On Defining Life

[choiceone]

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.

To date, scientists have viewed non-humans as non-persons. Whether or not this is a practice that will survive for higher primates, I know not, but the original scientific distinction between humans or mankind and all other species was consciousness. When it was discovered that they obviously had mind or consciousness, the distinction became reason. When little infants didn't have reason, this was changed to culture. When it appeared as if some primates could have limited proto-culture, scientists changed to the capacity for symbolic culture and language. This is deeply problematic, because not all human individuals have an equal capacity for these. Nonetheless, the distinction between the embryo/fetus and the rest of us is sufficiently clear in this regard.

Consciousness and communication give our lives meaning, i.e., significance, at a higher level. Without consciousness, there can never be a capacity for reason or conscience. Without a human EEG, one can only have the consciousness of a lower species. Life is not specifically human. It started billions of years ago and still exists. We are part of it. We are one species of it. What makes us this species is important to many people.

There have been good arguments on DP and these abortion threads for the radical biological changes that occur during birth. You make it seem as if babies just pop out of women in five minutes. That happens so rarely it's a miracle, even if a caesarian is done. I'm not so knowledgeable as to have posted on this without great effort - get someone to re-post if they can.

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.

I don't have to say why it counts. A woman is an individual person. Women have always been counted in the Census. No embryos or fetuses have ever been counted in the Census, no matter how many changes were made by the Census Acts every 10 years when they added ex-slaves, birth dates, places of birth, etc.

Dobbs did not give a compelling reason to claim that the 14th Amendment couldn't possibly have intended women to have a right to end a pregnancy. He obfuscated and ended up sounding so Catholic I could have puked. There's nothing in the Constitution that says life is sacred because our founding fathers didn't think like was sacred because only 25% of them were Catholics and the rest had many different religious views. Alito hates that and tries to make our nation Catholic in nasty little ways, but it isn't.

My compelling reasons for my view are:

Untruth has no substance, and truth is all that can substantively exist.
For truth to be significant, though, it has to be known by mind or consciousness or awareness.
True mind is, therefore, the highest of values and powers.
Mind has, as one quality, love, because love is not possible without it.
Mind has, as another quality, intelligence, because true mind implies it.
Look at all this. Life isn't mentioned even once.

If life comes from true mind, it is true and conscious or aware or has mind.
If mind comes from biological life, it comes from biology, and if it comes from biology, it appears to comes from the brain. Biological life continues endlessly, but individual biological life and the individual biological brain appear, for humans, to be mortal.

But the early 20th century biologist J S Haldane once said something like this:
If I claim that mind is completely reducible to brain, I am, so to speak, cutting off the branch on which I am sitting.

 

[stealthycat]

For a normal human pregnancy, there is a human embryo or fetus in her uterus.

i has to be alive too, it can't be dead or there isn't a pregnancy

However, whether or not you should call it a human I can't say.

its not a kitten or a puppy, its human. to my knowledge humans cannot breed with any other animals

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.

I don't care about ICZN - what is real is real

 

[collected]

The woman doesn't just "have" the fetus.

The fetus has invaded her body. The only reason her immune system doesn't eject all embryos at once is this.

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.

Wrong. Your correction of the use of "anthropomorphizes" misleads. "Anthropomorphizing" generally means attributing human characteristics to non-human entities or phenomena not just a human form. In the current context the accusation was about attributing intent or agency to the fetus which is indeed a form of anthropomorphizing and is absolutely correct use of the term.

You then claim that the fetus "actively implants" in the womb and liken it to a "cloaking device" mechanism to avoid immune detection so to draw a parallel to parasitism. Your analogy is flawed on many levels and angles:

• The process of implantation is a natural part of human reproduction. Unlike a parasitic relationship where the parasite benefits at the host's expense, pregnancy is a SYMBIOTIC relationship aimed at continuing the species. The fetus does not "invade" in a hostile manner - it follows a natural process that our species has developed for reproduction.
• By suggesting the embryo has a "cloaking device," you're actually anthropomorphizing the fetus and thereby committing the same error you accuse me of. Embryos, zygotes, & fetuses do not possess consciousness or the ability to strategize their implantation. There is no conscious decisions or malice involved.
• Equating the natural biological process of pregnancy to parasitism is misleading/inaccurate. Parasitism involves an organism living on or in another organism and causing harm. Pregnancy is an essential biological process for the continuation of species and involves mutual adaptation between mother and fetus. Your comparison is scientifically inaccurate.
• Your claim that the sexual relationship between males and females isn't natural goes against the very essence of biological and evolutionary sciences. Sexual reproduction is a fundamental biological process that is natural to not only humans but also a vast number of species.

