If men could get pregnant you'd be too busy taking care of John Kerry's offspring to check the boards.
The real URL is super secret, so I had to give out a false one. I can only give it out to people in the 6,000 post club.
Senior Bush administration campaign hack Karen Hughes has come up with a new tactic: If you're pro-choice, you stand with the Al Qaeda: http://www.hatecrime.org/americablog/hughes1.wav http://www.hatecrime.org/americablog/hughes2.wav Awesome. It's funny, Bush & Co. and Osama speak the same language of absolute right and absolute wrong but can't understand what one another is saying.
Let me just get the crux of your argument because I think I'm confusing it a tad. Teratoma-- Fits my definition of life because it is: Individual- Is it distinct from the cancer that it is? Serious question I don't know much about teratomas (I seriously thought you were talking about conjoined feti for a second there) Has its own unique genetic fingerprint (again, it has the capacity to make every human cell, but does it have the capacity to make them all? (I don't buy the infinite mokeys typing thing either)) It is seperate and distinct though, that much I'm sure of. Living- It's undergoing the characteristics of human life, yes. Human- Contains Human DNA marked with a human genetic signature. We might add here created by a male and female gameates, since that is part and parcel of the fertilized egg. Carl Sagan woul say that this logic would neccessarily entail that masturbation and eggs that miscarry in the falopian tubes would then also fall under the definition of murder. What he fails to note is the intent behind both, i.e. you don't intentionally kill the fertilized egg (This would also be one of my arguments against self pleasuring), why nocturnal emissions are different from masturbation, etc. etc. Sagan also says much as you do, that human life should begin with thought, which seems to negate as people those who are borne brain dead. You countered by saying those that can feel pain, the vegetarian excuse for killing plants and eating them. I counter that arguement with a kind of Thomistic argument, that a healthy world view entails a respect for life at all levels, and by what things are designed for, i.e. its dumb to be a sport hunter, yet hunting for food and sustenance is ok. Anyhow, the point is the life process should not be altered by methods contrary to human nature, i.e. abortion. Being human, it is in our life process to be a blastosphere, and we are distinct in this capacity. Individual Being- Self- Contained, Self-intergrating living entity with its own nature, i.e. a human nature. I'd argue the cancerous teratoma fails to have this human nature. Are we close to getting on the same page of the argument or am I still way off? Being able to breathe is reason enough to live. In that one breath all the various mysteries of the world can be enjoyed. For those borne with the ability to see, seeing the color blue is an excitement often overlooked. To exist in this world for a day, no matter who excrutiating that existence is, is reason enough to live. The darkest foulest day on earth is better than the fate of one who does not even get to be borne into it. That's what I'm fighting for. Thinking is not the measure of human. Existence is.
Talk about speaking based on emotions. Dude you are not even coherent. The truth is that boths mostly speak on emotion and you are a hypocrite and the top of the list of emotion "blabbers".
Ok. First person I saw in the March had a sign that said Bush = Dog Pu##y 70% of people gave me the finger and told me to shut up when I didn't even say a word (although now I seem to be a senseless babbler; I admit I'm a bit verbose at times but the topic is of importance). Chants I heard: The main one was, Pro Life that's a lie, you don't care if women die! (Lie) Hey Hey Ho Ho, George Bush has got to go...(ok) Hey Bush, get your hands off my Bush!(ok) Get your rosaries off of my ovaries! (my rosary was in my pocket I don't like brandishing it in public) Choice. Choice. Choice. (For the Child?) People with signs (and there was a lot of them, not just a small minority) of the nature that Bush's Mom, Cheney's Mom, and the Pope's Mom should have had abortions. A person with a picture of a woman and two snakes on the crucifix came over and just started laughing at us. People had their signs ripped from their hands and torn to shreds. Now I realize this was a big propaganda march, more of a rally so to speak. But its wierd that no one tried to engage in a sensible dialogue. A lot of this comes from the fact that pro-choice people don't like to debate publicly, and once again from the fact that it was a rally. I'm glad the board here has been rational and polite in its discussion, that is until you decided to add your wonderful two cents.
