On Defining Life

[weaver2]

Your stance commits a moral relativism fallacy

You commit a false equivalency
Your argument ...... is a false analogy.

You argument incorporates several fallacies.

Your assertion employs a slippery slope fallacy

Regurgitating a debate handbook is just a diversionary tactic to hide your sanctimonious denial of abortion to women who know they cannot support a child or another child in a caring and supportive environment based solely on your self proclaimed moral superiority and your debate handbook.

Your argument oversimplifies complex ethics around dependency and care.

It's not a complex issue. You either believe and trust women and doctors or you believe you have a right to deny women the power to make decisions about childbearing.

 

[choiceone]

Abortion is not a moral issue. It's a legal one. And a legal argument can be made for abortion, but not against it. You're the one trying to make it a moral issue. But since morality is subjective and you can't even objectively quantify the "value" of life as the basis for your argument, your argument therefore repeatedly falls flat.

You are mistaken. A woman has the right to abortion because she has liberty. If you prevent her from having a right to abortion you impinge on the right to liberty. The liberty right does not cover just privacy, but the right to enjoyment of her limbs, health, and well-being without interference.

She does not have the right to someone else's service in providing abortion unless that someone else agrees to provide it, something he or she can refuse to do on the basis of conscience. If that someone respects her rights to life and liberty sufficiently to perform the abortion, he or she will do that. A doctor will provide one if he considers her liberty of enjoyment of her own limbs, health, and well-being and her life to outweigh anything he or she thinks about embryonic or fetal life or tissue.

Legally, we do not prevent a woman from having an abortion, at the very least because she sometimes has an involuntary spontaneous abortion for which many people don't want to hold her guilty. FYI, at one historical time, one pope defined involuntary spontaneous abortion as murder and had a woman burned at the stake for having one even though she had wanted to continue the pregnancy. Fortunately, that policy didn't outlast that idiot.

But the notion that abortion is not a moral/ethical issue as well as a legal one is wrong, because a doctor does have the right of conscience to refuse to perform an abortion under whatever conditions his/her conscience dictates. This is precisely why abortion as a legal issue in Ireland became a big moral scandal - doctors refused to complete voluntarily the spontaneous abortion of Savita Halappanavar because her life was not sufficiently threatened yet and they hoped that spontaneous abortion would complete itself before the presence of the fetus caused sepsis to occur.

In the US, the AMA and ACOG do not see anything wrong with providing legal abortion to the woman if she wants one if it's not more unhealthy to her than late pregnancy/childbirth would be. Hence, they support legal abortion based on that criterion. But a tiny group of obgyns supports the original Hippogratic oath included an anti-abortion passage. They try unsuccessfully to argue that abortion harms women, sometimes using medical research that supports that claim but does not have wider scientific support, etc.

The notion that morality isn't involved here is wrong because doctors, unlike pregnant women, cannot be claimed to be defending their own life or health and they have consciences that have to be respected in law. Medical ethics come into play. Furthermore, this nonsense about abortion killing a human life rather than ending a pregnancy without birth is problematic partly because of IVF. People are saying that a fertilized egg has to be used or stored forever.

 

[choiceone]

Your assertion employs a slippery slope fallacy by assuming a continuum where the beginning point of life is based solely on arbitrary cognitive milestones. By prioritizing consciousness and communication as criteria for personhood you inadvertently devalue the lives of those with cognitive disabilities or in temporary states of unconsciousness. Are those in a temporary coma, limited consciousness, or newborn babies not a human being?

First, I have never heard of a person with such grave cognitive disabilities that their cognition is less than that of a neonate upon birth, and I don't believe that's even possible. Anyone who has demonstrated even one time that they have the level of capacity of such a neonate deserves personhood. Of course you can be in a coma - you just can't be born in a coma. You have to demonstrate at least once that you have those basic qualities of personhood.

You value human biological lives. I value living personhood. Big difference.

And FYI, theoretically, you shouldn't have to be human. An extraterrestrial being with those qualities would be a person.

Your statement that no person of any age has a legal right to his/her parent's blood comparison introduces a false equivalence fallacy. The natural dependency of a fetus on its mother for survival is a unique biological relationship that's fundamentally different from the legalities governing organ donation among independent individuals. Unlike organ donation providing sustenance to one's offspring is a natural biological expectation.

I'm saying that the natural dependency of the embryo on a woman for survival has to involve her consent to pregnancy because she's a person, not just a living blob. So for me it's not a false equivalence. I don't hold a brief for anyone or anything that would rape a woman or girl to save its own life, and I'm not changing.

There's no such thing as a natural biological expectation of providing sustenance to one's offspring except in the minds of the inadequate who are long dead and had very faulty scientific information about other species and our own.

In fact, the vet who delivered our dog's puppies said she was a bad mother because she didn't lick the sacks that still held them. But she was the runt of a litter and had never observed the event, which other dogs undoubted see even though their just born.

Zebras, rabbits, etc., may neglect their offspring under many natural conditions. And FYI, though for a man, an embryo inside a woman has truly sprung off of thim and for a woman, it hasn't and therefore isn't really an "offspring," I don't see all men naturally caring for the women they impregnate - they don't want to.

Also, a pregnant woman isn't a mother. If she has a miscarriage before a fetus is viable, no one calls it a stillbirth and issues a death certificate for it. If she wants to give birth, she calls herself a mother-to-be. Only certain religious suasions lead women to claim they're mothers until they give birth - I'm Protestant and have never heard such a claim even from a Catholic. Women are usually realists.

