ECLIPSE OF REASON - Abortion Documentary

[jsem]

The definition of murder is the taking of a life from another human being.  Not taking human life.  There is a difference.  Skin cells are human life and we kill them all the time throughout the day.

The definition of murder also tends to imply an intentional killing, while skin cells just die on account of normal every-day life. So, yes, there is a difference between the death of skin cells as a result of their intended biological purposes and the intentional destruction of an embryo.

If we're going to argue over semantics, we might as well go all out.

Yeah but you just said what I just said without addressing the true problem with this debate.  If I believed that murder could be committed on an embryo then we would agree with each other.  When does the embryo actually become a human being?  The law says not right at conception.  So abortion is legal. 

 to J,  if it was so biologically obvious and clear, then why is there even a debate?  Why do people even question it, and why does every country have different laws regarding what constitutes a human being.  What about corpses?  It's not clear.  You are so sure, but what do you base it off of?  It's up to you to prove that it is murder.  I don't see it as murder until a certain point along the timeline.  I don't know where that point changes, but I believe that it is there.  I believe there is a difference between human life and a human being.  I don't see a few cells moments after conception as a human being.  It is developing human life.  I don't see it as independent and I don't see it as having basic human rights at that point.

I know this has probably been discussed at gr8 length alrdy, but:
Ok, so a few cells aren't. But if it's several months in?

[7StringedBeast]

Yes at some point I believe things change in that regard.  I just don't know when that point is yet.  I believe I have stated that already though.

[j]

to J,  if it was so biologically obvious and clear, then why is there even a debate?  Why do people even question it, and why does every country have different laws regarding what constitutes a human being.  What about corpses?  It's not clear.  You are so sure, but what do you base it off of?

I don't know why there is a debate over this particular aspect.  But people argue about lots of dumb things, for lots of dumb reasons.

I've explained what constitutes a human being, biologically, and I base it off of basic tenets of embryology.  What is unclear about it?  The zygote is a human in its earliest stage of development.  It multiplies into more living cells, it grows, it has its own DNA, and it meets all of the other requirements for living organisms set forth by the life sciences.  Corpses are not alive, their cells cannot divide or perform their functions, and thus the organism is not viable.  Each example you've given differs distinctly from a live human.

If you want to argue that there's some additional existential prerequisite to being a human being, and that it hinges on some level of neural activity that can't be defined, that's cool (and for all I know you may be right), but I don't see any point in debating such things.

It's up to you to prove that it is murder.  I don't see it as murder until a certain point along the timeline.  I don't know where that point changes, but I believe that it is there.  I believe there is a difference between human life and a human being.  I don't see a few cells moments after conception as a human being.  It is developing human life.  I don't see it as independent and I don't see it as having basic human rights at that point.

I'm not arguing whether or not it's "murder" in the legal sense.  That's mostly just inflammatory rhetoric on the part of pro-lifers, and it deviates from the realm of scientific fact.  But I think in some cases it should probably be considered murder and in others it shouldn't.

-J

[7StringedBeast]

Would you argue that a caterpillar is a butterfly?  At what point does a caterpillar become a butterfly?  I mean all the ingredients are there for the change to happen.  The same thing with stem cells eventually forming a human.  At those beginning stages, they are human cells, but they do not form a human until later on.  I guess that is what I'm getting at.  Where you see the point of conception to be the beginning of a human being, I see that as a different thing in itself. 

I suppose I am talking about a different aspect to being human.  Meaning I don't think a few cells with DNA is human.  I think its part of human, but there is something lacking at the early stages to call it a human being.  So maybe you see that as existential, but I don't see it that way.  I just see a distinct difference.

I do agree with you that sometimes abortion is murder and sometimes it isn't.  I just am not decided on where that line is in actuality.

[bosk1]

Would you argue that a caterpillar is a butterfly? 

Yes!  It is in fact a butterfly in the larva stage. 

Dude, maybe you should just give up on the examples part and just go with "There's just debate over when life begins, and I'm not sure when myself, but I think it is sometime long after conception."  I mean, all of your examples just keep failing. 

[ack44]

Any definition of the beginning of life is setting itself up for failure because a sperm by itself is just as much a living organism as we are. They're just a part of a bigger system, just like each individual is part of a bigger social construct.

