• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Wan said:
Except nobody said "human beings". Both Angel and I say the unborn are a part of humanity. And then you started going on and on about how they aren't, despite the fact they carry human DNA.

Do you think the unborn are dogs, or cats, or pine trees, or some kind of mineral?
Click to expand...

"unborn child" is (I think) a disingenuous oxymoron. A child has been born - past tense. Show someone a picture of a zygote and ask them if it's the same as a child in any sense.

A zygote is not "part of humanity" just because it's a human zygote. If your whole thesis is that there is no moral or ethical difference between a human zygote and a 13 year old girl, there's a problem with your morals and ethics. I can't make it any simpler than that.

Top 60 Human Zygote Clip Art, Vector Graphics and Illustrations - iStock
 
Last edited:
<alt>doxygen said:
"unborn child" is (I think) a disingenuous oxymoron. A child has been born - past tense. Show someone a picture of a zygote and ask them if it's the same as a child in any sense.
Click to expand...

Except nobody said "unborn child". Angel and I said, "part of humanity". Why do you make up strawman arguments?

A zygote is not "part of humanity" just because it's a human zygote. If your whole thesis is that there is no moral or ethical difference between a human zygote and a 13 year old girl, there's a problem with your morals and ethics. I can't make it any simpler than that.
Click to expand...

So what are the criteria for being a part of humanity? Secondly, if the unborn are not a part of humanity, what group do they belong to? Are they dogs or cats or sharks or roses or pine trees? Please show me how they should classified in terms of taxonomy.
 
Wan said:
Except nobody said "unborn child". Angel and I said, "part of humanity". Why do you make up strawman arguments?
Click to expand...

Ummmm...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/abor...s-unborn-children.html?highlight=unborn+child

So what are the criteria for being a part of humanity? Secondly, if the unborn are not a part of humanity, what group do they belong to? Are they dogs or cats or sharks or roses or pine trees? Please show me how they should classified in terms of taxonomy.
Click to expand...

humanity (hyo͞o-mănˈĭ-tē)►
n. Humans considered as a group; the human race.
n. The condition or quality of being human.

We've been over all of this. Try a search engine.
 
Last edited:
<alt>doxygen said:
Ummmm...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/abor...s-unborn-children.html?highlight=unborn+child
Click to expand...

Ok, let's leave out Angel. But I know that I never said "unborn children". All I said was "part of humanity".

humanity (hyo͞o-mănˈĭ-tē)►
n. Humans considered as a group; the human race.
n. The condition or quality of being human.

We've been over all of this. Try a search engine.
Click to expand...
First of all, I am not asking you the definition of humanity. I am asking you what your personal criteria are for being included as part of humanity. Secondly, the unborn satisfy both of these criteria yet you refuse to call them a part of humanity. Why is this? Lastly, you did not answer my last question. How would you personally classify the unborn? Are they cats or dogs or sharks or roses or pine trees or some other species? Not saying you are some sort of authority on taxonomy or anything. I am just curious.
 
Wan said:
Ok, let's leave out Angel. But I know that I never said "unborn children". All I said was "part of humanity".
Click to expand...

humanity = the human race. Part of humanity = a member (individual) of the human race. There are no eggs, etc. I answered this before.


First of all, I am not asking you the definition of humanity. I am asking you what your personal criteria are for being included as part of humanity. Secondly, the unborn satisfy both of these criteria yet you refuse to call them a part of humanity. Why is this? Lastly, you did not answer my last question. How would you personally classify the unborn? Are they cats or dogs or sharks or roses or pine trees or some other species? Not saying you are some sort of authority on taxonomy or anything. I am just curious.
Click to expand...

A living, breathing, individual human being.

ZEFs do not qualify.

Let's just say a seed is to a plant what a zygote is to a human being. Not exactly, but there's no exact comparison between plants and mammals.

Good night... I have some hobbies I want to focus on.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
humanity = the human race. Part of humanity = a member (individual) of the human race. There are no eggs, etc. I answered this before.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how an entity that carries human DNA is not a member of the human race.

What are your criteria for being a member of the human race? Is it an entity that carries canine DNA? An entity that carries feline DNA?

A living, breathing, individual human being.

