ABORTION

[Foamy Dog]

Yes, indeed LIFE is a beautiful thing!

I maintain that once cleavage has occoured, it is growing.

If it is growing, it has LIFE.

Human life.

It is a baby.

--FD

[diane125]

For someone that is trying to maintain "rational" discourse, I find it odd that you would stoop to such childish gimmicks. It seems that your arguments are being reduced to the point that you can no longer defend them without using lame and distractive ploys.

But for argument's sake, true, a zygote does not look like our ideal of a human being. But then again, neither did John Merrick (aka the Elephant man). Did that make him any less of a human? If not, why?

[Horace]

diane125: Gimmick?

I thought that it was an elegant way of making the point.

Look at the picture and tell me it is a baby.

And for the final time - I have never said that a foetus (or indeed a zygote) is not human.

Your raising of John Merrick only goes to show that you have not understood (or have not read) what I have said.

FD: I agree with everything that you say except the last line. You might think that abortion is wrong but to call that zygote a baby is just streching the language and the concept beyond what is reasonable.

In any case, this language issue is not the main game.

What you call something does not really matter fundamentally. I am just concerned that you are calling it a baby because you think that by doing so you will assist your cause. That indicates to me that you are not really interested in searching for truth but have a closed mind on the issue.

[Peanut]

Horace you said, "What you call something does not really matter fundamentally. I am just concerned that you are calling it a baby because you think that by doing so you will assist your cause. That indicates to me that you are not really interested in searching for truth but have a closed mind on the issue."
Correct me if i'm wrong, but cant the same be said for you, and your viewpoints? You refuse to call it a baby, becuase you are assuming you are right and therefore implementing this into your arguement.

[Foamy Dog]

Well said Peanut.

Horace, I don't understand how it CAN'T be a baby.

We agree that it's human and that it has life. So if you're not comfortable calling it a baby because it doesn't have a certain shape, can we still agree it's a human life?

But I do see your point; the statement could be twisted to make pro-lifers look uneducated. But still, I beleive it to be true.

We also agree that when it comes to ending a human life; I do indeed have a closed mind.

--FD

[Horace]

Peanut:

You make a good point. You are quite right that the very same criticism could be leveled at me. And, in fact, it does suit my position if we do not refer to zygotes as babies.

I think, however, that it is fair to say that to call that zygote a baby is to stretch the language beyond reasonable limits.

Let's call a spade a horticultural earth turning implement shall we?

On the other hand I could be wrong. Language is a very democratic thing and if enough people agree with you then so be it. The language changes. It irritates me a bit that language is like that because it means that changes in the meanings of words come about largely as a result of people's ignorance as to what a word means in the first place.

I think it would be a shame to some extent however to adopt your meaning of "baby" as the word would become somewhat less precise if zygotes were included.

Frankly, when someone says "baby" I don't immediately think of zygotes.

I think diane125 said at one point that "baby" also included "toddler". I can assure her that my boy (now a "kinder", recently a "toddler") would disagree with her very strongly.

If we already have a number of perfectly servicable words with a series of relatively precise meanings why do we have to use a blanket term to cover all of those entities?

[Peanut]

Horace, if you want to get into a debate about grammar and language, than i'm all for that. But lemme bring up one point. Now unless FD made a mistake, or i cant read, both of you agree that a zygote, or a fetus is human and alive. If not, at the VERY least we can all agree that this unborn child will be "alive" under law and a human being, in a short period of time. So ask yourself this, what sounds more "pleasant" or more true, "I recently ended the potential life of my child, thru abortion" OR "I made a choice to have an abortion". Both say the exact same thing and imply the exact same thing, however, the latter is much more pleasant to hear, the primary sentence is much more graphic and yet true. So when you claim, that the english language could be abused i agree with you, but it could also be twisted to cover up a grave immoral "choice".

[Foamy Dog]

Peanut, another great point.

Horace, I understand your point.

There are two trends in the English language doing battle at the moment. There is a trend toward clear, simple languge that is doing battle with the "politically correct" languge that I keep growling about in which terms are given to soften things up.

Some of our "scientific" and more precise words are caught in the middle of all this because, though these precise terms have their place, they can be used in the "politically correct" context to take the edge off of various topics.