End Part i

 

[choiceone]

Your argument suggests that a decision by a third party (through consensual or non-consensual sex) can justify abortion. You argument incorporates several fallacies. It anthropomorphizes the fetus by applying the concept of consent where it cannot logically apply. Then it presents a red herring by diverting attention from the central issue of the fetus's right to life to the circumstances of conception which do not alter the intrinsic value of the fetus's life. Your appeal to nature regarding abortifacient herbs and animals' behavior is a naturalistic fallacy because it implies that because something is natural it is morally acceptable.

First, the conjoined twins functional heads argument is merely a way to address the problem of number of persons in the cases of pregnancy and conjoined twins. In pregnancy, we don't know how many embryos there will be until gastrulation occurs, and even then, it is possible for one twin to adsorb another, though rare. Until we can count them and be sure they're there in that number, we can't possibly speak of "persons," as that is a countable noun. Second, legally, two functional heads of conjoined twins ARE persons and they're counted in the Census, but if conjoined twins have only one functional head, only one is counted. This isn't a new concept.

Second, I don't think abortion has to be justified by anything except the woman. Some pregnancies are naturally aborted. We don't justify or condemn it. That's an unchanging fact. A doctor, who is a third party, can decide on the basis of conscience whether his or her providing abortion is justified or not to his or her own conscience because persons fundamentally disagree over this issue.

Third, I don't have to anthropomorphize a human fetus or caninize a canine fetus because they are what they are. Being human doesn't make a fetus. I have no idea what you're talking about saying I'm applying the concept of consent where it can't logically apply. If a woman used contraception, was too inexperienced or stupid to do so, or so old she mistakenly thought she couldn't get pregnant, and she has an unwanted pregnancy, she shouldn't have to continue the pregnancy because she didn't consent to it. If she consented to it and her health was affected or her husband beat her up or any of a number of other problems occurred, she shouldn't have to continue the pregnancy because she now doesn't consent.

I never diverted attention from a fetus's right to life because I have never believed that any fetus ever had a right to life. I don't think a fertilized egg has a right to life. I don't think an unimplanted embryo has a right to be implanted. I don't think an implanted embryo has a right to life. I don't think an implanted fetus has a right to life. I'm willing to say that, if a fetus doesn't seem to be seriously threatening the health or life of the pregnant woman and 22 weeks has been reached, the fetus still doesn't have a right to life. This should be decided by the doctor and woman, not an outsider. I don't think a fetus has an intrinsic right to life. I think that a woman consents to give it part of her own life, or she doesn't. I don't think it's your business.

I don't refer to abortifacient herbs, etc., as a naturalistic fallacy. You make a naturalistic fallacy by assuming that, if a pregnancy does not come from consent, the implanted embryo has the same value as the implanted embryo that comes from consent. They are not equal. If the woman has not consented to the pregnancy, the embryo or fetus has no natural value.

A rape embryo is a rape accomplice, just not worthy of later prosecution because legally incompetent. I believe in the NYS law that lets a woman threatened with rape kill the rapist during the threat or rape if necessary to stop the rape, and I personally believe that a woman impregnated by rape has a special moral right to end that rape pregnancy as part of the rape, even though I also believe that every woman should have the right to end any unwanted pregnancy in her own body.

We clear now?

 

[Gordy327]

You are mistaken. A woman has the right to abortion because she has liberty. If you prevent her from having a right to abortion you impinge on the right to liberty. The liberty right does not cover just privacy, but the right to enjoyment of her limbs, health, and well-being without interference.

Liberty is a legal point behind legal arguments, which I agree with and have made.

She does not have the right to someone else's service in providing abortion unless that someone else agrees to provide it, something he or she can refuse to do on the basis of conscience. If that someone respects her rights to life and liberty sufficiently to perform the abortion, he or she will do that. A doctor will provide one if he considers her liberty of enjoyment of her own limbs, health, and well-being and her life to outweigh anything he or she thinks about embryonic or fetal life or tissue.

I never said she did. A doctor is free to refuse service. But she should at least be able to elicit services as needed and doctors be able to perform them if agreed without legal penalties.

Legally, we do not prevent a woman from having an abortion, at the very least because she sometimes has an involuntary spontaneous abortion for which many people don't want to hold her guilty. FYI, at one historical time, one pope defined involuntary spontaneous abortion as murder and had a woman burned at the stake for having one even though she had wanted to continue the pregnancy. Fortunately, that policy didn't outlast that idiot.

But the mentality behind it does, even if currently less extreme.

But the notion that abortion is not a moral/ethical issue as well as a legal one is wrong, because a doctor does have the right of conscience to refuse to perform an abortion under whatever conditions his/her conscience dictates. This is precisely why abortion as a legal issue in Ireland became a big moral scandal - doctors refused to complete voluntarily the spontaneous abortion of Savita Halappanavar because her life was not sufficiently threatened yet and they hoped that spontaneous abortion would complete itself before the presence of the fetus caused sepsis to occur.

Moral and ethics may come up when it comes to performing abortion as a medical procedure, just like any other medical procedure. But when it comes to restricting abortion, that is a legal matter.

In the US, the AMA and ACOG do not see anything wrong with providing legal abortion to the woman if she wants one if it's not more unhealthy to her than late pregnancy/childbirth would be. Hence, they support legal abortion based on that criterion. But a tiny group of obgyns supports the original Hippogratic oath included an anti-abortion passage. They try unsuccessfully to argue that abortion harms women, sometimes using medical research that supports that claim but does not have wider scientific support, etc.

The notion that morality isn't involved here is wrong because doctors, unlike pregnant women, cannot be claimed to be defending their own life or health and they have consciences that have to be respected in law. Medical ethics come into play.

