The Status of the Embryo in the First Trimester is the Basic Issue
The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.
If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.
That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.
("Independent" does not mean self-supporting -- a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)
"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."
It is only on this base that we can support the woman's political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person -- not even her husband -- has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
An fascinating dialogue is worth comment. I think that you must write more on this topic, it may not be a taboo subject however generally people are not sufficient to speak on such topics. To the next. Cheers Esgic Plus sextet
I'm ashamed to hear from a libertarian group such easy made arguments when we are facing what is the major abuse against the first and most important right that libertarians , like me, consider to be untouchable: the right to life.
After saying that the status of the embryo is the basic issue, something that i agree with, you state in the same sentence that the embryo is clearly pre-human without an explanation and using a word: "pre-human" that is not accepted by tha vast majority of the scientific community. You see i think that to be a Dogma.
You are absolutely right when you say "We must not confuse potentiality with actuality", too bad that is precisely the mistake you make. Potential is something that needs third-party conditions to come to the status of actuality whereas actual is something that has the autonomy to grow and develop by its own, displaying all the potentiality inherited as a new individual of the homo sapiens sapiens. Yes it's a mass of cells, but isn't that what we also where at that stage of development? What we look like at a certain point of our development doesn't change the fact that we are humans.
The embryo is definitely not part of a woman or how can it be that what she holds inside may be of opposite sex , may have different blood type, etc...
I never compare an embryo with an infant, i just say that both are distinct and unique human beings only at different stages of development.
I don't want to get emotional on this issue when arguing with pragmatists or just plain idiots, so to spare myself the grief over the lost lives, I will make one LOGICAL argument and leave the rest alone.
Forget about religion or morals... let's look from a common sense perspective and leave everything else alone... including that embryo. Using that logic, if the embryo was left alone what would it become?
When two humans mate and a female's egg is fertilized what will be the result of that fertilization. All physical and or mental abnormalities aside, those two cells dividing will NEVER become anything other than a HUMAN child. They will never become a rat or a dog, or even a primate which any scientist will tell you we share 98% of our DNA with. With that in mind, how can make arguments that it is not a person? Will it, if left alone, become a person? The answer is yes and there is no refuting that. Should we not, then, bestow on that future person the same rights we would any other human in this world? I think we should. Think on that awhile.
Winston Churchill once said: "All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope."
Err on the side of justice, honor and mercy, not on the side of political correctness.
An embryo requires a host to survive. So if left ALONE, without a host, the embryo would die and become nothing, not a person.
In medical terms, an " abortion " happens every time the products of conception (a fertilized egg) leaves the uterus without producing a live birth. But this happens countless times in nature, as fertilized eggs are routinely washed from the woman's uterus before they can be implanted there. Abortion opponents might as well consider Mother Nature the world's largest abortion mill.
I very much agree that the issue is the status of 'Embryo'. But your argument cannot answer this. The fact we know that life is conceived - or you would say potential to life - at conception. That is established. But your suggestion that sometime on the 90th day the embryo becomes human has now basis. This is the basic faulty premise with the argument that abortion is not killing. You arbitrarily asign actuality. Perhaps it should be the 87th day but then why not the 93rd. No, logic demands that we accept that life was created at conception. This we know and must deal with. Assigning actuality at some later date only serves the singular interest of the mother - who may have suffered abuse accepted - disregarding the rights of the unborn.
Does intellectual dishonesty come naturally to you religionists or do you have to work hard at it? He did not say an embryo was a human being at 90 days. He said that it is not. He said that it is critical to establish its status in the first trimester, because some of your fellow religious kooks apparently think that a fertilized egg has a soul.
Wendy, I'm really surprised by your labeling and accusation of dishonesty. You assign moral guilt to what was in fact a misunderstanding on my part. And the label 'religious kooks' completely undermines any dialogue. Mutual respect and civility is a prerequiste in any discussion. Please don't write back. I could have heard you before but it would be very difficult now.
But unborn child is not. Corpse, by definition, refers to something that used to be alive and is no longer. Child has many definitions, including the vague "a person not yet of age," and the specific "an unborn or recently born person" - New College Merriam-Webster English Dictionary.
If one removes a patch of skin, an arm, or a heart, we know that it is part of the human it came from even if done without causing pain. What part of a woman is the baby? He/she isn't part of their mother. How is the mother adversely affected by the removal of this 'part'?
If independence is the criterion for personhood, then no person fits the bill. People are inherently interdependent. Now, twins joined at the hip - are they part of each other, or separate? Do they only get one vote? or two?
Back to the beginning, I thought a trimester was 3 months, but what is cited here only applies to the 1st 3 weeks, or not at all. As for the animal compariston (which doesn't apply), what do you mean by primitive?
Any evolutionary comparison is irrelevant since fetal development is not an evolutionary process, likewise, the human being is always human, from the beginning, never becoming anything like a frog or a fish (or anything else for that matter). If you simply mean that the child hasn't fully formed, does that mean that the Elephant Man wasn't really human? What about my friend Kyle, whose left hand is almost devoid of fingers? Is he somehow not human?
By the way, a child has discernible fingers at 3 weeks pregnancy; that's why most abortion procedures involve the quartering of the child. Interestingly, quartering, the practice by which a person's limbs are rent or severed in a bloody mess, has long been deemed 'cruel and unusual punisment'. We don't even do that to our murderers and rapists, and yet we're to do it to our children?
Throwing a dictionary at the problem won't make it go away. Definitions are put forth by men, and men can err or be irrational.
I don't know where to begin. You fail to provide any reasonable or valid definition, and then object when an authoritative one is given on the grounds that you don't like it, saying that 'it doesn't make the problem go away,' without specifying what the problem is (reasonably anyway), and then reccommend your own post like it's holy writ. Wendy, you have failed. You are wrong. You have lost. I declare this because you are unwilling to admit it, but moreso because such is the case. You've spewed nothing but fancy babble, and often haven't even addressed the issue, preferring to go off on tangents. You criticize fact as opinion on the basis of your opinion, and rather than support it, you merely reiterate it as though it were axiomatic (few things truly are).
I say this not in rebuttal, for you've given me nothing to refute or otherwise debate; I say this that you might improve, recognize these critical flaws, and to offer the chance for either surrender, or serious debate.
"So can women be also (and usually are)" pretty much evicts you from the realm of reason. But just for the sake of the readership, and also because I like playing with entrapped rodents between my claws, I will respond.
I am not sure what you think you will accomplish by appealing to authority--of dictionaries or anything else. That is, after all, a formal logical error. There is no such thing as cognitive authority. The human mind is independent--metaphysically independent. We are all intellectually sovereign. Any definition, any dictionary, any idea, any doctrine can be challenged and overthrown if it is shown to be incorrect or irrational. Nothing is "safe" from the power of human reason. Irrationality can run, but it can't hide.
In that spirit, I went over the concept of concepts elsewhere on this forum, as well as definitions, and I backed up what I was saying with logic. You say that they are unreasonable, but you do not say which ones or why. No where have you refuted my explications. That is because you cannot. That is because there is no refutation. If it existed somewhere in the annals of philosophy, someone would have found it and come back to this forum and posted it. It doesn't exist. I know this, because I did not develop all these concepts and ideas myself; I learned them from Ayn Rand, and no one has ever invalidated her epistemology.
Therefore, I declare victory. You have failed. You are wrong. You have lost. I declare this not because you are unwilling to admit it (such a declaration would be the act of someone unconcerned with truth, but with plenty of concern for faking reality to achieve psychological submission of other human beings, or "persons"), but simply because it is true and I have already proven it. You spew nothing but generalities, dodge the issues and definitions while you ask for ever further clarifications, and then pretend that such clarifications are "tangent" when you receive them. You have not presented any facts, only arbitrary assertions which you do not bother to support except with lexicographic irrelevancies, and then you proceed as if your method of thinking were axiomatically valid. By the way, I will state my axioms: Existence, identity, consciousness. What are yours?
As for your last offer of either surrender or "serious" debate, as opposed to what is going on now, I think I have made it clear who has already won, and besides, I only argue on those terms that are based on reason, not on lesser systems of thought, for I do not wish to be brought down to such a level and beaten with experience.
By the way, I refer to my posts, not Recommend them. Someone else is doing that, probably because they grasped what I am saying, even though you ostensibly do not. However, for all your disdain that I may have a positive opinion of my own posts (yes, I do), I seem to recall that in the beginning, one of your fellow anti-abortionists Recommended one of my posts and followed it up with a dismissive argument designed to buy my silence upon pain of not being liked, which would go back to what I was saying about some having as their first concern psychologically manipulating other people rather than establishing truth.
Pwned.
is to make up definitions as you go along. Relying on a formal authority is the foundation of logical, even rational argument.
You are correct that an authoritative definition may plausibly be incorrect, but you have failed on every count to demonstrate that such is the case. And I suppose it would be difficult to discern who is running when you are the one running with irrationality.
Oh, and I have successfully challenged what you have put forth of said 'epistemology'; the fundamental problem is that any scenario applied to a human fetus can also be applied to a human being; even a lack of reason - for that condemns the mentally retarded, even the lack of a particular ability, for it condemns the handicapped, even the issue of metaphysical independence, for you cannot prove that such is absent from a fetus - nor can you prove that you possess the same without appealing to God: which would shoot yourself in the foot.
Therefore your victory is an illusion, a fantasy in your mind, though unfortunately not alone. You have offered no evidence for your claims. Philosophical opinions to not constitute proof; but the sciences of embryology and fetology confirm that both are existing organisms with human properties - when the offspring of humans - and therefore human beings, by definition; they also prove that said beings are alive which is important since a corpse cannot be killed.
I have repeatedly squared on the issues
I have clearly defined my terms - you just don't like dictionaries because they're unbiased.
I've never asked for elaboration beyond the relevant.
I've always been as specific as necessary - you on the other hand, have 'spewed generalities' indirectly, at least, by assuming broad, arbitrary conditions such as 'survivability'.
My logic is based on true axioms, and therefore is probably tertiarily axiomatic, but that's not even a logical flaw, quite the opposite actually.
I have supported my claims - with biology: high school biology, and logic, basic logic. And none of my claims are arbitrary, though birth is fundamentally arbitrary - you do know what it means to be arbitrary, right?
Existence is an axiom (one which I've been using, but you have not accurately done so)
Truth and Fact are the fundamental axioms.
Identity is not an axiom. It's a label.
Consciousness is not an axiom. You do know what an axiom is, don't you?
Liar. Almost the entirity of your last post was irrational.
Though you've demonstrated yourself a liar, I will nevertheless retract the accusation that you reccommend your own posts. But that doesn't warrant the ad hominim.
Your post is compelling. I subscribe to an Objectivist philosophy myself. I do not rely on religion as guide in a rational view of the world. Ayn Rand was quoted on the matter above, but deifying her serves no purpose outside of creating an alternate religion to those others more popularly held; her words must rely on reason and stand the test of time and I'm not so sure they do in this case. I grant you that conception is not the correct time to define individuality, but at some point that does happen and there are choices that are made by the parent that
Science progresses, our understanding changes. When does an individual become and individual? A rightful role of government is to protect one individual from another... at what point does that start and how does one rationally make that determination?