[bosk1]

Any definition of the beginning of life is setting itself up for failure because a sperm by itself is just as much a living organism as we are. They're just a part of a bigger system, just like each individual is part of a bigger social construct.

Yes, but a sperm by itself does not develop into a fully-grown human being.  So still, that doesn't work.

[7StringedBeast]

Would you argue that a caterpillar is a butterfly? 

Yes!  It is in fact a butterfly in the larva stage. 

Dude, maybe you should just give up on the examples part and just go with "There's just debate over when life begins, and I'm not sure when myself, but I think it is sometime long after conception."  I mean, all of your examples just keep failing. 

Lol I agree Bosk.  I guess technically a caterpillar is the larvae of a butterfly, but its not yet a butterfly in its final stage, and I guess I see the beginnings of human life kinda like caterpillar vs butterfly?  I dunno I'll drop the example, but I'm just trying to express the way I see it.

Anyways, what is important is what the law and the common conception of when human life gains basic human rights says.  I think that should be the part emphasized.  Because right now embryos do not.  And I don't feel like they should necessarily have human rights early on in development. 

lol at example fail.

[bosk1]

FYI, the law does not offer a definition of what life begins.

[j]

I suppose I am talking about a different aspect to being human.  Meaning I don't think a few cells with DNA is human.  I think its part of human, but there is something lacking at the early stages to call it a human being.  So maybe you see that as existential, but I don't see it that way.  I just see a distinct difference.

I do agree with you that sometimes abortion is murder and sometimes it isn't.  I just am not decided on where that line is in actuality.

Yeah I see what you're saying now.  "Existential" probably wasn't the right word, but it's something that can't be quantified either way.

Any definition of the beginning of life is setting itself up for failure because a sperm by itself is just as much a living organism as we are. They're just a part of a bigger system, just like each individual is part of a bigger social construct.

A sperm cell is not an "organism", it's a haploid gamete.  Only after fertilization is all the necessary genetic material of a human present.

-J

[PlaysLikeMyung]

FYI, the law does not offer a definition of what life begins.

Which is why, legally, this issue is so hotly contested. Did anyone watch the documentary I posted?

[7StringedBeast]

FYI, the law does not offer a definition of what life begins.

What about the link I offered?  It was quoting what seemed to be laws unless I am mistaken?  It seems the court as of right now sees the life of a human being starting at the moment of birth.  Whether that's a definition or not, I'm not sure, but that seems to be their acknowledgment point of life.

[7StringedBeast]

Yeah I see what you're saying now.  "Existential" probably wasn't the right word, but it's something that can't be quantified either way.

Can't be quantified yet... right?  Maybe at some point it would be able to be quantified.  Or perhaps I'm mistaken? 

Well let's think of it this way for a second.  What does it take to classify something as a homo sapien?  The idea of homo sapien is what we think of when think a human.  Your average looking person with 2 arms, 2 legs, nose, mouth, eyes etc etc.  There are certain criteria that the life form must meet in order to be labeled homo sapien.  So, at what point during pregnancy would the fetus be able to be classified as homo sapien?  Is this a logical different way of looking at this, or am I way off?

[j]

Can't be quantified yet... right?  Maybe at some point it would be able to be quantified.  Or perhaps I'm mistaken? 

Absolutely, it's a possibility.  Who knows?

Well let's think of it this way for a second.  What does it take to classify something as a homo sapien?  The idea of homo sapien is what we think of when think a human.  Your average looking person with 2 arms, 2 legs, nose, mouth, eyes etc etc.  There are certain criteria that the life form must meet in order to be labeled homo sapien.  So, at what point during pregnancy would the fetus be able to be classified as homo sapien?  Is this a logical different way of looking at this, or am I way off?

It's not that it's illogical, you're just looking at macro-appearances (which is what I think a lot of people do) to make that determination, when really it's made at a microscopic (genetic) level.  We're homo sapiens at conception, all the criteria are met.  As we continue to grow in the womb and outside of it, we might approach that perception of an adult human that you're talking about.  But there are adult humans all over the place who don't fit that perception, they may be missing limbs or be severely deformed, or have diminished mental capacity, etc.