--FD

[diane125]

Horace,

I have read what you said and, you’re right, I should have rephrased my sentence to say, “Did that make him any less of a person?” (not human – it was late, I was tired)

You did write, “Why do you give the foetus/zygote the same rights as a person BEFORE it develops into a person?” Didn’t you?

My question is, “Why is not a person yet?” Because it doesn’t look like one? Because it’s a single cell? Exactly how many cells does it take to make a person in your view? What exactly is a person in your view? It seems that the mere fact that a baby has not been born yet is enough for you to deem that it’s not worthy of protection as a “person.”<br>
I look at the picture and I do see a baby. I see a single cell human being that is no less complex than any one of us with our billions of cells. That single cell contains the entire blueprint of exactly what that person will sound like, look like, act like through different stages of development. Everything that baby needs to grow and develop is already there. The cells have merely not differentiated yet, but nothing will be “added” to it to instantly create a baby. The zygote will grow and develop from that single cell to an embryo, to a fetus, to a newborn, to an adolescent, to an adult, to a senior – but always a “person.” Changes within us take place throughout our lives.

And by the way, the toddler stage begins when an infant starts crawling or walking and most do still consider them babies. You seem to be obsessed with people misusing the term “baby” and even imply that the only reasons for considering a zygote a baby is either ignorance or manipulation. However, I’d say your views are somewhat simplistic if you are suggesting that some magical number of cells establishes babyhood or a particular stage in life determines personhood.

[Horace]

diane125 wrote:

'It seems that the mere fact that a baby has not been born yet is enough for you to deem that it’s not worthy of protection as a “person.”'

That is not what I have said. I said that I think it is very difficult to determine where exactly to draw the line. What you have written appears to suggest that I would be OK with abortion right up to the time of birth. I have never said that.

However, that is not to say that a single cell is the same as you or me. Plainly it isn't. But if you find it difficult to tell the difference between a single celled zygote (or "baby" in your language) and a person, then I don't think that there is much that I could say to help you in that respect. You appear to be wilfully blind.

I'll give it a try though.

Plainly a single cell has no thoughts or feelings, no aspirations or dreams, no hobbies or pastimes, no arms, no legs, no friends, no enemies, no belief in god and no care as to whether it lives or dies.

Granted it will grow into a person. In time.

A tree grows from a seed. Do you go about referring to all seeds as trees?

I simply ask whether it ought to acquire the rights of a person before it is a person.

You wrote of the zygote:

"I see a single cell human being that is no less complex than any one of us with our billions of cells".

Quite obviously it IS less complex. It is only one cell. By what strange definition of the word "complex" could a zygote be "no less complex" than you or me?

Not only is it a few billion cells short of us but it has none of our life experience or knowledge.

It may contain a blueprint but the whole blueprint issue is a red herring. I have a whole blueprint of me in every cell in my body. And I throw away cells like there is no tomorrow. Why, just the other day I had a hair cut.

Previously I posted asking why it was OK to kill both sperm and egg immediately prior to conception but not the zygote immediately after. In both cases the full "blueprint" is present. But if I wait just a couple of seconds they will combine and BANG! a "baby". Same blueprint. Somehow it has become sacred now though.

[Ube]

“Plainly a single cell has no thoughts or feelings, no aspirations or dreams, no hobbies or pastimes, no arms, no legs, no friends, no enemies, no belief in god and no care as to whether it lives or dies.”<br>
I’m not too sure about you but I haven’t heard any newborn babies tell me their life long dreams or their personal religious beliefs. The only part of your statement that makes any sense is the arms and legs part, but even then does it mean that it’s ok to declare open hunting season on quadriplegics?

Here’s my post from the other thread. This is the difference between a collection of cells and a living human being:

“It is true that separate gametes contain all the genetic information required for the DNA of a living human being but I would not call them “one potential life”. If you look at water (H20), it is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. However, it is not these separate components that makes water but the mechanism by which these atoms interact. The same can be said about life. Sexual recombination is a complex mechanism in which crossing over of homologous chromosomes occurs and is greatly responsible for the sequence of our DNA. This occurs at and ONLY at conception. This is where life begins.

