Abortion: The Facts

Nor does he apparently care what doctors or scientists say....given he goes against standard medical and scientific definitions of "zygote", "embryo", and "fetus".

He also doesn't care what HE says....he says "Abortion is murder"....but won't defend that claim.

 

It is shocking commentary on self induced ignorance when after 10 pages of posts that one is trying to support a premise with "But we don't know that the moon is not made of green cheese ... as if this somehow proves that indeed the moon is made of green cheese.

 

Proving a negative is common to people of strong religious beliefs, which I'm sure CC is.

He can claim ANYTHING...and if doubted say "Can you PROVE that _______ is not real/true?"

By the same argument he can't "prove" that Frodo Baggins isn't real....that Captain Nemo didn't exist.....that fairies dancing in a circle don't create mushrooms......or that invisible unicorns who speak French don't live at the bottom of the sea.

 

LOL good ones. The funny thing in this case is that ... "WE DO KNOW" what it is. Its a single human cell.

We could take a Grade 1 student .. show them 3 pictures 1) A heart cell, 2) a zygote 3) a baby

"Which one is not like the others" ? The kid will laugh and ask why you made the question so simple.

 

I've pulled an even more devlish trick.

I showed a "pro-lifer" a fertilized ovum one second after fertilization, told them it was a human ovum and asked them if it was a "human being".....they responded "Yes."

I then showed them a barely formed fetus and asked them if THAT was a "human being"....they eagerly responded "Yes".....except...it wasn't a human fetus. It was an alligator fetus.

"Oddly", they were absolutely sure it was "human being" when I showed them the newly fertilized egg.....because I told them it was a human ovum. They ASSUMED that the fetus I showed them was human....and just as determinedly said it was a "human being".

Braced now for that trick....what would happen if we showed CC a newly fertilized egg....did NOT identify the species....and asked him "Is this a human being?"

If he says "No"....and it IS a human ovum, he contradicts himself.

If he says "Yes"...and it is not a human ovum, he looks foolish.

If he refuses to say one way or the other....smelling a "trap"....it would clearly show that he can NOT determine the "human-ness" of fertilized egg.....and thus he has ZERO authority on the matter.

Note: This "trap" is a product of using the "pro-lifers" own technique against them. They put out pictures of 6th, 7th month late-term abortions to elicit an emotional response.

But their rhetoric says that they know it's a "baby" ...from the moment of conception....yet a photograph of a fertilized egg (moment of conception).....would stump them.

 

Another interesting factoid about the whole process of creating a human is that the zygote, and many of the cells that come after, are totipotent. Any one of these cells that come after can each individually create a human. http://www.councilofchurches.ca/wp-...EmbryonicDevelopmentandGeneticEngineering.pdf

So are we not doing a disservice to humanity by not doing our best to ensure that as many of these potential humans come into existence as possible ?

That aside. One of the big problems with the idea that the zygote is a human is that this cell will never even be part of the human has helped to create.

Inside the DNA is the blueprint for the structure of a human. That structure is built with trillions of cells. Unfortunately for the zygote, an numerous cells that come after, these will never be part of that structure.

It is not until the embryoblast stage that the cells that make up the structure of a human start to be created.

So then ... Riddle me this. If not one brick in the structure of a building exists ... does the building exist ?

If not one cell in the structure of a human exists ... does the human exist ?

 

Debate.org
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-abortion-murder

"Is Abortion Murder?
75% Say Yes
25% Say No



If I picked up a knife, or a syringe of poison, and stabbed somebody with it, killing them, I think everyone can agree, that is murder. Why does it matter if I do it to a person inside or outside of their mother, they are still a unique human being. I understand that pro-death advocates will say that the baby is still part of the mother, but when they are born they are still connected to their mother by the umbilical cord. So can kill the baby then without it being murder, since by the pro-death argument such physical connection means the baby is just a piece of the mother? When faced with such obvious and simple logic, all rational arguments for abortions simply break down.


Abortion is basically killing a innocent babe that is alive in it's mothers womb. People try to say that the baby isn't alive and it's totally unaware. But in reality its heart and brain are the first things to develop. Not only does the baby die but the mother feels the loss. This should automatically tell you there is something wrong with abortion. What if God decided that he didn't want you to be born and killed you? Would that be right? No of course not! So why would it make sense to justify a mother killing her baby? What if a mother had a baby prematurely and decided she didn't want it? Would that be right? I mean, some people get their babies killed at that time. For these reasons I consider abortion wrong and it is murder.


A mother has a duty to care for her children when born. If she doesn't execute this duty, she might be charged with child endangerment, negligence, child abuse, etc. Therefore, the law forces a mother "to use her body" to take care of another who cannot survive on its own - ie: the baby/child. Why do we call it a crime when a mother starves her newborn, a helpless baby that will die without the efforts of others, and then not call it a crime when the mother kills her baby inside the womb? Why do we excuse the latter as "abortion" and not call it what it is, murder? I think that abortion as an acceptable scenario is beginning to destroy the idea that a mother owes any duty to her children. If she could have murdered the child without ANY consequences when it was in her womb, why should she have to work hard to take care of it outside the womb? What changed? It is because of questions like these that I see abortion as simply a way for a person to be completely selfish and to put their needs 100% ahead of their children's needs. It is a way for people to legally murder their children so that they have easier lives.


Abortion is the same thing as murder- this is true because murdering could easily be defined as killing somebody who does not want to be killed, or cannot speak for himself/herself. I believe that we are all born with the will to live, therefore, the baby would not want to be, because there is no other way to put it, murdered. How is it morally right, or even right in a general sense, that murder should be legal? The baby cannot speak for itself, so to me, it just seems like murder. It is life



- - - Updated - - -

How typical, that a liberal would find humor in the slaughter and destruction of untold millions of innocent lives.

 

You can repeat forever and it still isn't murder. Too bad you can't defend it in your own words.


IF that fetus is a person it has NO right to cause the woman whose body it inhabits injury...and it does and she has the right to defend herself and remove the offending "person" and make it stop injuring her JUST LIKE YOU CAN....it's called self defense...

 

Well, if a judge or a lawyer said you could have black slaves or murder old people, would you care? Murdering children is just a heinous.

And besides, the CONTEXT in which I said that was scientific and medical, and judges & lawyers are not scientists or doctors. That was my point.

Have any of you people even considered WHY almost no doctor at all will perform an abortion? Hmmm? Why is it that they have to scrape up these scum-sucking devils who call themselves doctors to perform this crime against humanity? Think about it. No REAL doctor will do an abortion.

 

I've pulled an even more devlish trick.

I showed a "pro-manner" a fertilized ovum one second after fertilization, told them it was a male ovum and asked them if it was a "male".....they responded "Yes."

I then showed them a barely formed fetus and asked them if THAT was a "male"....they eagerly responded "Yes".....except...it wasn't a male fetus. It was an female fetus.

"Oddly", they were absolutely sure it was "male" when I showed them the newly fertilized egg.....because I told them it was a male ovum. They ASSUMED that the fetus I showed them was male....and just as determinedly said it was a "male".

Braced now for that trick....what would happen if we showed GC a newly fertilized egg....did NOT identify the sex....and asked him "Is this a male?"

If he says "No"....and it IS a male ovum, he contradicts himself.

If he says "Yes"...and it is not a male ovum, he looks foolish.

If he refuses to say one way or the other....smelling a "trap"....it would clearly show that he can NOT determine the "male-ness" of fertilized egg.....and thus he has ZERO authority on the matter.

Note: This "trap" is a product of using the "pro-manners" own technique against them. They put out pictures of 6th, 7th year late-term circumcisions elicit an emotional response.

But their rhetoric says that they know it's a "man" ...from the moment of conception....yet a photograph of a fertilized egg (moment of conception).....would stump them.

Hell, even a photograph of a newborn (moment of birth)....would stump them.

 

The humor was not "slaughter and destruction of untold millions of innocent lives". The humor is in the exasperatingly ridiculous things that folks put forward as justification for the claim that a zygote is a living human.

Anyone can have an opinion, but is it informed.

This is a forum for debate. All of us have opinions but most of us come here with at lest some expectation of having to defend those opinions.

You claim that the single cell at conception is a living human .... Great ! You have reached Step 1 You have stated your premise/claim.

The question however is can you reach step 2 ? Can you defend this claim.

An argument consists of two elements 1) statement of claim 2) reasons that show why that claim is true.

1) a zygote is a living human because 2) ?????????

Where is your Step 2 ?

From our post

This is a restatement of your claim. It is not an argument in support of your claim because the premise is assumed (Logical fallacy - assuming the premise)

You have not given any reasons why "all abortion" = killing a baby. You have not shown that a zygote is a baby/living human.

Restating your claim over and over again does not constitute rational for why your claim is true.


So .... 1) A zygote is a living human because 2) ???????

oh and one more thing ... Fallacy (appeal to the raging masses). That a bunch of people in a random poll believe the moon is made of green cheese does not prove that the moon is made of green cheese.

Try that same poll among a group of subject matter experts (Biologists in a relevant field) and see what your poll looks like. Even then .. a subject matter expert still must provide an argument consisting of their claim and reasons that show why that claim is true.

 

1) A fish, 2) a tadpole, 3) a frog

"Which one is not like the others" ?