If you want to argue that an embryo or whatever in early stages of development is not "fully human", I think you were on the right track.  If there is something more to us that is undetectable or incorporeal or something, that would be very significant.  It's just something that's hard to make a case for or against, because (for now) we have no way to measure or quantify such a thing.

-J

[7StringedBeast]

Right, I agree it is extremely hard to tell which has really been my point because its not clearly defined.  I mean, yes we can define it as moment of conception.  But the government does not see it that way.  I don't think I would want it to be seen that way either, just because I believe in the right to choose.  While I believe in the right to choose, I don't think it would be an option that I would support if it were to happen in my life.  But I still think women should have that choice. 

Where it gets iffy for me, along with a lot of people is where do we draw the line?  I want the door to be open for rape victims or someone with serious medical threats and people who feel they cannot raise the child, or can't carry it the baby out to full term for whatever reason.  What I don't want to see is abortions being used as birth control. 

[bosk1]

FYI, the law does not offer a definition of what life begins.

What about the link I offered?  It was quoting what seemed to be laws unless I am mistaken?  It seems the court as of right now sees the life of a human being starting at the moment of birth.  Whether that's a definition or not, I'm not sure, but that seems to be their acknowledgment point of life.

Part of it quoted a Supreme Court justice, but much of what it said had nothing to do with "the law."

[orcus116]

Where it gets iffy for me, along with a lot of people is where do we draw the line?  I want the door to be open for rape victims or someone with serious medical threats and people who feel they cannot raise the child, or can't carry it the baby out to full term for whatever reason.  What I don't want to see is abortions being used as birth control. 

I guess it all depends on the type of person but I'd have to imagine the process itself is an incredibly traumatizing and violating one, enough where girls won't simply go "eh, screw the condom we'll just get an abortion if it comes to it".

[ack44]

Any definition of the beginning of life is setting itself up for failure because a sperm by itself is just as much a living organism as we are. They're just a part of a bigger system, just like each individual is part of a bigger social construct.

Yes, but a sperm by itself does not develop into a fully-grown human being.  So still, that doesn't work.

True. But a single fully-grown human being by him/herself couldn't become anything remotely close to what we are, with brains able to think about complex things such as "right v.s. wrong" or the earth as a sphere orbiting the sun, let alone invent anything as simple as a cup.

[fsh3702]

The rape scenario is one that I'm not sure where I stand.  On the one hand, it was a forced event that the woman had no control over and the child will be a constant reminder of a traumatic experience.  However, wouldn't that be punishing the innocent child-to-be?  In those cases, I think it would be better to let the child go up for adoption.  My only concern here is that it requires the woman to carry the baby to term, which punishes her instead.  I don't think there's any perfect solution.  If anything, it just goes to show what a horrible crime that rape is.

yeah, the world is full of tragics, sadness and crime, but when we face it seriously with compassion and respect, we may find those tragical events very touching and instructive.

[kaelvin]

Sorry for the sort-of bump but I feel like I need to add this in:

I would consider the ability for family planning a good enough reason to support abortion. With family planning comes the eradication of poverty and improved quality of life for the population as a whole. Far better than thousands of new malnourished children every year. Who will die a slow painful death, might I add. Why not end it before they even develop any pain nerves?

[hefdaddy42]

Sorry for the sort-of bump but I feel like I need to add this in:

I would consider the ability for family planning a good enough reason to support abortion. With family planning comes the eradication of poverty and improved quality of life for the population as a whole. Far better than thousands of new malnourished children every year. Who will die a slow painful death, might I add. Why not end it before they even develop any pain nerves?

Wouldn't using contraceptives be even more effective?

[7thHanyou]

Sorry for the sort-of bump but I feel like I need to add this in:

I would consider the ability for family planning a good enough reason to support abortion. With family planning comes the eradication of poverty and improved quality of life for the population as a whole. Far better than thousands of new malnourished children every year. Who will die a slow painful death, might I add. Why not end it before they even develop any pain nerves?

Wouldn't using contraceptives be even more effective?

The same argument can easily be used for euthanizing infants or anyone else who saps resources.  If anti-abortionists really believe what they argue (that the fetus is the life of a human being worth protecting) then kaelvin's utilitarian argument won't fly at all.  It mostly seems a masturbatory effort to qualify the pro-choice view to other pro-choicers.