ZEFs do not qualify.
Click to expand...
But I never said the ZEFs are human beings. I say they are live humans. Do you dispute this?
Let's just say a seed is to a plant what a zygote is to a human being. Not exactly, but there's no exact comparison between plants and mammals.

Good night... I have some hobbies I want to focus on.
Click to expand...

I see that you are trying to squirm out of having to answer my last question. So let me ask you again, how would you personally classify the unborn? What species do the unborn belong to? And don't worry, these questions will still be here after you get done enjoying your hobbies.
 
Last edited:
<alt>doxygen said:
"unborn child" is (I think) a disingenuous oxymoron. A child has been born - past tense. Show someone a picture of a zygote and ask them if it's the same as a child in any sense.

A zygote is not "part of humanity" just because it's a human zygote. If your whole thesis is that there is no moral or ethical difference between a human zygote and a 13 year old girl, there's a problem with your morals and ethics. I can't make it any simpler than that.

Top 60 Human Zygote Clip Art, Vector Graphics and Illustrations - iStock
Click to expand...
I can make it just as simple as you make it: if your whole thesis is that there is a moral and ethical difference between a human zygote and a 13 year old girl, then there's a problem with your morals and ethics. Your privileging of visuals is jejune and shallow.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
You keep changing my words. "No more than" isn't the same as "none". ...
Click to expand...
No, you keep gorgetting what you post.
Did you or did you not say the following at #1038?
Of course you are free to judge others as good or evil based on your unrealistic notions, but that judgement carries no more weight that your opinions about food or music.
Click to expand...
Opinions about food or music carry no weight. No more than no weight is none.
 
Angel said:
No, you keep gorgetting what you post.
Did you or did you not say the following at #1038?

Opinions about food or music carry no weight. No more than no weight is none.
Click to expand...

Why do they carry no weight?
If someone tell you that there is a good band playing at a nearby club would you not be interested? If they told you the band sucked and not worth the time would that have absolutely no influence on you decision?
Ditto food, someone says this recipe/restaurant is good would you not be tempted to try it?
Perhaps you wouldn't but I think you will find that someone's opinions of food or music does carry some weight with most people. How much will vary of course based on many factors such as the person involved. Ie if Bob has similar taste to you in music food you will naturally give their opinions more weight than Frank with whom you often disagree on these topics
 
minnie616 said:
According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 2015 data, the majority of abortions in the country — 65 percent — were performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1 percent were done after 21 weeks.
Click to expand...

Is there any certainty that these stats include abortion mills like the one operated by Kermit Gosnell?
 
Scrabaholic said:
You presented NO evidence that ANY woman has attempted to abort at the END of the third trimester.
Click to expand...

When you twist yourself into a pretzel, do you cover yourself with salt or are you of the salt free variety?
 
Wan said:
Please tell me how an entity that carries human DNA is not a member of the human race.

What are your criteria for being a member of the human race? Is it an entity that carries canine DNA? An entity that carries feline DNA?


But I never said the ZEFs are human beings. I say they are live humans. Do you dispute this?


I see that you are trying to squirm out of having to answer my last question. So let me ask you again, how would you personally classify the unborn? What species do the unborn belong to? And don't worry, these questions will still be here after you get done enjoying your hobbies.
Click to expand...

The species of a zygote? That isn't as straightforward as you might think. This is probably a good biological rabbit hole for the philosophy to fall into.

species (spēˈshēz, -sēz)►
n. Biology A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

The species classification of a zygote (Page 1) - Human Biology and Evolution - Ask a Biologist Q&A

So, does a zygote even have a sex assignment? That's where I tend to think of "species" coming into play - sexual differentiation.

You guys are intent on making a "person" out of a pre-blastocyst that hasn't made it down the fallopian tube.

What percentage of fertilized eggs actually become a detectable pregnancy?
 
Last edited:
<alt>doxygen said:
The species of a zygote? That isn't as straightforward as you might think. This is probably a good biological rabbit hole for the philosophy to fall into.

species (spēˈshēz, -sēz)►
n. Biology A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

The species classification of a zygote (Page 1) - Human Biology and Evolution - Ask a Biologist Q&A

So, does a zygote even have a sex assignment? That's where I tend to think of "species" coming into play - sexual differentiation.