 

Please show the stats on "almost no doctor at all will perform an abortion"....
Ya, real doctors do abortions, I don't know where you got the bizarre idea they don't.

 

The correct answer is ...... Frog !

 

I'll agree with you that it's silly to call a human zygote a baby.... in the same way you wouldn't call a newborn baby a "man" or a "woman".

The fact of whether it's a living human is a totally different matter. Earlier you claimed a human zygote isn't a member of the species homo sapiens. If that's the case then you're saying this organism changes species between the zygote stage and a later stage.

The same reason any other human that's not fully developed is a living human.

How do you prove an infant is a homosapien when it can't stand upright and isn't capable of any higher level thought or communication?

 

That's probably the answer a first grader would give. A fifth grader on the other hand...

 

Quit blubbering nonsense because you have no material.

 

I wonder why we humans decided to differentiate them with separate labels....hmmm?

 

The problem for you is that "human being" has no relevancy under the law and it is a matter of personal opinion. "Human beings" are not protected by the law or the US Constitution but "Persons" are.

Your arguments are arguments of irrelevancy and are little more than mental masterbation.

 

In your opinion, what should be the punishment in our criminal justice system for someone who deliberately and with forethought commits murder?

 

False analogy.

"Pro-lifers" claim that a fertilized ovum one second after fertilization is a "human" or even "a baby". If so, they should use that same power of determination to be able to tell the difference between human ovums...and other animal ovums....given they claim the power and authority to state definitively "It is a human baby".

They don't claim "I know ova and fetuses are 'human babies'....because it's inside a human woman"...that would trip them up, because if so, that would mean once it was OUTSIDE of a woman it would no longer fit their critieria for determination....would it? They'd then be in the "viability" debate....which is well after conception or even fetal stages.

Your analogy also fails because...you are actually arguing AGAINST the "pro-lifers". You posit "They claim the fetus is male".....but If you cannot determine if a fetus is male until later in development....that proves the person making the claim has no authority for their claim about gender.

So by extension of that same argument to the "pro-life" argument....you are arguing that when "pro-lifers" claim "It is a human baby" ....that can't be determined until a later stage of development.....so you're saying the "pro-lifers" claims are baseless.


So....thanks...for making my point. Even though you thought you were refuting it.

 

Without labels and definitions, communication is not possible.

 

Agreed.....so, what are these particular labels meant to communicate?

 

Depending on the definition one uses the zygote is not even classified as an organism.... but ok by some looser definitions it could be. It is alive.

Membership in the club "Homo sapiens" requires having all the characteristics and other club memberships. Single cells from multi-cellular organisms are not classified as that "multi-cellular" organism. A heart cell is not a "Homo sapiens"

If one were to classify the zygote taxonomically it would be a single celled eukaryote. Homo Eukaryote or some such thing. Like the definition of organism, taxonomy is a "somewhat" fluid science.

This is commits the logical fallacy (Assuming the premise)

1) the zygote is a living human because 2) it is not a fully developed living human ( It is a living human because it is a living human)

Repeating a claim does not show that a claim is true.

As I stated earlier taxonomy is somewhat fluid. It seeks to distinguish one organism from another. I would argue that a fetus at 8 months for example is a living human even though it does not have all the requisite characteristics. The fact remains however is that it has most of them. At the very least one can claim that a 8 month fetus is (almost Homo sapiens) .

The question I ask myself is "what is a living human" what characteristics should be required in order to give that entity rights, including the right to life.

For me a requisite characteristic is significant brain function. Lets face it. Something can be a "human" but if it does not have significant brain function it is clinically dead. (even though the cells are still alive).

A new born infant (as in your example) may not be able to communicate but it is has significant brain function.

To talk about a zygote on this level is an absurdity as it has no brain.

To talk about the zygote as an individual is a bit weird as well as it ceases to exist after the first mitotic division. Living Humans do not undergo cell division.

What does live on is the DNA.

At the end of the day the zygote is a single human cell and a single human cell (at least none of the others heart, brain, and so on) are not living humans.

One line (and one of the only lines I have ever heard that seem to have at least some merit - not logical fallacy) is to outline the difference between the zygote and these other human cells.

Obviously these other cells are not living humans so what makes the zygote different ?

I have my own answer (the difference is in the DNA) but I will leave this one with you.

- - - Updated - - -

Ideas .. thoughts.. intentions .. Love .. friendship... hunger .. pain .. distress and so on.

 

Just because you say something is a false analogy doesn't make it so. In both cases you're engaging in the same fallacy, assuming wrongly that just because a lay person can't make a distinction between species/sex at an early stage of development based on a visual inspection that therefore there's no distinction that can be made.

The biological gender and species are determined by the material in the sperm and egg, and the new organism formed by the union of those two has those traits from the moment of conception.