In Ancient Rome, that point was well after child birth; where an unwanted young child was simply left in the woods, called exposure 'for the gods to sort out' ( http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/familyanddailylife/qt/072707exposure.htm ).
A week old baby has almost no real physical distinction from a fetus that is one week to birth. These are arbitrary markers in terms of what makes an individual if you choose to discard the facts about pain, brainwaves, etc. you are simply ignoring facts, reality; because one individual is easily identifiable and the other less so doesn't give us a pass not to seriously consider the less than obvious choice. Nothing more. Should an individual only be recognized as one at the time they can completely fend for themselves? Even then how does one objectively, rationally define that?
Because Objectivism values Individualism over 'State-ism' or other forms of collectivism I personally think this is one area where Objectivism itself has a weakness. Reality is reality, "a is a" in dogmatic terms; but determining when a person is a person, if not conception, relies on either a collective determination (via Government) or a fully Individual assessment in which we must accept that born children dependent on their parents may be defined as not individuals as a result of that dependence.
Unfortunately, I came to this discussion looking for Objectivist viewpoints to resolve some of the contradictions of the debate, but the arguments I've seen from the "Objectivist" side have been largely disappointing... not because I have an firm opinion one way or the other but simply dismissing someone as 'religionist' or 'ignorant' isn't enough to win any argument. Simply being elitist isn't enough: compelling arguments that address counter claims are more convincing that telling me how much better you are than everyone else. And you don't need to be a 'religionist' to be anti- abortion (though that is what drives most there)... a reading of Nat Hentoff, an avowed atheist, will present pro-life arguments on non-religious grounds ( http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff.html ). That's not to say he's Objectivist (far from it) but he's not a 'religious kook'.
Cheers,
SCB
I appreciate your feedback and do apologize that this thread hasn't yet satisfied your question. Therefore, I shall here try to simplify the ojective argument. The cell is the basic/fundamental unit of life. Human DNA is unique to human beings. An organism whose somatic (non-reproductive) cells contain the full human genome is therefore a human being. A person is defined as a human being, therefore any human being is a person. A person may be alive or dead as a human being may be alive or dead. This seems to be important as many wish to interperet the law only for "persons". A living person thus is entitled to those fundamental rights belonging to any other living person, in this case, life. Since life begins at conception, and the cell at conception of human offspring contains the entire human genome, and makes up the entirety of an organism (as opposed to a sperm cell - incomplete DNA - or a hair - incomplete/non-living organism), it constitutes a human being, and therefore, by definition, a person, who therefore, from conception, as per the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America (this site seems to be restrictive to U.S. policy), is entitled to 'certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (in that order).'
I sincerely hope this satisfies; it's refreshing to see someone who seems truly open-minded about the matter.
No, relying on reality is the foundation of logical, rational argument. Yawn.
I am losing track of all the logical fallacies you are scoring, but add self-contradiction: "Relying on a formal authority is the foundation of logical, even rational argument," followed by "...authoritative definition may plausibly be incorrect." No wonder you don't think Identity is an axiom. You just make it too easy for me.
Something tells me you wouldn't know epistemology from the residue in a freshly used urinal, but the retarded and "handicapped" DO possess a rational faculty, although in varying degrees, and their rights are in fact delimited to the extent of their mental capacity, which is exactly what one would predict if man's rights are logically derived from his nature as the rational animal. Fetuses do not have any such capacity.
When I read, "Consciousness is not an axiom. You do KNOW what an axiom is, don't YOU?" [emphasis mine], I almost fell on the floor with laughter. That target is so easy to hit, I won't bother shooting at it. That was even funnier to me than your bit about high school biology supporting your case.
You are obviously completely philosophically uninitiated, so I could have a lot of fun here. Let's try this one. You admit that Existence is "an" axiom, Identity is not, but that Truth and Fact are the "fundamental" axioms. If Existence is not fundamental, and existents don't possess Identity, then what exactly is true or factual? The description of things which are not what they are, which you do not even know exist until you they have been proven factual and true? LOL
if reality is the foundation of logic, how can logic be used to discover reality? or are you omniscient?
Please note, I did not contradict myself, which you would realize if you'd read what I said; there was afterall a criterion and formula for such occaision.
Identities aren't axiomatic; that's why your geometry teacher makes you do proofs.
Since you asked the guy with the dictionary; epistemology: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and valididy. It means nothing [almost] in this debate; for if knowledge is the criterion for human identification, then the comatose cease to be human, while the nature of a human fetus is still dubious; and any trainable animal achieves legal equality with man.
Obviously you don't know what an axiom is, therefore; an axiom is that which is self-evident, simply put; authoritatively defined as "an established rule or principle of self-evident truth. By the way, since it's in high school biology where one definitely learns about the basic properties of the genome, the process of reproduction, and the fundamental unit of life; I am correct in asserting that any attentive high-schooler knows that human life begins at conception.
I never said that existents don't possess identity (maybe I should stick words in your mouth?); I simply said that they don't identify themselves; hence the need for proofs. Now to answer your question, even as you put it; Truth and Fact themselves.
Remember, even for the absurdly doubting Descartes, existence wasn't axiomatic; he had to prove it, but Truth and Fact must exist for the contrary is illogical, absurd, and impossible. It would appear that you aren't as philosophically inclined as you would have me believe. Now I tire of this.