You guys are intent on making a "person" out of a pre-blastocyst that hasn't made it down the fallopian tube.

What percentage of fertilized eggs actually become a detectable pregnancy?
Click to expand...
Both biologists in your link personally regard the zygote as a member of homo sapiens.
Both agree that applying a strict interpretation of the BSC is problematic, that it is a descriptor of populations not individuals.
A human zygote is Homo sapiens with regard to its DNA
I personally don't subscribe to the Biological Species Concept (BSC). As I said, these things can be argued in circles - a definition is a definition and if one takes a strict interpretation of the BSC then one shouldn't define a reproductively defunct individual as being a member of a species. Of course, few biologists would insist on such a strict interpretation, nor would they be applying the BSC in the first place,

I personally do think of zygotes as belonging to Homo sapiens, based on DNA and the potential to develop into something more recognisably human, but this is a subjective judgement that others may disagree with.
Click to expand...

The "person" argument is a red herring.
 
Angel said:
No, you keep gorgetting what you post.
Did you or did you not say the following at #1038?

Opinions about food or music carry no weight. No more than no weight is none.
Click to expand...

That is your judgement, not mine. I see your opinions re morality as being equal in weight to those of any other random person. If you say the weight is zero, so it is to you.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
That is your judgement, not mine. I see your opinions re morality as being equal in weight to those of any other random person. If you say the weight is zero, so it is to you.
Click to expand...
No, my friend. Dismissing a statement as being mere opinion is not what I'm doing in the two forums I'm familiar with. It's what Quag is doing, and Lursa, and years2late, and among many others, you too. The zero weight concept comes from others, not from me. My question about a doctor's opinion was all about the idea that there are opinions and then there are opinions -- which is my view, not yours. What's more, let's not lose sight of the fact that you, Quag, and the others are dismissing a logical argument as mere opinion.
 
Angel said:
Both biologists in your link personally regard the zygote as a member of homo sapiens.
Both agree that applying a strict interpretation of the BSC is problematic, that it is a descriptor of populations not individuals.


The "person" argument is a red herring.
Click to expand...

The BSC is taxonomy. There are holes in it, clearly, but that was the question.

So, tell us what we should do about IVF - it's legal in all 50 states right now. Wanton slaughter?

And what do you think we should do about the huge percentage of eggs that are fertilized during human sexual activity that far out and die because "nature" made them? Depending on luck and a woman's reproductive health. I believe the average success rate is only about 60%, and that doesn't include post-implant miscarriages or abortions.

God is a crappy designer, or this simply isn't that important and the low level where you've chosen to draw a line.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
The BSC is taxonomy. There are holes in it, clearly, but that was the question.

So, tell us what we should do about IVF - it's legal in all 50 states right now. Wanton slaughter?

And what do you think we should do about the huge percentage of eggs that are fertilized during human sexual activity that far out and die because "nature" made them? Depending on luck and a woman's reproductive health. I believe the average success rate is only about 60%, and that doesn't include post-implant miscarriages or abortions.

God is a crappy designer, or this simply isn't that important and the low level where you've chosen to draw a line.
Click to expand...
What we should do about IVF? Nothing. Immorality is the burden of moral agents. After arguing the morality of the matter, one must leave others morally free to be immoral. It's their choice.

About the course of nature, also nothing.
 
Angel said:
No, my friend. Dismissing a statement as being mere opinion is not what I'm doing in the two forums I'm familiar with. It's what Quag is doing, and Lursa, and years2late, and among many others, you too. The zero weight concept comes from others, not from me. My question about a doctor's opinion was all about the idea that there are opinions and then there are opinions -- which is my view, not yours. What's more, let's not lose sight of the fact that you, Quag, and the others are dismissing a logical argument as mere opinion.
Click to expand...

I dismiss it because it dispenses with the health and welfare of the mother and child in the blind pursuit of the One Goal -> a live birth. All else is deemed "irrelevant" by your argument. It's an argument - callous argument. If you really believed it, you'd be outraged at all of the failed implatations.
 
Angel said:
What we should do about IVF? Nothing. Immorality is the burden of moral agents. After arguing the morality of the matter, one must leave others morally free to be immoral. It's their choice.

About the course of nature, also nothing.
Click to expand...