I think we’re beginning to talk in circles, but hopefully they’re getting concentrically smaller. First, a disclaimer: The extent of my scientific knowledge is derived from a few years of college spent as a zoology/microbiology/pre-med major and the attendant courseload, and I am by no means an oncologist or an expert on the subject. I’d only read of such teratomas in passing before I saw an incredibly interesting documentary on the subject. That documentary has since led me to do some (admittedly layman) reading on the organisms. Other than that I think they’re cool, the reason I brought germ cell teratomas up in the first place is that, though I’m sure it’s probably been done before (I don’t exactly keep up with the scientific journals), I’ve never seen them brought up in the context of the abortion debate. I was trying to make people look at the abortion issue in a slightly different (hopefully novel) light, and in discussing help me flesh out my own ideas on the subject. That said, point by point: Well, it’s a cancer, and it’s a separate individual. But yes, the whole point is that a germ cell teratoma is distinct from the host human from which it developed, and is alive. This kinda harkens back to the debate over the need for stem cell research a few years ago (which, sadly, was left unresolved with the onset of the war on terror). Mature, already-differentiated cells reproduce cells only of the same basic type. Thus, liver cells produce liver cells; skin cells produce skin cells. It’s the same idea with cancer: liver cancer makes excess liver cells; skin cancer makes excess skin cells. But sperm cells and ova, the precursors of new life, are different. Cancer of sperm cell or ovum can, under certain conditions, differentiate into each and every kind of human cell. Thus, what starts out as a single sperm cell turns into a teratoma, an ever-growing blob of randomly differentiating cells (although rare to begin with, I would venture to assume that such tumors are more prevalent in men, given the billions of sperm constantly produced by men, compared to the finite number of ova in women). A developing embryo starts multiplying exponentially in cell number; eventually the cells start to differentiate into different organ systems/appendages in an ordered process to make a baby/human; the plan of a teratoma, on the other hand, is also mutated, and thus appears to form randomly. Thus, each teratoma becomes a snowflake, distinct from every other. In the best example I’ve seen, you could make out teeth, an ear, hair, nerve cells, cardiac cells, fingernails, skin, and more, all human, all radiating from the same softball-sized orb. The thing is, if left to its own devices it would keep on growing, differentiating into more and more different cells and random organs, until it leeched too much blood from its host, eventually killing him/her. No, it does not have its own genetic fingerprint. It has the same genetic makeup as its host. However, as I’ve pointed out before, this is one of the weakest points in your definition of (human) life, and easiest to refute. An identical twin has the exact same genetic makeup as its brother/sister (by the way, although I think it’s the funniest name for a website of its sort, I agree that I was extremely disappointed that fourorbsofglory.com was not real, or at least temporarily faked). Same for triplets, etc. Yet you would have to classify twins as being alive. Similarly, a human clone would have the exact same genetic identity as its lone parent (we have the technology to clone humans, but so far have not done so only on moral grounds), yet you would have to consider a human clone to be alive. Thus, I contend that having a unique genetic fingerprint cannot be a criterion for human life. And with regard to the infinite monkeys aspect, we don’t really know how each teratoma would eventually turn out, because, if left untreated, it would eventually kill its host by impeding proper blood flow, and, in killing its food source, kill itself. Normally, a teratoma would, after causing much discomfort in the host, be surgically excised and either thrown out with the trash or tossed into a mason jar for later study, and, after a period of time separated from a food source, die. But, I would argue, its source of nutrients should not be held as an issue in its disfavor. Blood as a food source is not summarily different from breastmilk or baby food. The teratoma, then, as a life form is analogous to a human newborn, if one never fed the human newborn. Like an aborted fetus, it isn’t allowed to develop to its potential. Agreed. Agreed. Yes to the first part. As I’ve said, it is not created by the fusion of male and female gametes, but by the mutation of either male or female gamete. However, as I’ve also said, sexual reproduction is not a necessity for human life. Again, there are two obvious examples. Splitting heirs here, but the younger of two identical twins, or the younger and youngest of three identical triplets, and so on, are not the direct product of sexual reproduction. They are the result of the original embryo (the one caused by sexual reproduction) itself asexually dividing. And, the easier example, a cloned human could not by definition be created via sexual reproduction. Involuntary manslaughter, then? If I understand you, if I can extend from this paragraph, you seem to be suggesting that the more babies/humans there are in this world, the better. That seems in keeping with the idea that every fertilized egg must be brought to term, that every seed spilled must only be spilled at a sperm bank. You see a clump of 16 or 64 fetal cells as a potential human. You see masturbation as the wasting of half a potential human. Why stop there? Carry out what you’re saying to its logical extent. I am a relatively healthy male, certainly capable of reproduction. I live in a city with millions of healthy women, certainly capable of reproduction. Most of us had the birds and the bees explained to us, or lived in a neighborhood with dogs, so we know what making a baby requires. Every day I let billions of sperm die unused, by choice (whether they’re inside my body or not, they’re still gonna die); every month millions of women within my easy walking distance let their ova die unused, by choice. This choice to abstain, or to take precautions to prevent reproduction when gloriously not abstaining, is also intent. Billions upon billions of possible babies in this manner go uncreated. I imagine, if unmarried, that you also abstain from opportunities everyday to make babies. This too is intent. It’s also a slippery slope. If you equate a woman who undergoes an abortion with a murderer, you start run into problems. What