The distinction is between performing abortion an restricting them.

Furthermore, this nonsense about abortion killing a human life rather than ending a pregnancy without birth is problematic partly because of IVF.

To which I agree.

People are saying that a fertilized egg has to be used or stored forever.

To which I disagree.

 

[collected]

First, I have never heard of a person with such grave cognitive disabilities that their cognition is less than that of a neonate upon birth, and I don't believe that's even possible. Anyone who has demonstrated even one time that they have the level of capacity of such a neonate deserves personhood. Of course you can be in a coma - you just can't be born in a coma. You have to demonstrate at least once that you have those basic qualities of personhood.

You value human biological lives. I value living personhood. Big difference.

And FYI, theoretically, you shouldn't have to be human. An extraterrestrial being with those qualities would be a person.

You're selectively applying personhood based on arbitrary criteria. Your assertion that a static once-and-for-all assessment of personhood based on a singular demonstration of capacity lacks rational basis. Why wouldn't a future level of cognitive ability count? Why are you picking & choosing a past capacity? Just FYI based on your criterion a person who is braindead has personhood.

Premature babies have been born before 23 weeks. Why would premature babies born before 23 weeks have personhood upon immediate exit from the birth canal while babies still in the womb with greater cognition at 35 weeks don't have personhood? Once again the determinate factor for personhood would be exit of a biological canal unless of course you're suggesting that abortions should be restricted in some way.

People in a comatose state aren't disconnected from life support due to the potentiality that they will have consciousness in the future. The same reasoning should apply to fetuses.

I'm saying that the natural dependency of the embryo on a woman for survival has to involve her consent to pregnancy because she's a person, not just a living blob. So for me it's not a false equivalence. I don't hold a brief for anyone or anything that would rape a woman or girl to save its own life, and I'm not changing.

There's no such thing as a natural biological expectation of providing sustenance to one's offspring except in the minds of the inadequate who are long dead and had very faulty scientific information about other species and our own.

In fact, the vet who delivered our dog's puppies said she was a bad mother because she didn't lick the sacks that still held them. But she was the runt of a litter and had never observed the event, which other dogs undoubted see even though their just born.

Zebras, rabbits, etc., may neglect their offspring under many natural conditions. And FYI, though for a man, an embryo inside a woman has truly sprung off of thim and for a woman, it hasn't and therefore isn't really an "offspring," I don't see all men naturally caring for the women they impregnate - they don't want to.

Also, a pregnant woman isn't a mother. If she has a miscarriage before a fetus is viable, no one calls it a stillbirth and issues a death certificate for it. If she wants to give birth, she calls herself a mother-to-be. Only certain religious suasions lead women to claim they're mothers until they give birth - I'm Protestant and have never heard such a claim even from a Catholic. Women are usually realists.

End Part i

The unique biological relationship between a mother and her unborn child is not a matter of consent but a natural consequence of human procreation.

There are moral and rational capabilities that distinguish humans from animals. Animals act largely on instinct while humans possess the ability to reflect on the moral implications of their actions. So what you've brought up is false equivalence. Your vet's anecdote about a dog not performing a specific maternal act does not serve as a valid argument against the natural human responsibility to nurture one's offspring.

Animals are incapable of moral reasoning. Animals will rape, torture, and kill other animals. Are you seriously sugguesting that our moral reasoning and justification should be based on what animals do? Just because something happens in nature it does not make it a valid argument for morality.

Your claim that not all men naturally care for the women they impregnate to argue against the natural biological expectation of providing sustenance to one's offspring is a red herring and a hasty generalization.

You then argue that a pregnant woman isn't a mother and use the issuance of a death certificate in the case of a miscarriage as evidence. You're conflating legalism with morality aka legal posivitism. By the way, 31 States have double homocide/murder laws for when a pregnant woman is murdered. Why would someone be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant mother? The Supreme Court at one time once decided that blacks weren't Americans. Law can't be relied upon for morality.

 

[Gordy327]

You're selectively applying personhood based on arbitrary criteria.

Personhood is established and defined by the Constitution and federal law. Nothing arbitrary about it.

Your assertion that a static once-and-for-all assessment of personhood based on a singular demonstration of capacity lacks rational basis. Why wouldn't a future level of cognitive ability count? Why are you picking a choosing a past capacity? Just FYI based on your criterion a person who is braindead has personhood.

Cognitive ability is not a criteria for personhood.

Premature babies have been born before 23 weeks. Why would premature babies born before 23 weeks have personhood upon immediate exit from the birth canal while babies still in the womb with greater cognition at 35 weeks don't have personhood? Once again the a determinate factor for personhood would be exit of a biological canal unless of course you're suggesting that abortions should be restricted in some way.

Birth is the criteria for personhood. Simple legal fact.

People in a comatose state aren't disconnected from life support due to the potentiality that they will have consciousness in the future.

They are if they are declared brain dead or the legal next of kin agrees to withdrawal of care if the possibility of recovery is low or none.

The same reasoning should apply to fetuses.

Why?

The unique biological relationship between a mother and her unborn child is not a matter of consent but a natural consequence of human procreation.

Irrelevant. A woman seeking abortion clearly does not want to have a child.

There are moral and rational capabilities that distinguish humans from animals. Animals act largely on instinct while humans possess the ability to reflect on the moral implications of their actions. So what you've brought up is false equivalence. Your vet's anecdote about a dog not performing a specific maternal act does not serve as a valid argument against the natural human responsibility to nurture one's offspring.

Humans are animals too. We are part of the animal kingdom.