A zygote and your big toe have all the same DNA. Cut off your toe, it still has all the same DNA as the rest of your body but all you’re left with a mound of cold flesh. Cut a zygote in two when it begins to cleavage, both parts have the same DNA but what you’re left with is two living beings. They call them identical twins.”<br>
So keep cutting your hair (which isn't actually made of cells btw); it won't turn into new human beings even if it was. Keep spliting zygotes and you'll end up with twins, triplets, quad...hmm... how many hairs are there on your head?

[Horace]

Sorry about the delay.

Did I mention a central nervous system?

Small matter but it might be thought of as a reasonably significant difference between a cell and a baby.

And your quote from the other thread is all very well but it is misleading to some extent.

You say:

"Sexual recombination is a complex mechanism in which crossing over of homologous chromosomes occurs and is greatly responsible for the sequence of our DNA. This occurs at and ONLY at conception".

This does not answer my question as to why it is acceptable to kill a sperm and egg one second before conceptoin but not one second after. The sperm and egg contain all of the potential of the zygote and are destined to combine in one particular way. The only difference is that they have not yet combined. But they are about to.

Why is conception itself so important as a turning point?

I might also add that with cloning being what it is these days it wont be long before I can grow new human beings from my big toe.

[Dogwash]

Interesting debate going on here, and I might say, remarkably level headed for such a passionate topic.

The whole argument of when should we consider an unborn baby a "baby" makes me chuckle. This is quite possibly the only subject in the world where people claim a work-in-progress to not be regarded identically as its end result.


Examples:

Art. An artist in the middle of creating a painting does not refer to his incomplete work as a piece of canvas with colored oil blobs upon it. He or she refers to it as a painting. If you were to walk up to it and rip it into shreds, would one reasonably expect them to shrug it off as it wasn't complete yet? No problem Jim, it was just a canvas with oily blobs on it anyways. It wasn't an official painting until I signed it anyhow. Of course not. He'd be upset that you destroyed his painting!

Food. You're baking a birthday cake for your friend. You put all the ingredients together, put it in the form and then place it in the oven for the 40 minute bake. 5, 10, 15 minutes into it, I come along take it out of the oven and throw it all over the floor. Your response? Probably not "Hey! What are you doing to my sugar/flour/egg/yeast concoction!"

Your friend's birthday comes the next day, and when there is no cake, what do you tell them? You'll probably say, Dogwash ruined the cake.......to which I'd respond in my best pro-choice voice, it was a culinary fetus. No harm no foul. Your wise friend might reply, 'But I'm still cake-less'.

I ask of the pro-choice side: What is so unacceptable about adoption? I think we've come to an agreement that abortion ends the process that would reasonably result in a baby (whenever you take that conversion to occur). So why not let the baby live? Who knows what potential great things could come of that life? What if one of the 5000 aborted this very day would have been the one to cure cancer in 30 yrs?

Why not let the baby live and get put up for adoption? There are plenty of families out there unable to have children who would shower that baby with love and affection.


Thanks in advance for your civility....
Dogwash

[Horace]

Analogy will only take you so far.

The work that goes into creating an oil painting is usually substantial, painstaking and protracted.

The work that goes into baby making is usually fun and takes me about two and a half minutes.

Further, it is trite that a half made cake will not be described by anyone as "my sugar/flour/egg/yeast concoction". That is a red herring. Who cares what you call a half baked cake? The fact is that there are obvious differences between me and a single celled zygote no matter what you call it. You can call it a "baby" if you like but I for one would think you odd for so doing.

Adoption is obviously an option but it is a secondary issue. First of all it must be determined whether abortion is acceptable or not. If not then adoption becomes the only option for those who are pregnant and do not want to have a child. If so then it remains an option but is not the only one.

Finally, you wrote:

"What if one of the 5000 aborted this very day would have been the one to cure cancer in 30 yrs?"

How many people do you want in the world? That argument would support the proposition that we are obliged to copulate constantly to create people who might do good works. I suppose, however, another view might be: what if one of those 5000 aborted would have grown up to be another Hitler?

[MO]

Two and a half minutes?!?!!!!!!!!