about a pregnant woman who uses crack during her pregnancy, and whose crack use causes a miscarriage or deformity? Rightly, they’re demonized in our society. Is she guilty of murder in the second degree? What if she drinks or smokes regularly during her pregnancy? Third degree murder? Is married to a husband who beats her? Manslaughter in the first degree? Has an improper diet or fails to exercise? Manslaughter-2? Fails to take all her vitamins? Man-3? What if she, one day in her second trimester, cheats and has an extra brownie at lunch? Jaywalking? Ahem, this bears requoting and further editorial comment: What am I, debating a seminary student? A monk? Oh man, before I just merely disagreed with you; don’t make me pity you, too. No, I didn’t counter the idea of consciousness as the marker of humanity with the vegetarian/“those that can feel pain” argument; they’re two distinct reasonings. The first, as I’ve noted, I agree with; the second (by my admission that I often enjoy a good steak), not so much (though probably I didn’t make that clear). I earlier stated that if human consciousness is the marker, then probably all abortions are ok, as human consciousness doesn’t seem to develop until well into childhood. If it’s just any consciousness (i.e. the consciousness of a multicellular hydra, or the consciousness of a treefrog), then at some point during fetal development abortion becomes immoral. Similarly, if abortion is immoral when the fetus can feel even rudimentary elements of pain (i.e. simple reaction to stimuli), then at some point during its early stages of development abortion becomes immoral; if, on the other hand, if it’s what humans feel and understand as pain, probably most if not all abortions are OK. Though I don’t completely agree with it, I think the ‘if it feels pain don’t hurt it b/c we understand pain’ argument is a formidable line of reasoning, moreso with a human fetus than a hamburger, and felt maybe it belonged in this discussion. This is entirely subjective, and worse, implies a supposition of some form of Creator in this department. If you’re basing your opposition to abortion on some form of scriptural reading, no matter which religion or which scripture, you’re not arguing on the basis of human morality, you’re arguing on the basis that God(s) told you so. These are two entirely different things. “Human nature” is a relatively meaningless term. It casts a pretty wide net. After all, the development of modern medicine did not appear supernaturally. I don’t think you’re trying to argue that God(s) gave us abortion, or that, out of nowhere, Prometheus suddenly popped up and handed us a scalpel. No. Thus, the abortion procedure is a natural development. Since humans developed it, it’s part of human nature. And abortion has been around for quite some time; the Hippocratic Oath specifically forbids it, and that’s about 2500 years old. On a larger note, you won’t get very far attempting to argue that what is natural is what is moral, either. Nature is dog eat dog, rape, murder, pillage; humanity, society is an improvement on nature. Also, blastula formation is in no way distinct to human development. It occurs in any organism that reproduces sexually, too many to list here. As for my example, checkmarks to the first two. It is also a living entity. It is self-integrating and has a nature, though each teratoma is different. Because it is made up of human DNA, it has to be a human nature. Here you appear to be using “human nature” to mean something radically different than the previous paragraph. The problem with the concept here of “human nature” is part of the reason, I surmise, that you oppose abortion: that each fetus/baby/man/woman/child is unique from any other. That would be the argument to save everyone; if we’re all the same, what’s the point. And there really is no “human nature” as you state it. There is so much variation in what is human. Men and women are human, even hermaphrodites. Blacks and whites, blondes and redheads are human. People with Down’s syndrome or Kleinfelter’s are human, even though they have different chromosome counts than the most of us. People born with tails or pharyngeal gill slits may be genetic anomalies, but they’re still human. My point: there really is no phenotype or genotype definition of what a “human” is. That’s getting into Goebbels territory. I’d argue the cancerous teratoma does fit your concept of “human nature.” It’s as genetically human as your or I. It is capable of developing all of our organs and organ systems. It can see unlike those born blind. It can be more ambulatory than those born limbless, more intelligent than those born brainless. And by your definition, each day it lives, unlike the rest of us, the more human it grows. That sounds pretty, but it’s utterly meaningless. A grasshopper breathes. A spider has eyes to see, sometimes six more than we do. Your argument puts a cockroach on the same pedestal as man, yet I’m willing to bet you’d call the Orkin man at its first sight. These bugs exist, but they’re not sacred; you’re not trying to save them. Above, you say that it’s stupid to hunt for sport, yet hunting to eat is fine. So if you eat the deer, that makes it allright. Does that make cannibalism an acceptable alternative lifestyle? If we follow “A Modest Proposal” and start eating babies instead of aborting them, would that make it OK? I say again: you’re not arguing for the sanctity of life, or the sanctity of existence. You’re arguing for the sanctity of your own conception of human life, of humanity, of human existence. What I’m saying, is that for the initial stages of human development (maybe prior to the fourth week, maybe the fourth month, maybe the fourth year: on this we can and should debate and must ultimately decide), the human fetus is not human, not in any way we think of as human. It has no consciousness yet, no self-awareness; it is utterly indifferent to its own and others’ pain. It is at this point no different, nay, it is inferior to the grasshopper, the spider, the cockroach. A clump of human cells dividing is no different than a clump of algae cells dividing, no different than a rare form of cancer. At some point a human becomes human. A human being, in form only, begins to inhabit our sense of humanity. Maybe it’s when his heart starts beating; maybe it’s when he first recoils from pain; maybe it’s when he learns to feel loved, or says his first word, or realizes his own uniqueness in the infinitum of humanity. I say, focus on that. Make what makes us humans better. Become a teacher, give to charity, raise your own family. Worry about the ones that are already here; improve their lives, improve humanity. Worry about the humans.