Animals are incapable of moral reasoning. Animals will rape, torture, and kill other animals.

Humans rape, torture, and kill other humans. By your reasoning then, humans are incapable of moral reasoning.

Are you seriously sugguesting that our moral reasoning and justification should be based on what animals do? Just because something happens in nature, it does not make it a valid argument for morality.

Moral reasoning should have no place or say in legal standing or justification.

Your claim that not all men naturally care for the women they impregnate to argue against the natural biological expectation of providing sustenance to one's offspring is a red herring. It's also a sexist generalization.

Some men are absentee fathers. This is a fact.

Law can't be relied upon for morality.

Morality cannot be used to make law.

 

[roguenuke]

You're selectively applying personhood based on arbitrary criteria. Your assertion that a static once-and-for-all assessment of personhood based on a singular demonstration of capacity lacks rational basis. Why wouldn't a future level of cognitive ability count? Why are you picking & choosing a past capacity? Just FYI based on your criterion a person who is braindead has personhood.

Premature babies have been born before 23 weeks. Why would premature babies born before 23 weeks have personhood upon immediate exit from the birth canal while babies still in the womb with greater cognition at 35 weeks don't have personhood? Once again the determinate factor for personhood would be exit of a biological canal unless of course you're suggesting that abortions should be restricted in some way.

People in a comatose state aren't disconnected from life support due to the potentiality that they will have consciousness in the future. The same reasoning should apply to fetuses.


The unique biological relationship between a mother and her unborn child is not a matter of consent but a natural consequence of human procreation.

There are moral and rational capabilities that distinguish humans from animals. Animals act largely on instinct while humans possess the ability to reflect on the moral implications of their actions. So what you've brought up is false equivalence. Your vet's anecdote about a dog not performing a specific maternal act does not serve as a valid argument against the natural human responsibility to nurture one's offspring.

Animals are incapable of moral reasoning. Animals will rape, torture, and kill other animals. Are you seriously sugguesting that our moral reasoning and justification should be based on what animals do? Just because something happens in nature it does not make it a valid argument for morality.

Your claim that not all men naturally care for the women they impregnate to argue against the natural biological expectation of providing sustenance to one's offspring is a red herring and a hasty generalization.

You then argue that a pregnant woman isn't a mother and use the issuance of a death certificate in the case of a miscarriage as evidence. You're conflating legalism with morality aka legal posivitism. By the way, 31 States have double homocide/murder laws for when a pregnant woman is murdered. Why would someone be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant mother? The Supreme Court at one time once decided that blacks weren't Americans. Law can't be relied upon for morality.

Personhood already has selective criteria. It isn't set by biology. It's set by our definition of it.

Birth is the dominate factor, not how long gestation went on for before birth. Birth matters because then they are no longer gestating, regardless of how long they had gestated before that point.

The concept that motherhood is unique because of some random quality you assert is nothing but your personal opinion. Again, a subjective view you have adopted. Especially since we have surrogates.

We have moral reasoning, but we don't share objective moral reasoning for each situation amongst all humans. We don't know whether animals have or may be capable of moral reasoning in the future.

Having homicide laws reflecting that it is a woman's choice because it is her body doesn't prove anything except that some people are trying to assert their own morality into the laws sneakily or they are simply lazy in how to describe a given situation. We can recognize that the woman and by proxy her family if she didn't survive either from someone else causing harm to her during pregnancy was harmed more because of that choice being taken from her, harm caused to the future baby from another person's actions that she did not consent to.

 

[choiceone]

Your stance commits a moral relativism fallacy by suggesting that legal statutes alone should dictate ethical standards. History shows the danger of conflating legality with morality - laws permitting slavery were legal but immoral. Asserting that morality should not influence law overlooks the law's purpose which is to embody societal ethics and protect human rights.

Actually, I don't have a moral relativism about this at all.

Moral relativism would say all morals are okay, and they're not.

But I do not say that life is more important than liberty as a value, and for that reason, I'm willing to lay down my life for what I believe is true. You're not. You'd let the Catholic church take over the US government and force people to agree and we'd end up with the inquisitions, as before, "but the earth still moves."

You wouldn't lay down your life for anything but what you think is the life of another human. And you'd lay down the life of a pregnant woman to save an embryo and excuse yourself by saying you didn't know it would happen no matter how many times we told you. And you still wouldn't be able to end abortion and save them all, because a fatally defective fetal twin can threaten the life of its twin as well as the woman.
\
Laws against abortion were legal but immoral. Roe v Wade asserted their immorality. Dobbs tried to make it a states' issue, but the truth is that the 14th Amendment should apply to women but not embryos.

The assertion that even if a fetus were a person it would have no right to the woman's body ignores the principle of inherent human rights that do not necessitate consent, especially when considering the dependency of a developing human life.

A fetus is not a person and does not have inherent human rights. I "ignore" the fetus as a non-person. Sue me.

Your argument that a parasitic head is not considered a person and therefore it is acceptable to separate conjoined twins in such a manner is a false analogy. Your comparison inaccurately portrays the fetus as a parasite while ignoring the natural biological relationship between a mother and her unborn child. Your analogy also overlooks the ethical implications of directly causing death. Self-defense laws that you cited do not equate to abortion as they involve active immediate threats to an individual's life and not the natural dependent state of a fetus.

A pregnant woman IS NOT A MOTHER. A pregnant woman who wants to continue her pregnancy is a mother-to-be. A pregnant woman who doesn't want to continue her pregnancy is either a victim of a crime, e.g., rape or forced impregnation, or an accident, e.g., ineffective contraception, embryonic implantation in a fallopian tube, loosened implantation, etc., etc.