So be it. Attempting pregnancy, knowing that there will be failures, is immoral. You have spoken.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I dismiss it because it dispenses with the health and welfare of the mother and child in the blind pursuit of the One Goal -> a live birth. All else is deemed "irrelevant" by your argument. It's an argument - callous argument. If you really believed it, you'd be outraged at all of the failed implatations.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Angel should also be outraged at all of the known ( when the woman is aware she is pregnant ) miscarriages that occur. ( 15 to 20 percent )

Many of those were pregnancies that were very much wanted by the pregnant woman.

And ... he should be outraged about the numbers of embryos simply discarded/ thrown out during/after IVF treatments.
 
minnie616 said:
I agree.

Angel should also be outraged at all of the known ( when the woman is aware she is pregnant ) miscarriages that occur. ( 15 to 20 percent )

Many of those were pregnancies that were very much wanted by the pregnant woman.

And ... he should be outraged about the numbers of embryos simply discarded/ thrown out during/after IVF treatments.
Click to expand...

Even the most fertile woman/man has a > 10% failure rate. If I go into an endeavor knowing that there's a > 10% chance I'm going to have the death of a "child" on my hands, I'd say I was being immoral.

It seems that God/nature can't meet the stated standard for "moral" behavior. The ultimate moral agents fail the test?

He can draw a line where ever he wants. I am free to say the location of that line is crazy.
 
Last edited:
Wan said:
I am NOT saying we should infract those posters. My point was that mocking other posters is not against the rules here.
Click to expand...

It would fit in under "baiting/flaming/trolling", IMO.


Ok, you have a point. So allow me to retract my statement. Instead, I will simply tell you, that you are wrong to think "human" means "human being".
Click to expand...

What is the difference?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
So be it. Attempting pregnancy, knowing that there will be failures, is immoral. You have spoken.
Click to expand...

In cases where the zef spontaneously aborts, or miscarries, there is no human agent causing the zef to die. Whereas in the case of abortion, there are human agents causing the zef to die. In the former case, nobody is guilty. In the latter case, someone is guilty.

Please tell me you know this.
<alt>doxygen said:
The species of a zygote? That isn't as straightforward as you might think. This is probably a good biological rabbit hole for the philosophy to fall into.

species (spēˈshēz, -sēz)►
n. Biology A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

The species classification of a zygote (Page 1) - Human Biology and Evolution - Ask a Biologist Q&A
Click to expand...
I scanned that article quickly, and a few things: 1. I dont think the people on that site there are any sort of authorities. If you claim so, prove it. As far as I see, it's just random anonymous people claiming to be experts answering questions. 2. the "expert" said the reason the zygote cannot be classified as a member of our species because it cannot reproduce. This is wrong. Very old people also cannot reproduce but they are still members of homo sapiens. 3. you are supposed to explain, in your own words, why you think the unborn are not part of our species despite the fact they carry human DNA. 4. you still have not yet answer my question: if the unborn are not Homo Sapiens, then what are they?
 
Wan said:
In cases where the zef spontaneously aborts, or miscarries, there is no human agent causing the zef to die. Whereas in the case of abortion, there are human agents causing the zef to die. In the former case, nobody is guilty. In the latter case, someone is guilty.

Please tell me you know this.
Click to expand...

"agents" chose to engage in statistically risky behavior. It's like playing Russian Roulette. You know this.

I scanned that article quickly, and a few things: 1. I dont think the people on that site there are any sort of authorities. If you claim so, prove it. As far as I see, it's just random anonymous people claiming to be experts answering questions. 2. the "expert" said the reason the zygote cannot be classified as a member of our species because it cannot reproduce. This is wrong. Very old people also cannot reproduce but they are still members of homo sapiens. 3. you are supposed to explain, in your own words, why you think the unborn are not part of our species despite the fact they carry human DNA. 4. you still have not yet answer my question: if the unborn are not Homo Sapiens, then what are they?
Click to expand...

You asked about taxonomy.

I do not consider a zygote "unborn". A zygote cannot be born, so calling one unborn is absurd.

The fact that the taxonomy doesn't actually cover zygotes should tell you something about how much sense your reducto absurdist argument makes. It's an okay religious or philosophical argument, but it doesn't even make sense in terms of ethics - it's not a practicable in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom