Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Galaxiom]

No, the egg only has 23 chromosomes and, while it belongs the the human species, is not itself a human being. Human beings have 46 chromosomes.

Oh. So it is the chromosome count that matters?

Then people with Down's Syndrome are clearly not human because they have 47.

 

[Eva]

Oh. So it is the chromosome count that matters?

Then people with Down's Syndrome are clearly not human because they have 47.

I knew you were going to say that. People with Down's Syndrome begin with 46 chromosomes, 23 contributed each by the egg and sperm. Then something goes wrong in the process of normal human development and one of the chromosomes split. They are fully human, but with an abnormal number of chromosomes.

Besides, the embryo is not a potential human being, it is a human being.

Nobody has refuted that human life begins at conception.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Nobody has refuted that human life begins at conception.

I don't think that is the issue, the issue is whether taking human life is always wrong. Life is easy for those that view the world in absolutes.

This is not my first post and my views are available early in the thread.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

So two unfertilized eggs also constitutes a human being since between them they have 46 chromosomes. I have little doubt that they could be combined to make a viable embryo, if not now, in the near future.

 

[Galaxiom]

Life does not begin at conception. Life is continuous and has been for over four billion years.

Animals have been cloned from adult cells so when did that life "start".

Picking points where life "starts" is inevitably arbitrary.

 

[dan-cat]

So two unfertilized eggs also constitutes a human being since between them they have 46 chromosomes. I have little doubt that they could be combined to make a viable embryo, if not now, in the near future.

Two unfertilized eggs do not constitute 'a unique existence'. They are separate entities. You're not reading Eva's argument.

 

[Alc]

Life is easy for those that view the world in absolutes.

And, umpteen posts later, we're back to my original statement.

Black is black, white is white. There is no grey.
My interpretation of science and any social implications it holds is true. Anyone who disgrees is wrong. There's no room for debate.

 

[dan-cat]

As to that, I give up my seat for a woman regardless if she is pregnant or not.

Neatly side-stepped but it doesn't contest the fact that common social perception regards an unborn fetus as something of value.

Smoking is not advised during the pregnancy. Society frowns on those that do. Why so if the fetus has no value until it breathes?

 

[dan-cat]

And, umpteen posts later, we're back to my original statement.

Black is black, white is white. There is no grey.
My interpretation of science and any social implications it holds is true. Anyone who disgrees is wrong. There's no room for debate.

I think you're being a little harsh.

There have been several different opinions voiced in response to Eva's statement. Different opinions on where life starts and whether it is correct to take that life. All responded to by Eva in a respectful tone. It's triggered a conversation and that is a good thing.

All good debates stem from a premise.

 

[Galaxiom]

At every ovulation an egg is reaches a point where under favourable conditions it could become a baby. Any woman who does not seek fertilization on every cycle is guilty of denying that life.

The fact is there is an immense input after the fertilization before the blastocyst can become a baby. Denying a woman the choice to not undertake that task is a silly as demanding she fertilizes every egg.

 

[Alc]

I think you're being a little harsh.

There have been several different opinions voiced in response to Eva's statement. Different opinions on where life starts and whether it is correct to take that life. All responded to by Eva in a respectful tone. It's triggered a conversation and that is a good thing.

Which is where the responses differed from her original post. She started her contribution by statting that the answer was simple and went on to imply that there was a definite answer and anyone disagreeing was wrong.

I should probably habe kept quiet and left her to it, it just grates on my nerves when people take such an emotional subject and imply that they somehow have the definitive answer, in spite of their posts being as full of personal interpretation as anyone else's.

All good debates stem from a premise.

And are ended by someone stating that they 'know' something and refusing to listen to any dissent.

 

[Eva]

At every ovulation an egg is reaches a point where under favourable conditions it could become a baby. Any woman who does not seek fertilization on every cycle is guilty of denying that life.

The fact is there is an immense input after the fertilization before the blastocyst can become a baby. Denying a woman the choice to not undertake that task is a silly as demanding she fertilizes every egg.

An egg does not have the power in and of itself to become a baby. Given its normal development, it will die just as it began, an egg. A fertilized egg, however, is no longer an egg. What is it? Science shows that it is a member of the human species, not the mother, not the father, but unique unto itself. Given its normal development, it will eventually become an adult.

The input given the blastocyst is nutrition. Its entire developmental process is initiated from within and not from without. The mother, while providing the correct living conditions for the blastocyst to continue to develop, does not start the process nor control the process. It is self-initiated.

The fertilized egg is not a part of the mother's body. Therefore, she has no right to choose. To say she does is to say she has the right to choose to end its life moments before birth, immediately after birth, or any other time, for that matter, because there is no difference other than those differences I stated before.

Whether life begins at conception is the crux of the issue. If so, you are intentionally ending the life of another human being by having an abortion, regardless how easy it is to do, how little attachment you might seem to think you have to it, how much it doesn't yet have arms, legs, and a face, how difficult your life will be because of it, how acceptable by our current society, etc. Any other discussion is really pointless.