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.

Are you going to address the naturalistic fallacies, false equivalences, and oversimplifications/reductionism I've pointed out in your arguments?
You're conflating descriptive statements (what is) and prescriptive statements (what ought to be).

 

[Bodi]

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.

Your obsession with logical fallacies holds no place or significance in a subjective discussion about feelings.

 

[Bodi]

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.

Everything is not a logical fallacy and you commit your own fair amount... this is not a high school debate class and you argument is much weaker than I think your realize.

 

[collected]

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

Pregnancy is not a disease but a natural biological process essential for the continuation of species. Pregnancy does not impair the body's normal functioning. Diseases are conditions that impairs normal bodily functions. The medical approach to diseases focuses on diagnosis and treatment. The medical approach to pregnancy is centered on care, monitoring, and support.

Your assertion also oversimplifies the complex nature of pregnancy by reducing it to a negative classification and so is thus an oversimplification logical fallacy.

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.

False cause fallacy - Mischaracterizing pregnancy as a disorder.
Moral relativism/appeal to cultural/spiritual awareness - Suggesting that cultural and spiritual awareness alone should dictate moral decisions.
Strawman fallacy - by misrepresenting my argument by suggesting that advocating for the unborn's life inherently denies women's autonomy or disregards their wellbeing.

 

[weaver2]

....... 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?

The biological, anatomical, physiological, physical, hormonal and bacteriological changes in the fetus as it passes through the birth channel and at the immediate time of exit are many, varied, essential and unique to birthing. As soon as they happen the organism is no long a fetus it is a person and begins to operate in ways unique to the person it became upon birth.. And if those events do not happen in an ordered sequence the result is a dead fetus not a dead person.

Why do pro-life advocates keep insisting that a fetus and a person are interchangeable. A 35 week old fetus if it doesn't go through the changes at birth cannot live outside the womb. No matter how many weeks old it is it is still a fetus.

see Scott Gilbert MD, PhD for a deeper discussion of birth and personhood
https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/when-does-personhood-begin

 

[choiceone]

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

General note: I don't understand why you're countering me.

I don't think of liberty merely as legal, though of course it is legal. Literally, liberal means "befitting a free person," and I think of this quality as a higher political truth.

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.

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

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.

The distinction is between performing abortion an restricting them.

To which I agree.

To which I disagree.

Mostly agree - of course she should be able to request services and a legal system should not interfere with either her request or a medical person's agreement to provide the service.

 

[Lursa]

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.

Again with your logical fallacy, refusing to acknowledge that birth is not an arbitrary benchmark AND it is based on the violation of women's body's and rights...not just the unborn.

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.​

What about this dont you understand? Please, just ask because you continually waste peoples' time with your fallacious argument here. Why do you completely ignore the fact that woman are a gating factor here on the govt's access to and legal actions on the unborn? As well as the moral implications of forcing women to remain pregnant against their will, the intentional use of force to cause women pain and suffering, the dismissal of women as moral agents to their own lives, the removal of a woman's consent to her own body?

 

[Lursa]

Pregnancy is not a disease but a natural biological process essential for the continuation of species. Pregnancy does not impair the body's normal functioning. Diseases are conditions that impairs normal bodily functions. The medical approach to diseases focuses on diagnosis and treatment. The medical approach to pregnancy is centered on care, monitoring, and support.

Your assertion also oversimplifies the complex nature of pregnancy by reducing it to a negative classification and so is thus an oversimplification logical fallacy.

87,600 women in the US are severely and often permanently harmed by pregnancy and childbirth every year. Kidney failure, strokes, aneurysms, pre-eclampsia, etc.

This is a significant, unpredictable risk that can cost a woman her job, her ability to earn an income, her ability to support the dependents (kids, elderly, disabled) that she is already responsible for. Not to mention the impacts and losses on her family and friends if she is disabled.

Please explain why a woman should risk all this if she cannot afford or is prepared to have a child, or another child? Morally, please explain why she and so many others must suffer in order to push a kid out?

 

[choiceone]

Pregnancy is not a disease but a natural biological process essential for the continuation of species. Pregnancy does not impair the body's normal functioning. Diseases are conditions that impairs normal bodily functions. The medical approach to diseases focuses on diagnosis and treatment. The medical approach to pregnancy is centered on care, monitoring, and support.

Please note I'm answering this post first because of the first topic.

I disagree. First, continuation of the species is not essential, so pregnancy and childbirth are not essential, either. I don't understand why you are writing with the implication that the human biological species has to be continued. Whatever gave you this idea?

Second, pregnancy is certainly a disease and this can be proved by evidence that the female's immune system is partly suppressed. Pregnancy certainly usually impairs the body's normal functioning. This is why women have to be careful not to get various other diseases, because their own immune systems can't adequately cope with them and doctors can't give them some medications because of adverse effects on the embryo. The health and well-being interests of the woman and embryo are different and sometimes contradictory.

It is appalling to me that you are so ignorant you don't know that a third of all pregnancies in the US are characterized by a period of morning sickness - routine vomiting is an illness. Pregnancy can cause bouts of incontinence, hemorrhoids, low blood oxygen, dizziness and fainting, hypertension, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, clinical anxiety, migraines, and in childbirth, heart attack and stroke, and excessive bleeding, infection, postpartum psychosis, etc. The CDC's list is less thorough - https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html

The reason that medical care for pregnant people centers on care, monitoring, and support instead of diagnosis and treatment is because doctors often can't treat the woman's diseases and still help her keep her pregnancy. You see, if she just had an early abortion, her morning sickness would stop, gestational diabetes would stop, she wouldn't be incontinent or have hemorrhoids, the low blood oxygen, dizziness, fainting would stop, hypertension would stop, etc. She'd never risk a heart attack or stroke during labor, etc.

That you have the nerve to insult all the women who give birth by pretending this is normal is ridiculous. All they have to do is stop consenting to sexual intercourse with men and most of them will have healthy, enjoyable lives or have tubal ligations. But women do mostly want to have kids - they just want to do so in the safest, least ill way that they can. That you selfishly begrudge them this is obscene,

 

[choiceone]

Your assertion also oversimplifies the complex nature of pregnancy by reducing it to a negative classification and so is thus an oversimplification logical fallacy.

Nope. Pregnancy is a disease. Nonetheless, it has a positive side for every pregnant woman who wants to have a baby as long as she is able to give birth.

It is you who oversimplify. Your use of big words makes me hope for you that you will finally encounter so many physical problems all at once that you will finally become capable of at least imaginative empathy for others.

False cause fallacy - Mischaracterizing pregnancy as a disorder.
Moral relativism/appeal to cultural/spiritual awareness - Suggesting that cultural and spiritual awareness alone should dictate moral decisions.
Strawman fallacy - by misrepresenting my argument by suggesting that advocating for the unborn's life inherently denies women's autonomy or disregards their wellbeing.

Pregnancy is a disorder, because non-pregnancy is the natural state, one which can be maintained by not having heterosexual intercourse if abortion is banned. It's easy, I've done it for many decades, including when I was so good looking that guys stamped their feet with anger when I said I didn't date.

Actually, spiritual awareness alone probably should dictate moral decisions, but individual awareness has to dictate individual moral decisions because, otherwise, the deciders could just be rapists.

There's no strawman here - When you advocate for the life of an embryo or fetus in general, you do deny women's autonomy and do disregard their well-being - so you better get used to owning it. FYI, that's exactly what it means to "own" the libs, to deny others' autonomy and disregard their well-being.

 

[weaver2]

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.

What are these philosophical and ethical dimensions of the debate you keep talking about but never define or describe?

 

[The Mark]

Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness. These human rights are considered unalienable in the eyes of conservatives and liberals alike. If, as the Declaration of Independence claims, it is the role of the government to secure these rights for its citizens, then laws should be written to that end.

Of these rights, it is reasonable to argue that the right to life is paramount. After all, if one does not have life, then discussion of all other rights becomes frivolous as they are of no use to the dead. Therefore, it stands to reason on the basis that all human lives are of equal value, that it is immoral for one human to deprive another of the right to life unless it has been forfeit by the actions of the latter.

If this is the case, then the primary question pertaining to abortion is whether an unborn child, from zygote to birth, is to be considered a unique human life with its own rights. If it is, then all claims of necessity, short of threatening the life of the mother, would be subservient to the right of the child to life itself. If it is not, then the moment at which it becomes a human life must be defined and laws must be passed to protect its rights from that moment on.

The biological criteria for life is generally consistent. All single-celled organisms are considered life in a biological sense, so even a zygote would be considered some form of life. The next determination is whether it is human. Taxonomy, which is increasingly driven by genetics, defines a human as a member of the species homo sapiens. This means that a zygote containing complete human DNA could not be taxonomically considered anything other than human.

Thus we see that even as early in development as being a single-celled zygote, it is human life. The final distinction to be made is between that particular cell and any other human cell in the mother’s body. Said distinction is found in the DNA of the zygote. Though genetic testing would certainly show a maternal relationship between the woman and the cell, the new DNA would be unique. This DNA would include genetic information determining the child’s own height, eye color, hair color, skin color, and blood type, among other attributes.

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. It is therefore the responsibility of the government to protect that life from undue harm and guarantee its rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Such action would include outlawing abortion, excepting cases where the life of the mother is threatened and no other medical aid could save both the lives of the mother and the child.

Just to be clear about this...

You're arguing that the (in your opinion, and by your definition) "human" that is the zygote must be protected even at the expense of the mother's liberty?

 

[choiceone]

Wrong. Your correction of the use of "anthropomorphizes" misleads. "Anthropomorphizing" generally means attributing human characteristics to non-human entities or phenomena not just a human form. In the current context the accusation was about attributing intent or agency to the fetus which is indeed a form of anthropomorphizing and is absolutely correct use of the term.

You can use the term this way, but it is what is misleading, because human embryos and fetuses are human, too, and they have no intent or agency at least before viability and it's not human till that EEG develops.

You then claim that the fetus "actively implants" in the womb and liken it to a "cloaking device" mechanism to avoid immune detection so to draw a parallel to parasitism. Your analogy is flawed on many levels and angles:

1. No, I didn't say that. The embryo or, more correctly, the blastocyst, actively implants. That is, it is not passive; part of the woman's endometrium doesn't grab it; it doesn't fall against the endometrium by accident.

2. I did not liken a fetus to a cloaking device. I said that the embryo, more correctly the blastocyst, had a cloaking device to avoid immune system detection. This is what people say all through the literature on the subject in peer-reviewed journal articles I've read. The cloaking device is the same one as used by nemotode worms. It's not my fault. And it certainly points up the parasitism.

You hate that I turn to the word parasitic.

• The process of implantation is a natural part of human reproduction. Unlike a parasitic relationship where the parasite benefits at the host's expense, pregnancy is a SYMBIOTIC relationship aimed at continuing the species. The fetus does not "invade" in a hostile manner - it follows a natural process that our species has developed for reproduction.

Symbiosis is the term used in biology for a type of relationship in biology between organisms, often of different species but also just between organisms. which constitute modes of biological life. There are four types of this larger category. Three are common: mutualism, in which both benefit, commensalism, in which one benefits and the other is unaffected, and parasitism, in which one benefits and the other is harmed. The fourth is the one in which neither benefits and it ends in mutual death.

When we say pregnancy is a symbiotic relationship, we don't mean it is mutualistic because it isn't. Biologically, it's a parasitic relationship. But that doesn't mean it lacks mutualistic aspects - women who want to give birth end up having a baby and they feel benefited. But individuals aren't benefited individually by continuation of the species.

The fetus doesn't invade in any manner. The embryo, more correctly the blastocyst, actively invades. Active does not imply emotion or cognition.

end Part I

 

[Lursa]

You can use the term this way, but it is what is misleading, because human embryos and fetuses are human, too, and they have no intent or agency at least before viability and it's not human till that EEG develops.

IMO his view is BS. You are correct...no one is denying the unborn are Homo sapiens.

What many anti-abortion supporters do is personify the unborn. And that can have legal OR colloquial connotations IMO. And neither is correct. Imagining "babies" inside of women you dont even know is disturbing and self-indulgent and definitely none of a strangers' business.

Pay just as much attention and concern for living conditions for kids already here...then get back to me.

 

[choiceone]

• By suggesting the embryo has a "cloaking device," you're actually anthropomorphizing the fetus and thereby committing the same error you accuse me of. Embryos, zygotes, & fetuses do not possess consciousness or the ability to strategize their implantation. There is no conscious decisions or malice involved.
• Equating the natural biological process of pregnancy to parasitism is misleading/inaccurate. Parasitism involves an organism living on or in another organism and causing harm. Pregnancy is an essential biological process for the continuation of species and involves mutual adaptation between mother and fetus. Your comparison is scientifically inaccurate.

I've already answered these points. The embryo does have a "cloaking device." This expression is straight out of a peer-reviewed journal article I read back in the early 2000s about murine experiments related to placental indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase and chemical anti-agents resulting in spontaneous abortion. Everyone who studies pregnancy in detail knows about it. The instinct for survival operates in living organisms. A blastocyst is a living organism. Of course there are no conscious decisions or malice. I never said there were/

• Your claim that the sexual relationship between males and females isn't natural goes against the very essence of biological and evolutionary sciences. Sexual reproduction is a fundamental biological process that is natural to not only humans but also a vast number of species.

For a relationship to be natural it has to occur automatically. But it doesn't. Evidence that individual female chimpanzees sought out potential mates in other chimpanzee troops appeared in, like, the 1960s or 1970s. Evidence was found of home troop rape among chimpanzees. Female chimpanzees rejecting alpha males in favor of beta males. For bonobos, of course, they found both heterosexual and homosexual behavior. The traditional view of males and females naturally mating without any political nonsense, individual choice, conflict, and bi-sexual behavior has been utterly disproven. It's a statistical generalization. The only reason for sexual reproduction is because individual organisms have done it enough to keep the species going. It hasn't prevented variety or the development of individual discrimination.

Are you going to address the naturalistic fallacies, false equivalences, and oversimplifications/reductionism I've pointed out in your arguments?
You're conflating descriptive statements (what is) and prescriptive statements (what ought to be).

No, because I don't think they are naturalistic fallacies, false equivalences, and oversimplifications. Rather, I think you learned a lot of big abstract words in some undergraduate philosophy class and you thought you'd use them to insult serious thinkers who disagree with your view of embryos and fetuses. The fact that you didn't know blastocysts have a cloaking device, that you thought fetuses implanted, when fetuses are over eight weeks old, these flaws give you away to everyone as a guy who hasn't read seriously in biology. It's undergraduate, mate.

 

[Bodi]

What are these philosophical and ethical dimensions of the debate you keep talking about but never define or describe?

I ask him direct questions like that and @collected just ignores them. I am still waiting for an answer to this one:

Women have the moral right to take a person that they do not want in their body, out of their body.

Prove that that is immoral or wrong.

 

[weaver2]

You then claim that the fetus "actively implants" in the womb and liken it to a "cloaking device" mechanism to avoid immune detection so to draw a parallel to parasitism. Your analogy is flawed on many levels and angles:

By suggesting the embryo has a "cloaking device," you're actually anthropomorphizing the fetus and thereby committing the same error you accuse me of. Embryos, zygotes, & fetuses do not possess consciousness or the ability to strategize their implantation. There is no conscious decisions or malice involved.

Actually that is correct and past embryologists have called it a cloaking device. The physiological process of implantation is fully described in "Human Embryology and Developmental Biology"7th edition by Scott Gilbert MD, PhD

​

 

[Lursa]

I ask him direct questions like that and @collected just ignores them. I am still waiting for an answer to this one:

He does ignore many direct questions...or work very hard to negate any arguments that dont conform exactly to what he's trying to present. You're familiar with that, I know. It's hard to get them to acknowledge the gaps and failures in arguments, eh?

 

[weaver2]

You commit a false equivalency by equating moral reasoning strictly with religious opinion. My stance on abortion as the intentional taking of human life is grounded in biological facts regarding the beginning of human life and ethical principles concerning human rights.

You have explained why your "stance" is grounded in biological facts. I'd be very interested in hearing why abortion is murder (the intentional taking of human life) based on exactly what biological fact and what ethics of human rights.

You've emphasized how you "stance" is grounded in morality and logic and principles and rationality but you've not actually said what that "stance" is.

I'm not part of any of the groups you've mentioned.

You are using their methods and style of argument.

Biological science confirms that human life begins at conception.

No they haven't.

An interview with Scott Gilbert - the Node

Scott Gilbert literally wrote the book on developmental biology! With the 13th edition of ‘Developmental Biology’ about to be published, we took the opportunity to find out more about the story behind the textbook, to discuss Scott’s research career and his social and political commentaries in...

thenode.biologists.com

My most recent paper concerns myths that are currently being used in the abortion debate in America. Each of these myths is represented as science, but none of them has much to do with facts from developmental biology. These myths portray fertilization as ensoulment, and depict the woman as a passive entity. I also show that different groups of biologists claim different embryonic stages to be the start of personhood (admitting that ‘personhood’ is not really a scientific concept), and that the notion that all biologists believe that personhood begins at fertilisation is ideology, not science. Some biologists say it begins at fertilisation when you get your genome. Other biologists say it begins at gastrulation, where you become an individual and can’t form twins or triplets anymore. Other biologists have claimed personhood begins when you get your electroencephalogram (EEG) pattern, because that’s when the anatomical correlates of consciousness and pain perception form (and we’re willing to say death is the loss of that pattern). Still others say personhood begin around when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. And some people maintain that personhood begins at birth, when the first breath causes pressure differences that change endothelial gene expression and cardiac morphology, preparing the fetus for life outside the mother.

The development of a human being from zygote to fetus is a continuous process without clear moral demarcations based on biological developmental stages in the life cycle.

And ........ ??????

 

[collected]

He does ignore many direct questions...or work very hard to negate any arguments that dont conform exactly to what he's trying to present. You're familiar with that, I know. It's hard to get them to acknowledge the gaps and failures in arguments, eh?

Every time I login I see the bell icon with 6-8 more messages. Although I do read what's posted I don't have the time to reply to every single post. So far I've seen nothing that makes my position wrong. Instead I see attempts at justification and the most common logical fallacies being committed is the is/ought fallacy - typically the naturalistic kind followed by the appeal to law.

I've yet seen a single poster share the same definition for what is the criterion for personhood, instead what I've seen are mental gymnastics followed by the declaration that it's the lungs, consciousness, EEG markers, viability, or birth itself that then causes a human to be categorized as having personhood. You need to explain WHY your definition of personhood is correct and why others are wrong. If one asserts that it's lung maturity while another asserts that it's birth itself then how does one differentiate who is correct? Once again what YOU are doing is just declaring without a substantiated logical basis on what the criterion for personhood is.

87,600 women in the US are severely and often permanently harmed by pregnancy and childbirth every year. Kidney failure, strokes, aneurysms, pre-eclampsia, etc.

This is a significant, unpredictable risk that can cost a woman her job, her ability to earn an income, her ability to support the dependents (kids, elderly, disabled) that she is already responsible for. Not to mention the impacts and losses on her family and friends if she is disabled.

Please explain why a woman should risk all this if she cannot afford or is prepared to have a child, or another child? Morally, please explain why she and so many others must suffer in order to push a kid out?

The problem here is that the negative outcomes associated with pregnancy ("is") and leaping to the conclusion that abortion ought to be permissible ("ought") without bridging the gap with a moral argument. Just because pregnancy can result in harm does NOT inherently lead to the conclusion that abortion is morally acceptable. One must employ ethical reasoning that explains why certain facts about the world should lead us to adopt specific moral positions or actions. Your argument lacks this intermediary step and thus falls into the is-ought fallacy.