Your entire post is absolute nonsense. Truth and fact are rooted in Existence and Identity, not vice versa. And Consciousness is also axiomatic, since it also must exist in order to grasp and discuss Existence, Identity, truth, or fact. Truth and fact are concepts that are dependent on existents existing and having a certain nature. If nothing existed and possessed identity, then nothing could be true and there could nothing which is fact. Descartes' #1 error was in ignoring what the Greeks discovered (Parmenides-existence, Aristotle-identity) and trying to reinvent the whole philosophical wheel. That would be like a modern student ignoring Darwin and then setting about to advance the field of biology from scratch.
Your assumption that logic cannot be used to discover reality if it depends on reality is an invalid one, and it is little wonder people don't take philosophy seriously when so-called philosophers try to peddle that kind of garbage. I know what you are getting at, and you are out of your league talking about reality and logic. There is no such thing as a priori knowledge. Doesn't exist. Immanual Kant tried to pull it off with his "categories" as the latest incarnation of the a priori, and he couldn't. He stepped on it when he tried to demonstrate their application in the real world. His philosophy predicted, among other things, a repulsive force among substance which modern scientists know does not exist.
Sense perception is at the base of knowledge. Sense perception provides the material for concept-formation. Concepts are the raw material for logic. Concepts are not a priori but are derived by means of induction from observation of reality. But thank you for giving me this opportunity to proselytize for secularism.
First, allow me, please, to apologize for being rude.
Now then, I never contended that any (true) knowledge was a priori, not even axioms are a priori, since the notion requres the manipulation of external concepts with the specific goal of 'proving' the intitial assumption, but axioms aren't assumptions; their negatives break down or contradict themselves logically.
Sensory perceptions can be false, and therefore are justly questionable as the foundation for any gain of knowledge, especially from a philosophical standpoint. Furthermore, some concepts exist without previous sensation of them (a crude example being the two fake elements of the periodic table in the post Actium D-series; no longer fake), however, the most extreme examples defy understanding, as sensation is the most common means of grasping an idea.
Concerning existence, identity, truth, and fact. truth depends on nothing but itself. There could hypothetically exist no other truth than that truth itself must exist, even if as the only example thereof. Existence, however, is rooted in truth, as a particular existence (even the whole of it) may or may not be real: factual: true. If nothing existed (other than truth), then it would be true that nothing other than truth existed - hence truth is an axiom; it exists because it must: because the converse is illogical.
Consciousness is only axiomatic to the being that owns it - your consciousness doesn't prove itself to me; your comments, for all I know, could be random, automated, responses made by an unconscious machine. Since it is possible to unconsciously display signs of consciousness (i.e. sleepwalking) the problem is further complicated, especially where a concsiousness could lack the physical capacity for such displays (i.e. complete absense of rough muscle tissue - heartbeats are unconscious/subconscious)
You have exited the realm of scientific and statsitical evidence and are relying instead on metaphysics and philosophy. You are doing exactly what you have accused everyone else of doing, and are expecting us to helplessly submit to your arbitrary religious pronouncements. I had originally intended to read every one of your posts, but as I have gotten closer to actuall doing so I have realized the increasing futility, because like a 7-day creationist, you refuse to acknowledge fact, and rely instead upon your relgion, even going so far as to believe you have won the argument, when if fact you have made yourself look like a fool. You have not even bothered to respond to a single piece of scientific evidence that attests to the personhood of a fetus, hiding behind you complex philosophical mumbo-jumbo, and mocking the "unititated." Not even the Creationists do that. It's the strict realm of the Branch Davidians and other extreme cultists. You have done everything you have accused your opposition of doing, even saying that other people's arguments contain no religious merit, something you yourself claimed your opposition was doing to you, though it was untrue. You have hid behind semantics, you have refused to define your terms, you have thrown out arguments and facts simply because they are not pleasing to you. You are a hypocrite and illogical, and I no longer have a use for you.
Nope. The Logical Positivists took your position in the first half of the 20th century and went down quickly because of it. Science is rooted in philosophy, not vice versa. Meaning has to be prior to scientific testing, not a result of it. You can't test something if you don't understand what you are trying to test. Science is inherently conceptual in nature. That is why philosophy is needed: To establish the cognitive rules by which you can discover reality. If science did not depend on philosophy, then there would not be, for example, different camps of physicists, with one side claiming that causality directs subatomic action and the other claiming that quantum processes are causeless. Everybody would just agree that one side is the scientific position and base their scientific models off that. There is no such agreement, because some scientists are still operating off Aristotelianism, and others went the way of Kant.
The rest of your post is just inflammatory junk. I have posted more explanations, clarifications, arguments, and meanings than all of you put together. Sayonara.
I thought that you had made progress. An unfortunate case of wishful thinking on my part. It will not happen again. You may justify your religion to yourself all you want, it doesn't make it factual or useable in debate. Creationists would say that science is rooted in religion, not vice versa. That doesn't make it true. I will no longer respond to your posts. Do not take it as a sign that you have won, because it is not. It is a declaration that you are irrational, and therefore unworthy of debate.
Let's actually do something about this.
It appears that we can all agree that a fetus (the new, growing organism of a pregnancy beginning at the 3rd month) is a human and thus deserves legal protection. Let's modify our state and federal laws to declare a fetus a "full human" and protect it. This would make abortion legal only before the 3rd month.
Now that we have some sanity, consistency, and are all on the same medical / scientific page, we can begin discussing the humanity of an embryo (the new, growing organism of a pregnancy up to the 3rd month).
At this point we have to decide who gets to decide the humanity of an embryo. Is it each mother's opinion? It is a medical board's opinion? Congress? The Courts? A nation-wide vote? Right now, the Supreme Court has essentially answered that: each monther's opinion. Is that really the right choice? Each mother gets to decide when her pregnancy changes from a non-human to a human? This doesn't make sense. There is no standard, no acceptance of facts, only pure opinion.