If the biological relationship between a pregnant woman and an embryo or fetus is non-consensual, it is not natural and is not fundamentally different from rape. If you're raped, you can use lethal force if necessary to stop the rape because it is a felony, even though you can't prosecute the rapist afterward if he or she was legally insane at the time of the crime. The non-consensual embryo even has its sex organs inside the woman's uterus, a sex organ, after the seventh week!

No, I don't agree. Self-defense against rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, and felony robbery do not involve active immediate threats to the individual's life. They might kill the individual, but they are more interested in violating the individual's bodily liberty,

 

[choiceone]

Your argument oversimplifies complex ethics around dependency and care. The unique biological bond between mother and child creates a natural dependency that differs significantly from organ donations among adults. Your perspective also neglects the moral responsibility parents have to provide for their children's basic needs (such as food & shelter), an obligation recognized socially and legally, as evidenced by the numerous laws against child neglect and abuse.

I am sick of arguments that concern natural biology. Guys will say that it's natural for men and women to have sex, and they say it as a line to get you to have sex with them when they are not naturally attractive, not polite, not politically compatible, and usually not intellectually interesting, just because they want to have an orgasm inside a woman.

My perspective doesn't neglect the moral responsibility that legal parents have to provide for their children's basic needs. We don't recognize that responsibility legally for women who don't want to be pregnant, and if a state did, I'd leave that state as soon as possible even if I couldn't afford it, as I consider that unethical.

A pregnant woman who intends to continue the pregnancy, she has an obligation to the future child not to endanger it by, say, drinking a lot of alcohol. But a pregnant woman who intends to end her pregnancy by abortion does not have that obligation.

 

[collected]

Personhood is established and defined by the Constitution and federal law. Nothing arbitrary about it.

Your reliance on the Constitution and federal law as the ultimate authority for personhood fails to engage with the philosophical and ethical dimensions of the debate. It's nothing more than legal positivism.

Cognitive ability is not a criteria for personhood.

Your statement directly contradicts choiceone's earlier assertion that a demonstration of neonatal-level capacity is required for personhood. It just shows how abortionists can't decide on why they think abortion is moral should be legal.

Birth is the criteria for personhood. Simple legal fact.

Appeal to authority. You need to give me reasoning outside of "the law says so."

They are if they are declared brain dead or the legal next of kin agrees to withdrawal of care if the possibility of recovery is low or none. Why?

Your comparison between brain death and pregnancy fails to recognize a fundamental difference: the trajectory of the condition. Brain death is a permanent & irreversible condition with no potential for recovery whereas pregnancy naturally progresses towards the development and birth of a new life. The potentiality inherent in fetal development is not comparable to the finality of brain death.

Irrelevant. A woman seeking abortion clearly does not want to have a child.

Non sequitur. Your response does not logically follow that the lack of desire for a child negates the ethical considerations of the act of abortion itself.

Humans are animals too. We are part of the animal kingdom.

The capacity for moral reflection and the ability to understand the consequences of our actions distinguish humans from other animals in a way that is critically relevant to the abortion debate.

Humans rape, torture, and kill other humans. By your reasoning then, humans are incapable of moral reasoning.

False equivalence. Your assertion mistakenly equates the actions of some humans with inherent human nature - ignoring the critical capacity for moral reasoning that differentiates humans from animals.

Moral reasoning should have no place or say in legal standing or justification.

Are you kidding me? The legal system’s very foundation is built upon notions of such as right and wrong and also justice and injustice which are inherently moral concepts. Laws are often grounded in moral principles.

Some men are absentee fathers. This is a fact.

Red herring and overgeneralization. Also the fact that some men are absentee fathers does not negate the existence of a moral or biological impetus towards nurturing and providing for one's children.

Morality cannot be used to make law.

Your claim makes a false dichotomy between morality and law by suggesting that the two realms are entirely separate and that one should not influence the other. Many laws are direct manifestations of moral judgments. Theft and murder are based on moral understandings of harm.

 

[DCCougar]

Having defined the zygote as a unique human life, it can be assumed that it will remain a unique human life throughout its fetal development and beyond birth.

Your argument is faulty. What if a woman says "You want to "protect" this unique human life zygote? Here, take it. It's yours." What are you going to do with it?

 

[Lursa]

Personhood is established and defined by the Constitution and federal law. Nothing arbitrary about it.

Even considering it as a legal and not moral point, I proved very clearly to @collected why birth is not arbitrary at all. And I get no direct response. He refuses to acknowledge that the woman, her rights, her bodily autonomy, etc are involved, much less matter.

It's a pretty clear difference between born and unborn, not remotely arbitrary:

If it's unborn (inside her), if the govt acts to protect it, without her consent, it violates the woman's Const rights to things like due process, bodily autonomy, liberty, self-determination, etc to act on or protect that unborn.​

​

--however--​

​

Once born (outside her), the govt can act to protect babies, children, teens, and any other persons, without violating the mother's rights. It still requires due process of course, if that person is a minor.​

 

[choiceone]

Scientifically the trajectory of a fertilized egg barring natural or external interruptions is to develop into a fully formed human being. Each stage of development from fertilization to birth is part of a continuous process that if not interrupted will naturally lead to the birth of a human child. Asserting otherwise ignores basic biological facts about human development. The natural occurrence of spontaneous abortions does not ethically justify induced abortion. The fact that many human beings die naturally at various ages does not negate their value. Stating statistical facts isn't going to get you to an ought.