 

[Bodi]

Every time I login I see the bell icon with 6-8 more messages.

I regularly get 15 messages and just the other day I had 33 messages...

So far I've seen nothing that makes my position wrong. I

And you have proven nothing, absolutely nothing, that makes your position correct.

nstead I see attempts at justification and the most common logical fallacies being committed is the is/ought fallacy - typically the naturalistic kind followed by the appeal to law.

And you engage in non-stop subjective and opinionated arguments as well as Ad populum fallacy as well as a False dilemma fallacy , Red Herrings and probably more... and Appeal to Law is not a logical fallacy. Look, you are a rookie... accept it.

I've yet seen a single poster share the same definition for what is the criterion for personhood, instead what I've seen are mental gymnastics followed by the declaration that it's the lungs, consciousness, EEG markers, viability, or birth itself that then causes a human to be categorized as having personhood. You need to explain WHY your definition of personhood is correct and why others are wrong.

There is no right or wrong... that is the whole ****ing point. The difference is that our right allows women the freedom to be in control of their bodies and your right is oppressive misogyny that allows you to control women.

Just because pregnancy can result in harm does NOT inherently lead to the conclusion that abortion is morally acceptable.

Abortion is morally acceptable to any person that does not want to control women... and go figure... you are another man that wants to control women.
No surprise... almost every person that argues anti--abortion as passionately as you do is a man. It is ****ing disgusting. Misogynist.

One must employ ethical reasoning

Too late, all you have is your opinion.

that explains why certain facts about the world should lead us to adopt specific moral positions or actions

Says the guy that ran away from my question about this.

. Your argument lacks this intermediary step and thus falls into the is-ought fallacy.

LOL Another childish fallacy claim...

 

[Lursa]

Every time I login I see the bell icon with 6-8 more messages. Although I do read what's posted I don't have the time to reply to every single post. So far I've seen nothing that makes my position wrong. Instead I see attempts at justification and the most common logical fallacies being committed is the is/ought fallacy - typically the naturalistic kind followed by the appeal to law.

Nah, you know I mean responding to my direct questions that I've asked you more than once.

Please dont add more lies, like you did with the UN Human Rights that said "BORN."

If you think I'm just attempting...let's see you DIRECTLY refute my arguments.

I've yet seen a single poster share the same definition for what is the criterion for personhood, instead what I've seen are mental gymnastics followed by the declaration that it's the lungs, consciousness, EEG markers, viability, or birth itself that then causes a human to be categorized as having personhood. You need to explain WHY your definition of personhood is correct and why others are wrong. If one asserts that it's lung maturity while another asserts that it's birth itself then how does one differentiate who is correct? Once again what YOU are doing is just declaring without a substantiated logical basis on what the criterion for personhood is.

I have not discussed person/personhood with you. I've only posted sourced LAW for others. Dont try to divert from the direct responses I've asked for.

The problem here is that the negative outcomes associated with pregnancy ("is") and leaping to the conclusion that abortion ought to be permissible ("ought") without bridging the gap with a moral argument. Just because pregnancy can result in harm does NOT inherently lead to the conclusion that abortion is morally acceptable.

Why not? Please provide your moral argument refuting mine. Because I have discussed the harm that denying women abortions can have on her, others, and society. These harms consist of things I consider IMMORAL when they are avoidable. You refuse to respond to these directly as well.

Where is your counter argument here? Or, for example, where is your direct response to this: Please explain why a woman should risk all this if she cannot afford or is prepared to have a child, or another child? Morally, please explain why she and so many others must suffer in order to push a kid out?

One must employ ethical reasoning that explains why certain facts about the world should lead us to adopt specific moral positions or actions. Your argument lacks this intermediary step and thus falls into the is-ought fallacy.

Nope...you are the one making statements without "why" and without "intermediary steps." And I've asked you over and over for them. Please stop pretending otherwise...at this point, it amounts to you lying.

Feel free to point out an example of where I have failed to provide an "intermediary step."

 

[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. 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.

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.