For now, let's fix the obvious: a fetus is a human and deserves all the rights of a 1 year old, 10 year old, and 100 year old.
I still don't agree that it should be legal until the third month, because it's still a living thing, the mother is eating, sleeping, LIVING for the baby, until it can do it on it's own.
BUT I do agree with you on this "a fetus is a human and deserves all the rights of a 1 year old, 10 year old, and 100 year old."
i agree, that's true.
To pretend that the poster above you who disagrees with you does not exist, after you have just responded to her, indicates that you have substantially broken with reality. To pretend that everyone is on the "same page" as you regarding abortion is proof of it.
I will let you guess as to the clinical term for this condition.
You object to a pregnant woman's opinion as non-objective, then demand that your own opinion, that a fetus is a human deserving of the rights of a 10-year-old, get treated as an objective fact. Then you wonder which authority's opinion establishes reality. But no one's opinion establishes reality. Reality exists independently of human opinion, and reason is our only tool to understand it.
And reason is clear on this issue. There is no humanity of a fetus to discuss because a fetus is not a person. You cannot offer any rational, logical, secular evidence that a fetus is a person, because there is none. There can be no evidence for that which does not exist.
First, my apologies for creating some confusion.
My comments were strictly in response the "argument" and was written before I read the comments. I did however read the comments before I posted mine and I did "ignore" your comment essentially because you changed the topic. The argument is about embryos, not fetuses. Scientifically, there is a vast difference. After I reread all the comments (including my own) I looked for a way to edit them in order to reference yours, but I could find no edit link.
I have no intention of pretending you do not exist; you believe your position as much as I believe mine. I have every intention of creating a true debate.
The argument states that an embryo is not a human (person), but it also implies that a fetus is.
Everyone being on the "same page" proves nothing beyond agreement of opinion.
I think definitions are getting mixed up here. Life, humanity, person: are these the same thing? I believe we must consistently define what "personhood" is and when it begins.
For the rest of the "argument," let's use one word (human, life, ??? suggestion) as the organism that begins when it can be detected and ends when it is dead (thus fetus through adulthood). Let's also use one word (personhood, humanity, ??? suggestion) for the status of the organism that is given value and legal protection.
It appears that you have essentially said, there is no personhood … because it is not a person," which is not a valid statement because a word was used to define itself. This is also not a reason, it is pure opinion. It would be valid to say that a fetus is not a person because it does not have the qualities of a person (although I would disagree with that assertion). Referencing another comment of yours on this argument, it is interesting to say that personhood / legal protection begins at birth. I'm very curious of your reasons for this.
I object to "each" woman’s opinion being allowed to define when personhood begins. Many women would say it begins at conception, many others say at birth. Men are equally diverse in their opinion. Some have even said it begins at toddlerhood. I contend that a set of scientific facts must be allowed to make a consistent decision. We cannot reasonably have laws that allow for double-murder when a pregnant woman is killed and at the same time declare it legal for a doctor to lethally inject a fetus. How can both of these laws exist together?
You are correct that opinions do not establish reality (fact), but they do establish laws, morals, ethics, values, rules, textbooks, politics, and culture. These things are very powerful, and real forces. I believe we both agree that reality (fact) must rule the argument / debate / question / decision. If so then we can and should come to the same conclusion. I hope to get there.
I have backed up my opinion with objective facts and analysis, not tautologisms. Today I restated why birth is the objective, rational, absolute criteria, so I won't repost it here. But the issue of double-murder for pregnant women is important, so I will address that here.
Double-murder laws exist because the law-makers are not being rational. Look, is it somehow fundamentally different that a man fatally stabs a pregnant woman than a non-pregnant woman? Is he any less of a murderer in the latter case? No. Any individual who initiates physical force against another human being thereby forfeits his rights, and in the case of a murderer, the appropriate sentence is death.
Now, space constraints of the prison system may not allow for just sentences to be carried out, but that is an argument for more prison space and/or executions, not making arbitrary laws to make sure that some crimes do receive a just sentence.
It should be acknowledged that a woman puts tremendous biological, temporal, and mental resources, and she takes significant health risks, in carrying a pregnancy. She does so because she values the future potential of the fetus. Therefore, a pregnant woman who survives such an attack but loses the fetus loses something over and above what a non-pregnant woman loses, all things being equal. Sentencing guidelines can recognize this fact to harden the sentence. A double-murder charge is not necessitated.
May I suggest a dictionary definition for personhood?
The specific term seems to be lacking in mine, however, the great thing about english is that I can use its root to understand its meaning.
Therefore, I submit, the definition of personhood, based on the definition of person, according to the Langenscheidt's New College Merriam-Webster English Dictionary is: Person, n, 1: Human individual.
Personhood: the quality of being a human individual.
A fetus is a potential human being, not an actual human being. Therefore, it has no rights. End of story. Whether it can feel "pain," have a heartbeat, or have "brainwaves" is completely irrelevant and constitute irrational criteria made up on the spot by neurotic religionists with an axe to grind against secularism and naturalism. A fetus is an incompletely formed, biologically dependent proto-human. Emotions and religious doctrines have nothing to do with reality whatsoever. A fetus is not a person.
But then again, anti-abortions are not in the least bit concerned with reality and reason. If they were, they would not say things like, "your statement...is...devoid of any religious teachings."
I am complete against abortion not matter the reasons why. And I can tell you that my reason for believe against this matter has NOTHING to do with any religious beliefs, so before you label every person who is Pro-Life or not just remember not every one believes what they believe in based souly on religion and if you thinking that then that's just ignorance on you part. Abortion is wrong for many reasons we may not ever see eye to eye on the issue and all it consists of but at least give everyone the benefit of the doubt and not jump straight to them being religious or not as a reason for any issue that goes for every Pro-choice AND Pro-Life follower. I am sick of people use that as a stand for everything, its irrelevant to the issues, just focus of the problem and finding a solution instead of throwing in your two cents about someone and their beliefs or lack of beliefs.
SHould the question maybe not be when is a fetus human but rather when can it hurt?
If the fetus can be be hurt or suffer then why can't we extend the same rights we often try and extend to animals? The problem is you have two "people" in the same body. So it becomes a women's rights issue. Pregnancy is uncomfortable and inconvenient just like higher prices for food is. So we sacrifice compassion on the alter of human convenience and stack chickens on top of one another in cages and say that our babies are fetus' and that it's irrelevant if they feel pain. We get angry when we are forced to look at the high cost we pay for our convenience. Photos of suffering animals or an aborted fetus make us uncomfortable. We do not want to know.
I am a woman. And abortion is a woman's right issue. We as woman now have the horrible responsibility of making life and death decisions. We give life and we now have the right to end it.
I wonder if we knew what we were really asking for and just how inconvenient this really is.
Just some thoughts
You said a fetus is not a human, but gave no support for that opinion. What defines a human?
If 'it can feel "pain," have a heartbeat, or have "brainwaves"' does that not mean is it something different than a mass of tissue that cannot?
There must be some scientific / logical / medical / criteria we can use to determine this.
In reason, it is not up to me to prove a negative. It is up to you to prove a positive assertion with evidence. You have offered none. You have not explained why feeling "pain," having a heartbeat, or having "brainwaves" is in any way fundamental or even logically relevant to this topic. Do you propose to endow animals with individual rights?
I have explained elsewhere in the comments section that birth is the rational, logical, objective, scientific criteria we use to determine when a fetus has transitioned into a person, and I explained why.
It is up to the individual who wants to change the status quo to provide a reason. For example, we have a fetus bumping along on it's way to birth. You want to justify killing it. You've got to have reasons. Furthermore, even if the onus of proof is on us, that doesn't also make you the judge of what is valid evidence or not, no questions asked. When an argument is brought up, you must argue against it, you cannot simply proclaim that it is not evidence. I haven't read all of your comments yet, but I'm getting there, and I have not yet seen you give a counter argument. You just state the same arbitrary proclaimation over and over again. "A fetus is not a person, it is a potential person. Birth makes a human. Any arguments you bring against this will not be considered. They will be written off as religiously motivated or invalid because I said so."
“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”
First, this is a debate, not a court with a prosecution and defense. Both sides of the argument must equally provide support for their position.
I have not scoured this site looking for all of your comments. I'm only responding to this comment and this "argument" as defined by OpposingViews.
Right or wrong, good or bad, animals do have rights in the US; however, I have no intention of using that as a reason to support my position, it would not make sense.
As for my reasons that a fetus (3+ months in womb) is a person, here are the basics: Just like an infant, it
- has a beating heart
- has a brain with detectable brainwaves
- has eyes
- has arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet, toes
- has all organs
- responds to sound, light, movements, pressure
- actually “looks” like a human
By the 4th month of pregnancy, there is no mistaking that what is growing inside the mother is alive and has countless attributes of a person.
It is different than an infant in these respects:
- size: a 24 week old in neonatal care is smaller than a 39 week old still in the womb
- development: a 24 week old in neonatal care is less developed than a 39 week old still in the womb
- environment: a 24 week old in neonatal care may be breathing air with lungs, but probably has a feeding tube (i.e. umbilical cord) but is otherwise identical to a 39 week old still in the womb
- dependency: a 24 week old in neonatal care is 100% dependent on a caregiver, just like a 39 week old in the womb, but the care is administered differently
For these reasons, I draw the conclusion that as soon as science can detect the organism growing inside a woman’s body, it is a life. As soon as science can detect the major attributes of a person (from fingernails to DNA), it must be a person. To my knowledge, no pregnancy has ever resulted in anything but a person, thus empirical science concludes that all human pregnancies must be of persons.
To continue the debate, let's further your position that birth defines life (in this case life = humanity = personhood = legal protection). Given partial-birth abortion (dilation and extraction), at what exact point is a fetus born? Is this different for vaginal births and cesarean births?
Does science detect that a fetus is metaphysically independent? No. Again, a potential is not an actual. Your criteria are completely arbitrary, nonfundamental, and do not survive the light of reason.
Partial-birth abortion is an oxymoron invented by religionists to add legitimacy to their cause. An abortion is not a birth. A physician pulling a fetus out of the birth canal does not constitute a birth.
In actual childbirth, the laws of nature induce a biological process which expels an organism fully developed to function autonomously - in a metaphysical sense.
Exotic, borderline, or abnormal cases do not define the principle or category. The existence of Cesarean births does not in any way change the debate.
Why do you fail to realize that your criteria is just as arbitrary and nonfundamental? Intact dilation and extraction, to use a term you might find acceptable, and thus worthy of debate, does involve the fetus passing through the birth canal. If "a physician pulling a fetus out of the birth canal does not constitute a birth," then what does? Are babies born by induced labor not people, then? What about those rare times in which the subject survives intact dilation and extraction? Are they still fetuses, though they are still alive and clearly outside of the womb? In your previous post, you have once again proclaimed without any justification that these cases will not be considered, but that's not good enough. This is a debate, and you must give counter-arguments against arguments brought to bear, or admit defeat.
An aborted fetus is an unformed, unviable, clinically dead entity with a destroyed brain. There is no rational sense in which such a thing is a person. Only irrational emotions could lead one to proclaim it a person.
Wendy,
When did you have your abortion ? This is the only explanation I can come up with as to why you feel the need to vehemently (and nastily) defend your position. Your attacks venture further beyond the realm of substantive argument than do ces's. You claim that simply because it cannot be proved positive, that it is impossible for a fetus to be considered a human and therefore maintain rights. Probably your most nonsensical argument yet involves arguing how partial birth abortion does not constitute a birth, within which you attempt to argue that a birth only counts when it is spontaneous in nature. I will use your exact words: "In actual childbirth, the laws of nature induce a biological process which expels an organism fully developed to function autonomously - in a metaphysical sense."
You then say that cesarean sections do not count as part of the argument because, and again I quote: "
Exotic, borderline, or abnormal cases do not define the principle or category. The existence of Cesarean births does not in any way change the debate."
Two problems with that argument... if you combine these "exotic, borderline or abnormal cases" you end up with approximately 40-65% of all births in the United States... depending on who you look to for rates of cesarean section and or unnaturally induced births. Not so exotic anymore are they. Do those births count?
A dead body is a fully formed, unviable, clinically dead entity with a destroyed brain. There is no rational sense in which such thing is a person. Only irrational emotions could lead one to proclaim it a person. You can't do anything for the dead. It's the living fetuses I'm concerned about. Could you at least read over the opposing argument and pretend to acknowledge that there was one, rather than ignoring it entirely and just repeating the same arbitrary religious pronouncements over and over. I'd really appreciate it.
So it is metaphysical independence that creates personhood? I guess Siamese twins are really one person, not two.
Partial-birth abortion is a political term for Intact dilation and extraction and several variants ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion ).
If a physician pulling a fetus out of the birth canal does not constitute a birth, then neither of my children were "born." Both need to be pulled in the final minutes of labor.
If a physician pulling a fetus out of the birth canal does not constitute a birth, then a physician performing a Cesarean certainly would not constitute a birth.
For both of my children, the "laws of nature DID NOT induce a biological process which expels and organism fully developed to function autonomously". Both were induced with medicine, labor did not naturally occur. Both were born attached to an umbilical cord, they were not autonomous.
You are correct, cesarean births do not change the debate, they make it a stronger case that personhood has nothing to do with the birth and must exist before.
If "Exotic, borderline, or abnormal cases do not define the principle or category," then why can we not outlaw partial-birth abortions? Anyone willing to read the description (or watch a video) of the process can only conclude that at minimum 4/5 of a "birthed" fetus (generally called a baby) is killed. Degrees of "out of the birth canal" ARE fundamental here since you have centered your entire argument around this word. I ask you yet again to define when exactly "birth" occurs.
I have now scoured the site and read each of your comments several times. Not once do you actually list a reason for your assertion that "birth" creates personhood. The closest thing to a reason you have given is, "the laws of nature eventually result in a fetus becoming survivable, fully formed, its organs functioning autonomously, and the whole organism becoming metaphysically independent, and at that time, the law of cause-and-effect induces childbirth."
You must not know that 28% of US births are not induced naturally.
You must not know that a baby 24 weeks from conception can live on machines providing the functions of organs for months and within a few years be a normal healthy child.
You must not know that birth does not make a human fully independent from its mother, it is still physically attached.
You must not know that not all fetuses are survivable when birthed.
You must not know that not all fetuses are fully formed when birthed.
You must not know that spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) occur on a regular basis.
You must not know that a fetus 5 seconds before birth is physically identical in every way to the same organism 5 seconds after birth and that there is no magical physical transformation during the birthing process.
Wendy, you are not debating the issue at hand, but simply discounting my statements as meaningless and repeating that you have laid out a solid case for your position which you have not; you have not laid out any case. Please debate the issue so we can see the truth.
As a rule I don't reccommend my own posts, and if there's a single post on this thread that should be this is certainly one such.
First, a minor correction. I should have stated, "...the whole organism becoming *capable of being* metaphysically independent."
Metaphysical independence is a requirement for any rational concept of "personhood," yes. Siamese twins ARE metaphysically independent. If you do not know what metaphysical means, and the prefix "meta" does not clue you in, that is not my problem. I can tell you it has nothing to do with umbilical cord status.
You keep using an invalid approach, intrinsicism, to make your point, claiming that value resides IN this or that part (arms, fingers, heartbeats, DNA, etc.). But value is objective; it is not intrinsic to anything. You do anything and everything but look at what a fetus IS, what IT is, in its totality, its actual nature, as an entity. I cannot force you to think in rational terms, but don't expect me to say that just because you are arguing something, maybe you have a point. You don't.
In fact, your argument about medical technology only STRENGTHENS my argument and weakens your own. In a Cesarean section, the doctor has determined in THAT PARTICULAR CASE that the fetus is survivable with a certain level of medical support AT THE POINT when the operation is scheduled. In other words, it is objective: The values of the mother, needs of the offspring, and medical capabilities meet at that point.
Now, except in exotic, borderline, and abnormal cases, when is a fetus fully formed, capable of functioning autonomously and being metaphysically independent? At birth. Nature makes it so. The burden of proof would be on you in any particular case to prove otherwise. Can you predict when it will be "5 seconds before birth" for a given fetus? No? The rational, objective standard is birth.
In a premature birth where the baby is kept alive with medical support, it is only alive because it is receiving medical support, which by definition a pregnant woman seeking an abortion does not want to provide to the fetus. What medical technology can do for a fetus, however, is irrelevant. What is relevant is WHAT A FETUS IS. It is absurd and atrocious to suggest that a woman should have to carry a pregnancy because if she did remove the fetus from her body and did provide medical rescue which she by definition is unwilling to provide, it will be a baby at that point. Potential beings have no rights over actual beings, not in any valid ethical or political system.
And to repeat, an abortion is not a birth. In an abortion, a fetus is terminated and removed, or partially removed and terminated. Order does not matter; it is a fetus. There is no intrinsic value to "out of the birth canal." It happens during abortions, and it happens during births. So?
I do not see how any of the other points in your post, e.g., miscarriages, relate to anything or argue for anything. But since you insist on going all the way through all possible exotic, borderline, and abnormal cases, let's go the other way and discuss how a fertilized egg is a human being entitled to individual rights, if you are as interested in getting to the truth as you claim. Still waiting for that evidence that a fertilized egg has a soul.
I do love how ces puts forward biology and statistics and you put forth metaphysics and philosophy, but she's the one who is making religious claims. Though the above post is highly disorganized and difficult to follow, what I basically got out of it is this. You would argue that metaphysical independace is the definition of birth. I would ask you to define your terms.
Most anti-abortionists are motivated by religious considerations. They disguise it with faux science and factoids. They have a pre-determined conclusion, that fetuses are people (at some point or other), and everything they say is geared toward supporting that conclusion. You essentially admitted this as your motive in a previous post, so don't act all indignant now. I am simply denying them and you the ability to do so under the banner of reason. I have to bring the hammer down because you guys get aggressive and demanding.
A rough description of the metaphysical independence of man would involve recognizing man as an entity individual in nature; physically autonomous; capable of sense perception; organizing those percepts mentally in accordance with his unique nature; and proacting, reacting, and interacting with the world on his own in a goal-directed process. Being curled up inside a person's womb, unable to see or hear or process or respond to reality in any meaningful way, is not the condition of man. Politics should not treat it like it is.
I concede to engage you, at the moment, in part to award you for defining a term, the first example I've seen from you thus far, and also because I have seen an opportunity to attempt to educate you as to your religious state. I do not expect to change your convictions, but to help you realize that you have them.
You also have a pre-determined conclusion, that fetuses are not people, and everything you say is geared toward supporting that conclusion. Basically what we have here is two people meeting with their own opposing pre-determined conclusions and striving to provide facts to support their own opinions. This particular arrangement is a well known aspect of human interaction, known as a debate. While it is legitimate for you to oppose debate as a valid form of argument, (though most of the general public and certainly most users of this site would disagree) it would not make sense to hold this opinion and use a debate website.
Your definition is extremely exclusive, and does not include many beings that most people would define as human beings. For example, the mentally handicapped. They are unable of "...organizing those percepts mentally in accordance with his unique nature," or "proacting, reacting, and interacting with the world on his own in a GOAL-DIRECTED PROCESS." (emphasis added) Fetuses cannot see not because they are incapable but because there is nothing to see in the womb, they are able to hear, showing a definite response to voices and noise.
Overall, I am proud of you. You have shown a shift towards signifigant personal growth after just a day or two of being shunned. Keep it up. Don't allow this reward for your progress to send said progress on a wild ride down the porcelain express.
A seven month fetus is a baby.
Not that I'm saying that abortion should be illegal, because I don't. The individual has the right to govern his or her own body parts.
But a seven month fetus is a baby. As is an eight month old. A nine month old. They eat, sleep, poop (sometimes), pee, play... they think. Simply because there is no words for that baby to think with doesn't mean it doesn't think it a good idea to jump on the bladder. Simply because it can't label it a bladder doesn't mean it can't think. My baby would dance... I'm not joking either... to Dvorak. Seriously. A seven month old fetus. He didn't know that what he was doing was called dancing.... he liked it. Hated Dr. Dre's Chronic 2001. That's no joke.
I swear my first memory is seconds after birth.
The fact that a baby is born doesn't mean that that's when it became a baby... that's when the woman's body naturally decided to force it out of the womb through the only opening available. Some babies are not fully formed. They don't survive. The birth doen't make a fetus a baby... time does. Time and raging cellular growth. A seven month fetus is not a potential baby. It's an actual baby. It's not potential being... it's actual. THERE it is. It IS there. It's not potentially there. It's there.
I wouldn't be able to tell you when a baby is a baby and not a fetus if you held a gun to my head and demanded the correct answer. I don't know. That's the seeming debate.
But it wouldn't matter if it were a baby or a fetus... it doesn't lessen the right of the woman to her own body.
I don't think anyone has the right to hook themselves up to me and live off my life... baby, fetus, or some 40 yr. old with a strange disease that could only live by being threaded into my veins with i.v.'s..... No one has the right to force me to use my body in a manner I do not agree with.
But that 7 month fetus is a baby. A small, beautiful baby. Just letting you know.
I find it amusing that you who place so much faith in the natural must rely on the theoretical and the supernatural for your personhood.
You still have yet to address the issue of a caesarian delivered child being a non-person. And pretty much everything else for that matter.
1. Nowhere have I relied on the supernatural for my argumentation. Indeed, I have rejected it outright in several places.
2. Interesting that you just kind of equate "theoretical" with "supernatural," as if anything that is abstract is beyond the realm of nature. Of course the real can be abstract, of course it is natural, and of course it must be relied on. There is no physical organism or object or material that is represented by the concept "the Law of Natural Selection." It must be abstracted from an enormous number of concretes. Similarly, you cannot have the concept "person," or any concept that matter, unless there is a minimum level of abstraction going on.
3. What was so unclear about my explanation for a Caesarian-delivered child being a person? Or "anything else for that matter?"