I don't agree with your supposedly scientific view because, unless the fertilized ovum implants in a woman, it can't develop into a fully formed human being. Once it's implanted, it usually gets what it needs from the woman's blood and bodily homeostasis, etc. But at least 50% of fertilized ova are scientifically estimated never to implant. That's not a natural or external interruption. It's just what happens 50% of the time naturally. You don't have scientific warrant to call it an interruption if it happens 50% of the time. You are mistaking nature for something it isn't.

I didn't say that natural spontaneous abortion ethically justifies induced abortion. I think that induced abortion is justified because women are persons with the same rights to life, liberty, and property as men, and one of these is to prevent unwanted biological entities to grow in one's body to the point of harming it. Embryos do that.

A human embryo has no inherent value except that of potential to grow into a human being if a woman consents to harbor it in her body for nine months. Persons, on the other hand, have inherent value right now.

Re developmental biology, you should read this. It's a lecture from SC Gilbert at Swarthmore, an eminent developmental biologist who has written a textbook on developmental biology as well as peer-reviewed journal articles. You won't like it, but you'll learn some basics about developmental biology.

When Does Personhood Begin?

Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert admits he can't answer the question he poses at the start of his popular talk. However, he adds with "absolute certainty" that there is also "no consensus among scientists."

www.swarthmore.edu

 

[collected]

I don't agree with your supposedly scientific view because, unless the fertilized ovum implants in a woman, it can't develop into a fully formed human being. Once it's implanted, it usually gets what it needs from the woman's blood and bodily homeostasis, etc. But at least 50% of fertilized ova are scientifically estimated never to implant. That's not a natural or external interruption. It's just what happens 50% of the time naturally. You don't have scientific warrant to call it an interruption if it happens 50% of the time. You are mistaking nature for something it isn't.

Your argument hinges on the naturalistic fallacy which is the idea that what happens naturally dictates what should happen or what is morally right. The frequency of an event in nature does not determine its ethical or moral standing. Even if 50% of fertilized ova do not implant this does not negate the biological trajectory of a fertilized egg towards becoming a fully formed human. Equating the lack of implantation with a justification for induced abortion conflates natural occurrences with deliberate human actions.

I didn't say that natural spontaneous abortion ethically justifies induced abortion. I think that induced abortion is justified because women are persons with the same rights to life, liberty, and property as men, and one of these is to prevent unwanted biological entities to grow in one's body to the point of harming it. Embryos do that.

Here you're constructing a false equivalence between the right to life and bodily autonomy. While women possess full rights to life, liberty, and property these rights do not automatically extend to taking another potential life as a means of exercising bodily autonomy. Your argument also falls into a slippery slope by labeling embryos as "unwanted biological entities" reducing them to intruders rather than potential human lives with their own rights.

A human embryo has no inherent value except that of potential to grow into a human being if a woman consents to harbor it in her body for nine months. Persons, on the other hand, have inherent value right now.

Re developmental biology, you should read this. It's a lecture from SC Gilbert at Swarthmore, an eminent developmental biologist who has written a textbook on developmental biology as well as peer-reviewed journal articles. You won't like it, but you'll learn some basics about developmental biology.

When Does Personhood Begin?

Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert admits he can't answer the question he poses at the start of his popular talk. However, he adds with "absolute certainty" that there is also "no consensus among scientists."

www.swarthmore.edu

Asserting that embryos have value only if a woman consents to pregnancy introduces subjective and arbitrary criteria into the discussion of human value. Citing the absence of a scientific consensus on personhood does not constitute an argument in favor of abortion.

 

[Lursa]

Your argument hinges on the naturalistic fallacy which is the idea that what happens naturally dictates what should happen or what is morally right. The frequency of an event in nature does not determine its ethical or moral standing.

So then why is your moral argument based solely on species classification, Homo sapiens, and biological stage of development? You "choose" to attach an "inherent value" here...but since you are solely focused on 'naturalistic' criteria...where does that "inherent" right to life/value come from? Why does no other species have it? This "Inherency" is not a 'naturalistic' or 'biological' concept.

The entirety of your moral argument:

Premise 1: A zygote or fetus is categorized as an individual human being because it's biologically classified as being part of the human species, is alive, and part of the human life cycle.
Premise 2: Abortion is the intentional and premeditated killing of a human being.
Premise 3: Killing human beings intentionally and with premeditation is a moral wrong due to human life having inherit value.
Conclusion 1: Abortion is a moral wrong.

 

[roguenuke]

Your argument hinges on the naturalistic fallacy which is the idea that what happens naturally dictates what should happen or what is morally right. The frequency of an event in nature does not determine its ethical or moral standing. Even if 50% of fertilized ova do not implant this does not negate the biological trajectory of a fertilized egg towards becoming a fully formed human. Equating the lack of implantation with a justification for induced abortion conflates natural occurrences with deliberate human actions.


Here you're constructing a false equivalence between the right to life and bodily autonomy. While women possess full rights to life, liberty, and property these rights do not automatically extend to taking another potential life as a means of exercising bodily autonomy. Your argument also falls into a slippery slope by labeling embryos as "unwanted biological entities" reducing them to intruders rather than potential human lives with their own rights.



Asserting that embryos have value only if a woman consents to pregnancy introduces subjective and arbitrary criteria into the discussion of human value. Citing the absence of a scientific consensus on personhood does not constitute an argument in favor of abortion.

Again, values are arbitrary and subjective. That's how they work. You can't show a scientific basis of value that revolves around objective criteria. Science doesn't have anything to do with personhood.

Nothing you have presented constitutes an argument against abortion. All you've basically done is claimed that because you believe there is a set inherent value in all human life, that should be held by others as an absolute, despite you not being able to provide any evidence for this, and then trying to throw around logical fallacies as if they are candy from a parade (by the way, you got that fallacy wrong above, as it would be an appeal to nature, not the naturalistic fallacy).

 

[choiceone]

If we were to apply your consciousness standard universally then it would also devalue the lives of newborns, the severely disabled, and those in comas, as they may not exhibit the capacities in ways that you deem necessary. The earliest surviving premature baby was just over 21 weeks, did it have consciousness after coming out of the womb? Did consciousness all the sudden appear after birth?

I have been through this with you before. You are wrongly applying the notions of consciousness to others.
Neonates and the severely disabled are just as much persons as you or me in having consciousness. What you and I have that they do not is intellectual substance. It's true that a severely disabled person may not even be able to acquire this much intellectual substance, but consciousness is much larger than intellect. That's why I really hate it when people use scientific terms like "cognition," which is highly limited.

As for those in comas, like neonates and the severely disabled, and ourselves, they have already proven that they are capable of human-like consciousness and communication. We all have human EEGs and convey by facial or vocal means some aspects of consciousness. We give those in comas the benefit of the doubt because they demonstrated consciousness before. I for one don't give that benefit to a fetus at least before the woman pregnant with it wants to do so. I think that's an issue of bare minimum politeness, which you don't have.

Yes, when the premature infant at just over 21 weeks it had consciousness, though not a human EEG yet. Living entities that are born become conscious in part because of the radical difference in environment.

 

[stealthycat]

its very simple

if a woman is pregnant (normal pregnancy) , there HAS to be a living unborn human in her womb

can't be any other way - and you can call it a zygote, blastocyst, a puppy or a kitten of a baby - the name you call it absolutely 100% doesn't matter to what it is - a living unborn human

woman CANNOT be pregnant (normal pregnancy) with a non-alive or non-human ....... that's impossible

 

[Lursa]

Ethical systems across cultures and times have independently recognized the inherent value of human life. This recognition isn't arbitrary but stems from the unique capabilities of humans such as rational thought moral agency and the capacity for empathy.

So, now you attempt to separate your soley "naturalistic' or biological premise from morality to populism?

Btw, other species demonstrate all those things. Crows, dolphins, orcas, bonobos, certain parrot species. Where is their "inherent" value or right to life?

Also, why would the unborn have 'more' moral agency' than the woman carrying it?

Your skepticism towards the foundation of the premise that human life has inherent value reflects a philosophical stance but not an argument against the premise itself.

Your "moral" argument is wholly based on a biological premise. Until you need to justify it with reason...and you end up with an invented "inherence," and an appeal to populism.

I supported mine with lists of moral and/or negative and positive impacts. Actual facts, results, consequences. The "whys" behind the moral stance of my arguments. Where is your 'why?'

 

[choiceone]

You fail to acknowledge the core issue: just because something occurs in nature does not make it morally acceptable for humans. It's a naturalistic fallacy to imply that natural occurrences can dictate human morality. Arguing that because spontaneous abortions happen naturally, induced abortions are justified commits a naturalistic fallacy.

Not at all. I've said before, men can rape women, people can kill in anger, etc., and you can compare it to the natural behavior of other primates, which is the best evidence for recognizing that there is no one biological group that's naturally innocent or valuable = it doesn't depend on species. Just as there are truly good and loving people, there are truly good and loving collies.

The main purpose of acknowledging both spontaneous abortion in nature and apparent use of abortifacients by chimpanzees is to point out: 1) some natural abortive processes have developed as adaptations for survival of females, and 2) induced abortion probably goes back to pre-humans and has been used by women for many reasons whether or not ,men agreed to make it legal. And they'll go right on doing it.

Your assertion fails to recognize that ending a pregnancy also involves ending the life of the embryo or fetus involved. The primary goal of an abortion is not to terminate a pregnancy but to do so by ending the life that pregnancy supports. This distinction matters because it acknowledges the moral weight of the decision to abort which directly leads to the loss of potential human life.

My reason for not recognizing this is because I think you are wrong. It's true that ending a pregnancy without birth, i.e., abortion, results in the death of an embryo or pre-viable fetus involved. But I have carefully pointed out to you that, in a molar pregnancy, there is no embryo or fetus involved, and that it is ending the pregnancy that is the aim of the woman and doctor in almost all cases.

The Catholic church tries to make this distinction so that they can perform abortions of ectopic pregnancies, for example, but pretend they aren't abortions. They say that the use of methotrexate to end a fallopian tube pregnancy kills the embryo directly, but cutting out the part of the tube that contains the embryo only causes its death indirectly. Of course, they are directly uinjuring the woman and her fertility doing the latter, while methotrexate disimplants the embryo. Sorry, their distinction sounds fishy to me, and I believe it's because the Catholic church treats women as cattle.

 

[choiceone]

The right to life is a fundamental ethical principle that extends to all human beings regardless of their biological developmental stage. In biology parasitism involves an organism living off another and harming it in the process. The relationship between a mother and her embryo/fetus is symbiotic rather than parasitic as it is part of the natural reproductive process designed to continue the species. Saying that the embryo has no life of its own is just factually incorrect - an embryo exhibits signs of life due to cellular reproduction and metabolic activity. The use of medical or surgical means to abort contradicts the definition of a natural process which is the absence of deliberate human intervention.

I don't care anything about this because you're confusing fundamental ethics with nature. I don't believe in natural philosophy, because it was so obviously an excuse on the part of men to rape women one way or the other or control their sexuality one way or another. It has nothing to do with impartial reality.

Symbiosis comes in several varieties, e.g., commensal, amensal, parasitic. A fetus has a biological mode of living that is parasitic because if lives off another and harms it. A woman is unequivocally harmed by pregnancy, because we can prove that her immune system is suppressed, among many other reasons.

Continuing the species is not an individual good. Its a species good.

Tbe un-implanted embryo has a life of its own - as I, perhaps alone on DP, have said. But that embryo has a limited, mortal life of 8-10 days in the womb, just as every mammalian species has its own limited life span for un-implanted embryos. If it doesn't implant then, it will die. If we grow other species' embryos in petrie dishes, we can double their preimplantation life spans, but then they die unless implanted. Theoretically, a human embryo can last 16-20 days in a petrie dish, but we can only legally grow them for 12 days, I think.

I'm an anthropologist, and I don't treat medical or surgical means as "unnatural." Humans are naturally cultural, and even chimpanzees eat abortifacient leaves and have a medical proto-culture, which has been studied. So it's not at all strange to think of all the medical systems of non-Europeans as developed naturally, and when we do, we easily understand that the European system of medicine is also "natural."

 

[collected]

Furthermore, though the egg can be classed as a potential human, the word being should never be used until a conscious human awareness and human-like facial or vocal communicative capacity has been demonstrated. And I would certainly add a capacity to breathe oxygen even if undemonstrated would be crucial - otherwise, the oxygen belongs to the woman, not the interloper.

I have been through this with you before. You are wrongly applying the notions of consciousness to others.
Neonates and the severely disabled are just as much persons as you or me in having consciousness. What you and I have that they do not is intellectual substance. It's true that a severely disabled person may not even be able to acquire this much intellectual substance, but consciousness is much larger than intellect. That's why I really hate it when people use scientific terms like "cognition," which is highly limited.

As for those in comas, like neonates and the severely disabled, and ourselves, they have already proven that they are capable of human-like consciousness and communication. We all have human EEGs and convey by facial or vocal means some aspects of consciousness. We give those in comas the benefit of the doubt because they demonstrated consciousness before. I for one don't give that benefit to a fetus at least before the woman pregnant with it wants to do so. I think that's an issue of bare minimum politeness, which you don't have.

Yes, when the premature infant at just over 21 weeks it had consciousness, though not a human EEG yet. Living entities that are born become conscious in part because of the radical difference in environment.

You must provide a robust rationale for WHY consciousness, specific EEG patterns, and communication capabilities are the definitive markers of personhood. Human life is characterized by a continuous process of development from conception to death. At no point in this continuum is there a magical moment where a non-person suddenly becomes a person.

Essentially you're just stating what counts without explaining why it counts. Imagine if someone argued that only individuals who can solve complex math equations should be allowed to vote. This assertion might be based on the belief that solving complex math equations indicates a certain level of intellectual capability which in the arguer's view is necessary for making informed decisions in elections. Now you might think this is ridiculous for someone to do but it is very similar to what you're doing. That someone should provide a compelling reason as to WHY the ability to solve complex math equations is relevant to one's capacity to participate in democratic processes.

 

[choiceone]

This anthropomorphizes the fetus by attributing malicious intent to a natural biological process. Your portrayal commits a category error by equating a natural biological relationship with parasitic invasion.

First, stop using the expression "anthropomorphizes" for a human fetus. That word doesn't mean attributes the attributes of a person to a fetus. It means attributes human form to a fetus. We all do that when talking about human fetuses because they are human. You misunderstand the word.

I'm not attributing malicious intent to a biological process. The embryo does not passively implant in the woman's endometrium and her immune cells do not passively encounter it. Nor does it appear that her body allows some embryos to implant.

The embryo actively implants, though no "consciousness" may be involved. The woman's immune cells prevent it from implanting if they "recognize" its DNA as foreign, but the embryo has a cloaking device that hides it temporarily.

The relationship of pregnancy is no more natural than is the relationship of a host species and a parasitic species. FYI, the sexual relationship of male and female humans isn't any more natural, either. You need to grow up.

Your argument implies that because we can theoretically manipulate biological processes to end a pregnancy that such actions are morally justified.

I don't mean to imply this. I mean to state it openly.

Then your argument also equates the suppression of the maternal immune system during pregnancy to a pathological condition that should be "corrected," equivocating a natural adaptive process with a disease state.

I think pregnancy is a "disease" state, as you put it.

In conclusion you're basically using biological determinism suggest that moral decisions should be dictated solely by biological processes.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that human beings are cultural and spiritual, and their moral decisions should be dictated by cultural and spiritual awareness, and that because pregnancy is a disorder of the body and harms individual women, they individually have to decide whether or not to bring kids into the world, when, and by whom. I'm saying that you have no business making the decision that should belong to them individually, nor should you get any spiritual or cultural credit for your decision.

 

[choiceone]

its very simple

if a woman is pregnant (normal pregnancy) , there HAS to be a living unborn human in her womb

can't be any other way - and you can call it a zygote, blastocyst, a puppy or a kitten of a baby - the name you call it absolutely 100% doesn't matter to what it is - a living unborn human

woman CANNOT be pregnant (normal pregnancy) with a non-alive or non-human ....... that's impossible

For a normal human pregnancy, there is a human embryo or fetus in her uterus. However, whether or not you should call it a human I can't say. There is an international scientific organization that can probably decide. It is the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). These scientists decide on the usage of scientific zoological species names or designations of individual exemplars. In the introduction to their websire, I have been references to embryos and fetuses preceded by the species name, but I have never seen reference to an unborn followed by a species name. But I'm not reading the whole site.