In my rather limited experience, most people don't go to protests and marches to have "sensible dialogue." People that attend rallies on politically divisive issues fall into two camps: the dominant camp who organized the event, those that feel the issue relevant enough to pull themselves out of bed on a weekend morning (strong, strong supporters of the event's position) and the minority group roused enough by the thought of the dominant group protesting/marching to get out of bed and protest the protest (strong, strong opponents of the event's position). A march is symbolic in nature; it's a demonstration of solidarity. The coverage of marches almost never cover the speeches, just the sheer size/mass of it. Sure, there may be speeches, but they all originate from members who share the same basic ideas. Thus, because generally the two sides drawn to such a march/rally are already at loggerheads, already extremely partisan (and this is especially true of the abortion debate), it's probably not going to engender much polite discussion, from either side. I have no doubt that many of the pro-choicers were rude to you. But similarly, I also have no doubt that many abortion opponents use tactics equally repugnant. I've witnessed both sides' actions. Marches/rallies tend to make people do things they would not do on their own, or in polite society. Look at Nuremberg. It's groupthink, fueled by collective emotion that builds and builds upon itself. The few times I've been in/around demonstrations/marches, and the many that I've seen televised, I end up feeling fortunate that violence does not break out more often. As bad as your experience was, it could have been much, much worse. It could have turned into another Kent State or Skokie, a WTO protest or an Eric Rudolph bombing, or worse (in its sheer pointlessness), the aftermath of an NCAA bowl win. And also, I concur with your rational and polite comment.
I think there is a concensus on theft when it is defined as stealing someone's physical property. In addition, I seriously doubt that 10% of the population of the US are P2P users.
I didn't mean to skip this; didn't notice it earlier. Maybe I haven't had any caffeine yet this morning, but isn't that logic kind of circular? If the essential part of the definition of a human being/human life is that, left to its own natural state (a loaded term, see above response to twhy77), it could develop into a human being/human life, we still haven't defined anything, have we, other than that it must somehow reproduce? If the cancer I trotted out meets all the other physical/genetic aspects of a human being/human life but this one (and I argue, to the contrary, that it can reproduce), how are we supposed to decide what qualifies as a human life? We're back at square one. This may be semantic BS, and I do still feel hung over (though oddly I didn't drink last night), but right now I don't think so. Again, I don't want anyone else to have to suffer through the ramblings above, but I think if you skip down to my fourth or fifth point in my response to twhy77 I attempted to address this issue. That black/white/blonde/redhead/Down's syndrome/Kleinfelter's/gilled/furry/brainless/etc. men, women and hermaphrodites are all technically considered human (I would agree that they all meet my definition of human too, with the exception of those born brainless). Coming up with a physical/genotypical definition of human is inherently problematic. You warned me (I think) earlier that to draw the line on mental status is playing with matches; I agree with you on that point, specifying then and now that I was referring to the completely (and literally) brainless. I now am trying to say that to try to attempt a genotype/phenotype definition of human as a way to explain what makes human life sacred, is similarly flawed, and tends to draw the line unnecessarily, leaving out the human anomalies amongst us. I stretch this, admittedly, and answer that the teratoma example is capable of, can possibly produce each and every one of the physical parts which make us human. In fact, if it could somehow continue to be fed and grow (a la the movie version of The Blob), eventually it would probably make more of the parts that make us physically human than we normally have. Why have two ears when you can have a half-dozen? But my whole point is not that I consider this rare cancer human; I do not. Instead, I argue that, unless it somehow develops a consciousness on par with or exceeding our own, no one would consider a germ cell teratoma cancer a human being, and no one would argue that it should continue to live. It's a crude analogy to the first days/weeks of a fetus, in that the teratoma is deadly to its host; thanks to modern medicine, the fetus in all but increasingly rare cases is not. However, at least for those first days/weeks of both their lives, I argue that they occupy the same moral hierarchy; that we owe them morally nothing. Only when the fetus becomes human as we understand the term, does it become a life that must be saved. I think you and I are more in agreement on this topic than twhy77 and I are. I think we agree that consciousness is in some way essential to humanity, that the first two or four cells alone aren't yet human as we understand the concept. We basically just differ in our views on which prenatal week or month to draw the cutoff line on abortions. Unfortunately, we don't know enough yet about fetal development to to know when a fetus/baby attains what I think is this essential aspect of humanity. If I read you correctly, you err morally on the side of caution, better to ban it outright than to later learn that in the fifth month is when the baby really starts to think/understand its own and others' suffering, when we had banned it in the sixth month all along, e.g.; I tend to err, in the interim, on the side of the mother's prerogative. I think we're miles closer in philosophical agreement than twhy77 and I are on this issue.
Don't define things. The clump of cells is human and will become a human being if left alone and nourished. Use common sense and you can't justify an abortion unless the mother's physical health is in danger. Then you really have what you so casually clamor about: Choice. I know that the unwilling mother is put upon by this event, but who is responsible for that? Certainly the innocent child is not.
aghast -- 1. i think you were right when you said this has become a semantic argument. but here's the deal. our concern is one for the courts...it's ultimately to be a legal definition. well, we have a legal definition for life...different states have applied it under the existence of brainwaves and/or th existence of a heartbeat. again, the absence of those tell us, legally and officially, when someone is dead. the converse, their presence, tells us when they're alive. 2. in the end, i'm not willing to gamble with it. i don't like the concept of sayiing, "well...we're not SURE if it's human life or not...so I guess it's ok to terminate its existence." if we do that anywhere else with human life, we get locked up. when you play loose and fast with human life it's trouble, under the law...even when you're unaware of it...when you're just negligent. here we have an intentional, societal looseness and fastness with human life. i'm troubled by that.
