non fallacious) explanation of why that claim is true - or at least some material that supports your claim

= something other than " a zygote is a human because its a human".

I have no idea where you got this number or what you are claiming on the basis of this number.

If one in five "experts" claim the earth is flat and the other 4 claim it is round. How does this prove that the earth is flat ?

Further - even if 4 our of 5 experts claim the earth is round .. It is still ad hom fallacy to claim "4 our of 5 experts agree with Claim A .. so claim A is true" "UNLESS" rational that supports that claim is given.

An argument be it from an expert or novice is not an argument for the truth of anything unless rational is given showing that claim A is true (or at least giving a darn good - non fallacious- explanation as to why we should accept Claim A is true on the balance of probabilities)

 

troll.

 

It looks like you bumped your own troll thread.

 

*Again (the why is) due to the creation/beginning of a unique and specific human life, however this does not take place prior to conception. Human life begins with conception at the cellular level. As the life of a human being begins and begins to end (save massive trauma) at the cellular level. The zygote status is part of a human being's timeline. Not debating or arguing with you...just sharing as you have been with me.

**My bad. Roe vs. Wade decision vote tally. You do believe that the Justices of the SCOTUS are experts?

My math humbly follows;

2/9 = 2 divided by 9 =.222222 then .222222 X 100 = 22.2222% if you thought I was being remiss in not including the .2222% with the 22.% I humbly stand corrected. For brevity perhaps 22+% would serve just as well? As stated before, not a majority but sizeable. Experts disagree?

 

Or you did.

 

Where?

 

I already explained to you the difference between a noun and a descriptive adjective.

A sperm is both human (descriptive adjective) and alive = human life.

Regardless You can claim "human life" begins here until you are blue in the face. Even if this were true - this does not mean a human exists.

The fact of the matter is that "Experts Disagree".

Define what "human" is. What is it about being human that is important such that "a human" should have rights including the right to life. What is it that is valuable about humanity.

You have not even touched these questions.

Having a complete DNA" the only thing that is important about the Zygote... the be all and the end all ? Is this where your definition of what is important about our humanity begins and ends ?

 

Even though you have yet to proclaim it (de facto-yes), I regard you as a grammar expert too.

The value of humanity, right to life? Really? Simply, I hold these truths to be self-evident.

How about the other end of the spectrum, inhumanity. Which of these two choices would you choose to live with/under. Imagine the power the master holds over the slave. Inhumanity would allow total power over the very life and/or death of that slave, every aspect of that slave's existence until death.

Bingo! A distinctly unique Life begins at the cellular level for us and we each travel on that timeline to this moment, in the present. And the fact that no one, not one individual, has ever existed (to my knowledge) without traveling through this indispensable part of a human being's timeline. I subscribe to the position, that point in time, where a specific and unique human being's timeline begins is at conception (simply because of that creative instant), you on the other hand and I get it, see the beginning of human life at some other point in time awaiting "experts to no longer disagree." If you've decided that the beginning of someone's life starts with the production of that specific sperm I'll not belabor your contention, after all, you are the self-declared expert in this conversation.

I do understand that you would see a human being or human life starting at another point in time. People disagreed about the (lack of) rights and the very humanity of slaves throughout the world for a time. Not unlike the disagreement over when the human right to life begins.

I still believe slavery is an example of the master's inhumanity to the enslaved. Undoubtedly somewhere, even today, cultural experts would disagree. How can this be stated? Because slavery/human trafficking, I am told (by federal agents representing a taskforce), is rampant. Those who practice it surely have become experts in that inhumane pursuit.

 

"Life Liberty Pursuit of happiness" .. I agree that these are self evident but this has nothing to do with the topic. These rights clearly not granted to cows or plants. They are granted to humans/Homo sapiens.

Your argument is circular and assumes the premise. There is no explanation of why a zygote is a human such that it qualifies.

Are you now arguing that a human slave is not a human ? You ask about two choices but do not give the second choice. What am I choosing between and how does this relate to whether or not the zygote is a human.

If there is no "Human" then the timeline of the "human being" has yet to start. The timeline of a human cell has started ... that timeline will end in a few hours after the first cell division. It is a fact that this cell (zygote) will not be part of the human you are referring to in your timeline. You claim that the life of a human starts at the cellular level (you have not justified why this claim makes the zygote a human but for the moment let us assume I accepted this clam).

If not a single cell in the body of a human exists - how can this human then be said to exist ?

A timeline for the creation of a human has begun but, this does not mean the human has been created. In fact not a single cell for the construction of the body of this human has been created.

Further, had you read the link on the 5 main scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" you would know that there is no "creative instant". This is in fact one of the arguments against the Genetic Perspective.

What is the significant difference between the single cell at conception and other human cells ? These other human cells have the same human DNA as the zygote Mr. "Bingo" = DNA is then not a significant difference.

Slaves are humans. Comparing a human to a zygote - on the basis that a zygote is a human - is a False dichotomy as it assumes the zygote is a human.