[j]

I might have worded it differently, but I think you're correct for the most part.  It seems like most people who consider themselves pro-choice simply start with the assumption that the fetus is not alive, often without even realizing or understanding it.  Pro-lifers assume the opposite, often without knowing why.  But that's the crux of the issue, and what has to be established first.

-J

[hefdaddy42]

I'm not assuming anything.  I just think avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is more effective (and cost-effective) than ending an unwanted pregnancy.  Pure pragmatism.

[7thHanyou]

I might have worded it differently, but I think you're correct for the most part.  It seems like most people who consider themselves pro-choice simply start with the assumption that the fetus is not alive, often without even realizing or understanding it.  Pro-lifers assume the opposite, often without knowing why.  But that's the crux of the issue, and what has to be established first.

-J

Sort of.  I think pro-lifers are in a tougher position, though, because I've also seen pro-choicers argue that, even if the fetus is a human being (we know it is alive), the woman's sovereignty over her own body gives her a right to expel it.  As a libertarian, I find that incredibly compelling.

I'm anti-abortion by principle, but sympathetic to some aspects of the pro-choice position.  I certainly don't believe a woman who has been raped should be forced to carry the child to term, much like I shouldn't be hooked up to anyone else against my will and forced to preserve their life for nine months.  That's based on Judith Jarvis Thompson's argument in her Defense of Abortion.  She defends the pro-choice position while assuming the fetus is a human being.  I don't agree with her arguments enough to advocate legalizing abortion in all cases, but I do think she demonstrates very well why a woman who is raped should be able to have an abortion.

On the other hand, if the fetus isn't a human being, the anti-abortion argument completely dissolves.  We'll probably never know, though.

tl/dr: Yeah, I'm anti-abortion, but any pro-choice argument stemming from the woman's sovereignty is compelling.  Most pro-choice arguments promoted in the media are dumb, which used to make me think the pro-life argument was much stronger.  Now I view it as closer to a draw.  The woman's sovereignty over her own body cannot and should not be left out of the argument.  This makes the rape exception acceptable even in an anti-abortion context.

I'm not assuming anything.  I just think avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is more effective (and cost-effective) than ending an unwanted pregnancy.  Pure pragmatism.

Fair enough.  But moving past that, what happens if the woman does get pregnant?

[lordxizor]

Fair enough.  But moving past that, what happens if the woman does get pregnant?

I won't speak for Hef, but my thought on this has always been: What did you think happens when people have sex? It makes babies. You made a choice to have sex, therefore you must accept the result of it.

A large part of me believes that a person would then need to be stuck with the baby that was the result of their choice. We all have to deal with the consequences of our actions. The only thing that keeps me from saying that abortion should be completely outlawed (other than in certain situations) is that I don't believe a child should be a punishment. No child should grow up being unwanted and unloved. I really wish that people would be more willing to give the child up for adoption and that the adoption process was easier and less expensive.

[j]

I might have worded it differently, but I think you're correct for the most part.  It seems like most people who consider themselves pro-choice simply start with the assumption that the fetus is not alive, often without even realizing or understanding it.  Pro-lifers assume the opposite, often without knowing why.  But that's the crux of the issue, and what has to be established first.

-J

Sort of.  I think pro-lifers are in a tougher position, though, because I've also seen pro-choicers argue that, even if the fetus is a human being (we know it is alive), the woman's sovereignty over her own body gives her a right to expel it.

In the rape situation, as you said, maybe this is the case.  But in any other case, a "woman's sovereignty over her body" was exercised when she got it on, of her own volition.  There is now another body involved, whose rights must be considered.

On the other hand, if the fetus isn't a human being, the anti-abortion argument completely dissolves.  We'll probably never know, though.

Introducing ambiguous psycho-babble based definitions of "human being" makes little sense to me.  At any rate, if we can't know about some intangible quality of humanity that can't be measured, if it exists at all, I would think it prudent to use the evident, cut-and-dry biological definition of life and err on the side of caution, so to speak.

tl/dr: Yeah, I'm anti-abortion, but any pro-choice argument stemming from the woman's sovereignty is compelling.

IMO, only in the case of rape is this a viable argument.

-J

[Ħ]

err on the side of caution, so to speak

that is pretty much the best argument against abortion.