Anyone who thinks that the abortion dilemma is a simple yes or no issue hasn’t given it more than a moment’s thought. You say, “Don’t define things.” Next sentence, what have we here, a definition: “The clump of cells is human.” Well, what makes it human, when does it become human, and why is being human intrinsically sacred? I realize that my previous posts on this matter may have been unnecessarily long. But respectfully, if you’re not going to even bother entertaining the ideas therein why feel the need to respond to them? And “common sense” is a term almost completely devoid of meaning, as it can be applied to any and all modes of reason or illogic, no matter how off the wall. ‘Absence makes the heart grow fonder,’ is one common form of common sense. So is: ‘Out of sight, out of mind.’ OK. But laws=morality is an impossible road to hoe. I understand that the legal definition is what ultimately will hold sway, that practicality eventually will win out. But we can’t hold up legal precedence as being right; otherwise Roe v. Wade must be considered moral, or the anti-abortion laws before that equally moral. I’m concerned with what is morally right, not what is legally so. Like I said, I think you and I are extremely close in our viewpoints on this matter, I think maybe even closer than eight pages ago. I too am troubled by abortion, and recognize the potential fallibilities of each side’s best arguments. But I cannot argue against the abortion of meaningless cells. I see that a boundary obviously and must exist between the meaningless replication of stem cells and the first pangs of what I consider sacred in life; that I nor anyone else cannot currently set that boundary with absolute precision is what, with this issue, plagues me. But yeah, I think I’ve pretty much cast as much line as I can intellectually muster, and don’t want to devolve into purely semantic counterstrikes, which you warn me I’m doing, so, again respectfully, I’ll let that be that.
I've thought long and hard about the potential of a sperm cell or egg cell and the potential on their own is not enough to warrant a human being. A fertilized egg has a different potential than the gameates on their own, therefore, the teratoma gamete is not a seperate being from the individual it grows off of. And when my own words fail me, I turn to this guy, Robert P. George, who says: Human embryos are (just as more mature human beings are) whole human organisms, and, as such, living (albeit immature) members of the species homo sapiens; somatic cells are not. Human embryos have the epigenetic primordia for internally directed maturation as distinct, complete, self-integrating human individuals; somatic cells do not. Thus, the "potential" of somatic cells is nothing remotely like the potential of the embryo. Like sperm and ova, somatic cells, though they themselves are not distinct, self-integrating human organisms (but are rather parts of other, larger human organisms), can contribute constituents to a process that brings into being a new, distinct, self-integrating human organism — a human embryo. By contrast, an embryo — whether brought into being by sexual union or cloning — is already a human being. That human being, given nothing more than an hospitable environment, will actively develop itself from the embryonic through the fetal, infant, and adolescent stages of his or her life and into adulthood with his or her unity and identity fully intact. That is why it is true to say that you or I was once an embryo, just as we were once adolescents, infants, etc. A fully mature human being who came into existence by cloning, however, was never a somatic cell, just as adult human beings who were brought into existence by sexual reproduction were never sperm cells or ova.... More than a decade ago the philosopher Michael Lockwood proposed the same analogy in an effort to find a credible "middle position" in the abortion debate. He proposed brain function as the criterion of life, just as collapse of the brain is the criterion of death. Under that criterion, abortion could be permitted by law before the development of a fetal brain and prohibited afterwards. However, Lockwood's argument crashed and burned on take-off for reasons that his fellow philosophers on both sides of the abortion question immediately pointed out. Under prevailing law and accepted medical practice, the rationale for "brain death" is not that a brain-dead body is a living human organism but not a "person" (as Lockwood claimed and Bailey now claims). Rather, brain death is accepted because the irreversible collapse of the brain destroys the capacity for self-directed integral organic functioning of human beings who have matured to the stage at which the brain performs the key role in integrating the organism. What is left is no longer a unitary organism at all. Obviously, the fact that an embryo has not yet developed a brain (though its capacity to do so is inherent, just as the capacity of an infant to develop its brain sufficiently so that it actually can think is inherent) does not mean that it is incapable of self-directed integral organic functioning. Unlike a corpse — which is merely the remains of what was once a human organism but is now dead — an embryo is a unified, self-integrating human organism. The point still remains that it is from a fertilized egg, not one or the other gamete. A cloning still takes a fertilized egg from two different sources. Once again, after further review, the male sperm does not have the potential on its own to create a child. It takes an egg joined and fertilized, and then it takes that egg making its way down the fallopian tubes and not being impeded. Things work against nature or with nature. Moderation (of desires for sex whatnot) is a wholly natural philasophical concept. But let's not get into a masturbation debate right now. Once again, not because I'm completely inarticualte, but since I do have a relatively high level of inarticulateness, I'll turn to Robert P. George again: When defenders of destructive embryo research or a putative right to abortion say that human embryos or fetuses are human individuals but not "persons," they could mean one of two things. One thing they could mean is that the human person is not a physical organism, and thus did not come to be when the physical organism "associated with" that person came to be. On this view, a "person" is not a physical organism but rather a purely spiritual (not necessarily in any religious sense) subject merely "inhabiting" a body, or perhaps a sequence of experiences, somehow "associated with" a biological organism. But Bailey rightly rejects that position, and the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. Every living thing that performs bodily actions is an organism, a bodily entity. But it is clear in the case of the human individual that it is the same thing that perceives, walks and talks (which are bodily actions), and that understands and makes choices (what everyone, including anyone who denies he is a bodily entity, refers to as "I"). It must be the same thing that perceives these words on a page, for example, and understands them. Thus, what each of us refers to as "I" is identically the physical organism which is the subject both of bodily actions such as perceiving, walking, and so on, and of spiritual actions, such as understanding and choosing. The thing that I am, and the thing that you are — what you and I refer to by the personal pronouns "you" and "I" — is in each case a human, physical organism (but also with spiritual capacities). Therefore, since you and I are essentially physical organisms, we came to be at conception, we once were embryos, then fetuses, then infants, and so on. Alternatively, when someone says that embryos are human but not persons he could mean what Bailey apparently means. That is, he could mean that although you and I once were human embryos, we "became" persons and intrinsically valuable only at a later stage in our lives. We argued against this position in our previous article for NRO, and Bailey makes no effort to rebut our argument. He merely says that the way people commonly use the word "person" does not include human beings in the embryonic stage of development. But the common usage of the word "person" is not the issue. The history of human atrocity makes clear enough that those who wish to license the killing of certain human individuals or classes of human beings will deny that those individuals are "persons," or "fully human," or what have you. The substantive claim that we reject is that you or I or any other human individual came to be at one point, but became worthy of respect and possessors of rights only later in the course of our lives. This philosophical issue (again notice that there is nothing scientific about it) can be discussed, if necessary, without even using the word "person." I'm not, and I don't think civic law is divorced from moral law. Once again, there are things that go against nature and things that go with it. I'd find it hard to argue that abortion is a societal improvement on nature and would argue that it falls in line with those things society tries to assuage, murder, etc. And does it matter, for the sake of your argument about what is human, that the blastula happens in sexual organisms? We're talking about human blastula. Is a cat therefore human? I'd agree with you on the other things, but I think it suffices to say of the species homo sapiens. If its just a male or female sex organ than it doesn't have this full capability. My science might be a bit off from back in the day, but a gamete can not develop on its own. Once again (I love Swift by the way) because this man puts it into a better form than I, Robert P. George: Human individuals, such as you or I, are valuable because of what they are; they are not mere carriers or vehicles of what is in itself valuable. If human individuals were mere vehicles for bringing about what is intrinsically valuable then it would be acceptable to kill one's young child as long at it was agreed that we would replace him with a healthier or more intelligent one, or with two. But that is certainly not the case. Human individuals are not valuable (only) in that way. So, the things (substantial entities) that they are (i.e., human beings), rather than the properties or states they instantiate, are intrinsically valuable. But that means that, no matter how one chooses to use the word "person," the entities that you and I are, are valuable from the point at which they come to be. They do not come to be at one time but become intrinsically valuable only at some time later. As we pointed out in our original critique of Bailey's denial of the worth and dignity of embryonic human beings, what is intrinsically valuable — and therefore what is rightly called a "person" — is the thing (substantial entity) that has natural capacities for reason and free choice. Such an entity has a rational nature. By virtue of it, he or she possesses dignity and is the subject of rights. Clearly, when an adult human being is asleep or in a coma, or suffering from dementia, he still is a person, even though he cannot immediately exercise mental functions, and even if he will never exercise such functions again. But so too with infants, fetuses and embryos. Because they are human beings they have radical natural capacities to exercise mental functions. It will take them some time to actualize those capacities, but they are identical to the entities that (unless prevented by natural calamity or deliberate human action) actively develop themselves to the stage of maturity where they exercise rational faculties and make free choices. Note carefully that according to Bailey's argument neither a comatose person nor a three-week-old infant would qualify as a "person," since neither of them now has memories or forms intentions. Unabashed proponents of the view Bailey embraces — such as Peter Singer and Michael Tooley — candidly acknowledge that this argument that embryos or fetuses are not persons because they lack consciousness unavoidably leads to condoning infanticide. Bailey says that, "we do define 'persons' as the sort of entities that do have brains capable of sustaining a mind…." But we certainly do not define them that way. And historically most people have not done so. In fact, this definition is of recent vintage, and was custom designed by supporters of abortion, embryo experimentation, and euthanasia to give advantage to their moral and political arguments. There is certainly nothing scientific about it. It is true that people generally think, and have thought, that human individuals are "persons" because they are of a kind that typically come to exercise mental functions. But, until recently, people have not denied personhood to human individuals too young to perform such functions yet, or too frail or disabled to perform them any longer. I'm working on becoming a teacher, I give to charity, I'm to young to raise a family, and I try to worry about the humans. That's why I'm worried for these humans who can't worry for themselves. It has been nice debating with you.