 

[Alc]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/the_fertilized_egg_is_not_a_hu.php

Different view, so no doubt invalid.

 

[Eva]

Which is where the responses differed from her original post. She started her contribution by statting that the answer was simple and went on to imply that there was a definite answer and anyone disagreeing was wrong.

I should probably habe kept quiet and left her to it, it just grates on my nerves when people take such an emotional subject and imply that they somehow have the definitive answer, in spite of their posts being as full of personal interpretation as anyone else's.

And are ended by someone stating that they 'know' something and refusing to listen to any dissent.

Simple (used in a more philosophical tone rather than a snarky tone, which I really avoid) means not complex. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. This is argument I just demonstrated is a simple argument.

Silly, we can't all be right - in fact, there is only one right answer, either human or not human. But I suppose you don't think you are right and I am wrong.

 

[Alc]

Simple (used in a more philosophical tone rather than a snarky tone, which I really avoid) means not complex. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. This is argument I just demonstrated is a simple argument.

Yes, and if I say A = 2 and B = 2, then A = B is correct.
If I am saying that A and B = 2, based on my interpretation of the facts, then this equation holds true.
If I am ignoring information from other sources that state A = 5, 6 or 7, then the equation does not hold true.
You have interpreted 'facts' in a way that suits your argument.

Silly, we can't all be right - in fact, there is only one right answer, either human or not human. But I suppose you don't think you are right and I am wrong.

I don't think there is a 'right' answer to this subject. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there are few subjects where that is more true. This is where we differ.

 

[Eva]

Yes, and if I say A = 2 and B = 2, then A = B is correct.
If I am saying that A and B = 2, based on my interpretation of the facts, then this equation holds true.
If I am ignoring information from other sources that state A = 5, 6 or 7, then the equation does not hold true.
You have interpreted 'facts' in a way that suits your argument.

I don't think there is a 'right' answer to this subject. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there are few subjects where that is more true. This is where we differ.

No, I should have explained. This is a diagram of a simple logical argument (truly, of all people, programmers should understand this). Our discussion really is a simple logical discussion.

I am not ignoring anyone. Until now, you haven't provided any premises on which life does not begin at conception. I briefly read the article you linked to in your previous post. What part exactly do you agree with?

 

[oumahexi]

An egg does not have the power in and of itself to become a baby. Given its normal development, it will die just as it began, an egg. A fertilized egg, however, is no longer an egg. What is it? Science shows that it is a member of the human species, not the mother, not the father, but unique unto itself. Given its normal development, it will eventually become an adult.

The input given the blastocyst is nutrition. Its entire developmental process is initiated from within and not from without. The mother, while providing the correct living conditions for the blastocyst to continue to develop, does not start the process nor control the process. It is self-initiated.

The fertilized egg is not a part of the mother's body. Therefore, she has no right to choose. To say she does is to say she has the right to choose to end its life moments before birth, immediately after birth, or any other time, for that matter, because there is no difference other than those differences I stated before.

Whether life begins at conception is the crux of the issue. If so, you are intentionally ending the life of another human being by having an abortion, regardless how easy it is to do, how little attachment you might seem to think you have to it, how much it doesn't yet have arms, legs, and a face, how difficult your life will be because of it, how acceptable by our current society, etc. Any other discussion is really pointless.

Firstly, I would say you make the unborn sound more like a paracite than a human, in which case, surely it should be up to the woman to get rid of it if she wishes.

Secondly, what exactly are you terming as "life" is it a sentient being? Is it aware?

Thirdly, would you hesitate to kill a flea? It also lives off you but is separate to you.

Finally, I just cannot fathom the reason for this debate!! If you've had concentual sex then you will surely have taken precautions if your intention is not to conceive?? So what on earth are we debating? If it wasn't concentual then obviously there has to be a case for termination because of the further trauma that can be caused to the victim.

 

[Alc]

I am not ignoring anyone. Until now, you haven't provided any premises on which life does not begin at conception. I briefly read the article you linked to in your previous post. What part exactly do you agree with?

The idea that life begins at conception.

I quote from the article
"Life does not begin at conception."
The writer explains this statement quite well.

 

[dan-cat]

And are ended by someone stating that they 'know' something and refusing to listen to any dissent.

This isn't actually happening here. Eva is addressing each of your responses. You are being listened to. It makes for good reading.

 

[Alc]

This isn't actually happening here. Eva is addressing each of your responses. You are being listened to. It makes for good reading.

Eva has decided her opinion, based on what she terms 'facts'. Any attempts - by myself, Adam, or anyone else - to argue that these 'facts' are just opinion are not being addressed, beyond saying that the definitely ARE facts.

To paraphrase Monty Python, a discussion isn't the automatic gainsay of whatever the other person says.