The full link to the George article is http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george073001.shtml
I've given it at least 30 years of thought. I've been married to a woman who had not one but two abortions. Don't try to tell me how much I have thought about this topic-- much less lived with it. Of course something has to be defined. Everything is defined; I know that. I also know that the only way your argument can self-articulate a triumph is to keep defining: 1) What the argument is? (Choice vs. Life) 2) Whose rights are being abridged? (Woman's vs. Child's) 3) When Life begins? (Default to Conception vs. How Late do you want to be able to Abort) 4) What business is it of a man's? (Human vs. Oppressor) Did I leave anything out?
we definitely agree on this!!! i could not agree more! having said that...this is the practical reality. we can argue in the abstract all day long...but the real front for this discussion is in the practical application of policy which begins with words on paper by a legislative body.
A good scientific article about when life begins. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html I'll put some of it in the post but the whole thing is quite long. A. Basic human embryological facts To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization—the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte—usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced. To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down’s or Turner’s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained—otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort. To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being. 1) Gametogenesis As the human embryologist Larsen2 states it, gametogenesis is the process that converts primordial germ cells (primitive sex cells) into mature sex gametes—in the male (spermatozoa, or sperms), and in the female (definitive oocytes). The timing of gametogenesis is different in males and in females. The later stages of spermatogenesis in males occur at puberty, and continue throughout adult life. The process involves the production of spermatogonia from the primitive germ cells, which in turn become primary spermatocytes, and finally spermatids—or mature spermatozoa (sperms). These mature sperms will have only half of the number of their original chromosomes—i.e., the number of chromosomes has been cut from 46 to 23, and therefore they are ready to take part in fertilization.3 Oogenesis begins in the female during fetal life. The total number of primary oocytes—about 7 million—is produced in the female fetus’ ovaries by 5 months of gestation in the mother’s uterus. By birth, only about 700,000 - 2 million remain. By puberty, only about 400,000 remain. The process includes several stages of maturation—the production of oogonia from primitive germ cells, which in turn become primary oocytes, which become definitive oocytes only at puberty. This definitive oocyte is what is released each month during the female’s menstrual period, but it still has 46 chromosomes. In fact, it does not reduce its number of chromosomes until and unless it is fertilized by the sperm, during which process the definitive oocyte becomes a secondary oocyte with only 23 chromosomes.4 This halving of the number of chromosomes in the oocytes takes place by the process known as meiosis. Many people confuse meiosis with a different process known as mitosis, but there is an important difference. Mitosis refers to the normal division of a somatic or of a germ cell in order to increase the number of those cells during growth and development. The resulting cells contain the same number of chromosomes as the previous cells—in human beings, 46. Meiosis refers to the halving of the number of chromosomes that are normally present in a germ cell - the precursor of a sperm or a definitive oocyte - in order for fertilization to take place. The resulting gamete cells have only half of the number of chromosomes as the previous cells—in human beings, 23. One of the best and most technically accurate explanations for this critical process of gametogenesis is by Ronan O’Rahilly,5 the human embryologist who developed the classic Carnegie stages of human embryological development. He also sits on the international board of Nomina Embryologica (which determines the correct terminology to be used in human embryology textbooks internationally): "Gametogenesis is the production of [gametes], i.e., spermatozoa and oocytes. These cells are produced in the gonads, i.e., the testes and ovaries respectively. ... During the differentiation of gametes, diploid cells (those with a double set of chromosomes, as found in somatic cells [46 chromosomes]) are termed primary, and haploid cells (those with a single set of chromosomes [23 chromosomes]) are called secondary. The reduction of chromosomal number ... from 46 (the diploid number or 2n) to 23 (the haploid number or n) is accomplished by a cellular division termed meiosis. ... Spermatogenesis, the production of spermatozoa, continues from immediately after puberty until old age. It takes place in the testis, which is also an endocrine gland, the interstitial cells of which secrete testosterone. Previous to puberty, spermatogonia in the simiferous tubules of the testis remain relatively inactive. After puberty, under stimulation from the interstitial cells, spermatogonia proliferate ... and some become primary spermatocytes. When these undergo their first maturation division (meiosis 1), they become secondary spermatocytes. The second maturation division (meiosis 2) results in spermatids, which become converted into spermatozoa."6 "Oogenesis is the production and maturation of oocytes, i.e.; the female gametes derived from oogonia. Oogonia (derived from primordial germ cells) multiply by mitosis and become primary oocytes. The number of oogonia increases to nearly seven million by the middle of prenatal life, after which it diminishes to about two million at birth. From these, several thousand oocytes are derived, several hundred of which mature and are liberated (ovulated) during a reproductive period of some thirty years. Prophase of meiosis 1 begins during fetal life but ceases at the diplotene state, which persists during childhood. ... After puberty, meiosis 1 is resumed and a secondary oocyte ... is formed, together with polar body 1, which can be regarded as an oocyte having a reduced share of cytoplasm. The secondary oocyte is a female gamete in which the first meiotic division is completed and the second has begun. From oogonium to secondary oocyte takes from about 12 to 50 years to be completed. Meiosis 2 is terminated after rupture of the follicle (ovulation) but only if a spermatozoon penetrates. ... The term ‘ovum’ implies that polar body 2 has been given off, which event is usually delayed until the oocyte has been penetrated by a spermatozoon (i.e., has been fertilized). Hence a human ovum does not [really] exist. Moreover the term has been used for such disparate structures as an oocyte and a three-week embryo, and therefore should be discarded, as a fortiori should ‘egg’."7 (Emphasis added.) Thus, for fertilization to be accomplished, a mature sperm and a mature human oocyte are needed. Before fertilization,8 each has only 23 chromosomes. They each possess "human life," since they are parts of a living human being; but they are not each whole living human beings themselves. They each have only 23 chromosomes, not 46 chromosomes—the number of chromosomes necessary and characteristic for a single individual member of the human species. Furthermore, a sperm can produce only "sperm" proteins and enzymes; an oocyte can produce only "oocyte" proteins and enzymes; neither alone is or can produce a human being with 46 chromosomes. Also, note O’Rahilly’s statement that the use of terms such as "ovum" and "egg"—which would include the term "fertilized egg"—is scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate in reality, and is therefore very misleading—especially in these present discussions. Thus these terms themselves would qualify as "scientific" myths. The commonly used term, "fertilized egg," is especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization has begun. What is being called a "fertilized egg" is not an egg of any sort; it is a human being. 2) Fertilization Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O’Rahilly defines fertilization as: "... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.) The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes—the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore: "Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.) This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being—the single-cell human zygote—is biologically an individual, a living organism—an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen: "... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.) In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis—each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts—each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual. After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn’t become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14
I came across an article a while back that shows A Buddhist view on Abortion. It kind of sums up the way I think about the issue and I wanted to share it. This text is from Mr. Hung Yang Chang (Henry Chang) of The Buddhist Association of the United States. "In the Buddhist doctrine of nonviolence and non-killing, abortion is not sanctioned. It is actually one of the Boddhisattva's practicing vows to avoid all kinds of killing including human-beings and like-beings." This article was written by Punnadhammo Bhikkhu, a Buddhist monk living in Ontario. Few debates in our society generate as much heat and as little light as the debate about abortion. A sign of the odd and oftimes less than honest nature of the discussion is that the advocates of the opposing sides style themselves "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life," both studiously avoiding the "A" word. Harmlessness is seen as a cardinal virtue. Buddhism takes this farther than most religious traditions by extending it to animal life. Certainly one can find extreme situations when the ethical principle must be bent in practice, such as the eradication of malarial mosquitoes, but the tradition is cautious about any such concessions to utilitarianism. Abortion is undeniably the taking of life. The debate centers on the issue as to whether the life in question can be considered human. Buddhism like most religions, says most emphatically that it is. The Buddhist teaching has it that consciousness first arises at the moment of conception, and that consciousness, shaped by karmic influences from past lives, is a critical, and indeed formative, component of the new organism from that moment on. The opposite view is only supportable if one reduces human existence to the strictly mechanical, denying any spiritual dimension to the human experience. Unhappily, this is a view much too prevalent in our modern age, a view which passes itself off as "scientific." If a human life is nothing beyond strictly biological processes, then it has no intrinsic worth above and beyond those processes. This opens the way to a utilitarian ethic that condones killing of humans in many situations, not only abortion but war, capital punishment and euthanasia. If it is seen that the continuance of a given human life stands in the way of some ostensible greater good, then for the materialist philosopher, it becomes acceptable to end that life. This ethic which sometimes calls itself "humanist" is in reality profoundly dehumanizing. When young women are led to believe that there is no moral issue involved in acts of violence perpetrated within their wombs, then something else besides the fetus is being destroyed. Our respect for human worth and dignity is undermined. We can see this trend all around us. If our culture truly respected "humanist" values, would it tolerate thousands of the poor living in the streets and eating out of dumpsters? But if abortion is a moral evil, as all wisdom traditions agree, then what is the best way to eliminate it? Hitherto it seems that most of the effort of the anti-abortion people has been directed to changing the laws. We should think carefully about this approach. To make an act illegal, to put the coercive power of the state behind its ban, is not to eliminate it, it is only to drive it under cover. Many examples prove this, the historical one of alcohol prohibition and the contemporary experience of drug use. Not only does a legal ban fail to eliminate the act, it fails to address the real problem, which is a moral rehabilitation of society. A legal ban would be unnecessary if the moral attitude of society were awakened to the unacceptability of the deed. Of course it is much easier to change a law than it is to educate values. We also need to be more realistic and compassionate in our approach to the problem. For example, when young people have ready access to contraceptives, this eliminates many unwanted pregnancies and therefore possible abortions. As part of this preventative aspect, men especially need to take more responsibility for their half of the deed. Further, we ought to be more tolerant and accepting of unmarried mothers. they ought not to be made to feel ashamed, nor ought they to be put into material suffering by a parsimonious welfare system. Those who would advocate compassion for the unborn need to practice it for the born as well.
