Abortion Rights

[n_huffhines]

Then I suggest you read what I said and stop doing the same stupid **** rdj just did. Here, let me quote what I said.

"That is a biological fact. If you want to talk about whether that life has rights then that is a different subject."

Do you know what 'different subject' means?

Why can't we talk about this 'different subject'?

 

[Roustabout]

Why can't we talk about this 'different subject'?

Who said we couldn't?
Talk all you want.

 

[n_huffhines]

Who said we couldn't?
Talk all you want.

Sperm is life.

 

[rjd970]

Then I suggest you read what I said and stop doing the same stupid **** rdj just did. Here, let me quote what I said.

"That is a biological fact. If you want to talk about whether that life has rights then that is a different subject."

Do you know what 'different subject' means?

Oh give me a break. You’re right, biologically speaking in the strictest terms. SMH.

But you know full well what is meant by the statement “life begins at conception” in this thread. This entire thread is about abortion rights. You’re getting upset because I didn’t assume you were being obtuse about this.

Let me ask it another way. Is a fertilized egg a human, with full rights? At the moment of conception, is there a legit third person in the room?

 

[Roustabout]

Oh give me a break. You’re right, biologically speaking in the strictest terms. SMH.

But you know full well what is meant by the statement “life begins at conception” in this thread. This entire thread is about abortion rights. You’re getting upset because I didn’t assume you were being obtuse about this.

Let me ask it another way. Is a fertilized egg a human, with full rights? At the moment of conception, is there a legit third person in the room?

A break? I stated that if you wanted to talk about whether that life has rights it's a different subject.
Black words, white page. I'm upset because you ignored what I wrote to accuse me of something else.

The question on rights can only be answered if you are willing to ground human rights. Where do these rights exist and come from?

I can tell you that when my wife took that pregnancy test, she was convinced about the person inside her, regardless of what stage of development it was at. Your scenario makes rights arbitrary, based strictly on the mood of the parents. Wanted pregnancy, human. Unwanted, not human.

 

[Wafflestomper]

A life. A tree is living. A blood cell is living. Hell, an eye ball is living. You would never descibe a blood cell as a life.

But you'd describe a single-cell embryo as a life? Why?

Not true? Only if you're being obtuse.
The sperm carries genetic info unique to the male, the egg to the female. Upon fertilization, you have the the first stage of a new human life with all the genetic info it will ever have.

You don't like the implications so you're trying to muddy the water.

The sperm and egg are alive, and both are necessary to form an embryo. The embryo wasn't created ex nihilo, and thus it can't be held that the beginning of a new person was at that point. You could call it a milestone, but not the beginning.

 

[Madscientistvol]

i can tell you that when my wife took that pregnancy test, she was convinced about the person inside her, regardless of what stage of development it was at. Your scenario makes rights arbitrary, based strictly on the mood of the mother. Wanted pregnancy, human. Unwanted, not human.

fyp.

 

[Roustabout]

But you'd describe a single-cell embryo as a life? Why?



The sperm and egg are alive, and both are necessary to form an embryo. The embryo wasn't created ex nihilo, and thus it can't be held that the beginning of a new person was at that point. You could call it a milestone, but not the beginning.

Because it's a biological fact.


Ex nihilo? What the hell are you talking about. Like I said, you ought to take this up with established science.

Here's a question for you. Without an egg, what potential does a sperm have to become a human?
Without a sperm what chance does an egg have to become a human?

The answer to both is, none.

When the sperm and egg fertilize this BEGINS the first stage of human development.
I can't believe rdj and some if these others don't admonish you for how stupid you are making yourself look here. But pleaee, go ahead.

Merriam Webster
zygote

: a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Obviously a new organism exists upon fertilization. The question is when does that organism gain rights that trump those of the mother?

 

[1972 Grad]

Obviously a new organism exists upon fertilization. The question is when does that organism gain rights that trump those of the mother?

I think that parents should be allowed to kill their children until they are 18.

 

[Roustabout]

Obviously a new organism exists upon fertilization. The question is when does that organism gain rights that trump those of the mother?

Agreed. So the question is where do human rights come from.

I've mentioned that several times and it keeps getting ignored.

 

[rjd970]

Agreed. So the question is where do human rights come from.

I've mentioned that several times and it keeps getting ignored.

I think it backs up further. Is a fertilized egg a human needs to be answered first, then talk about where the rights come from.

Agreed it is the first stage of life, but I wouldn’t call a blastocyst human. I would characterize it as the genetic material need to become a human. I think even you would agree that you and I are more than just a physical body, made up of genetic material. Right?

Genetic material is needed to be human, but it doesn’t make us human. Again, the question is do you believe a third person is in the room at fertilization? Then we can talk about it’s rights and where they come from for as long as you want.

 

[Roustabout]

I think it backs up further. Is a fertilized egg a human needs to be answered first, then talk about where the rights come from.

Agreed it is the first stage of life, but I wouldn’t call a blastocyst human. I would characterize it as the genetic material need to become a human. I think even you would agree that you and I are more than just a physical body, made up of genetic material. Right?

Genetic material is needed to be human, but it doesn’t make us human. Again, the question is do you believe a third person is in the room at fertilization? Then we can talk about it’s rights and where they come from for as long as you want.

If it's not a human what is it? A cat?
No, it's a basis in rights. Where do ANY human rights come from? You are attempting to move the goal posts to a when question. When do we receive or merit rights. Those rights have to exist for us to receive them.
What's the source?

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think it backs up further. Is a fertilized egg a human needs to be answered first, then talk about where the rights come from.

Agreed it is the first stage of life, but I wouldn’t call a blastocyst human. I would characterize it as the genetic material need to become a human. I think even you would agree that you and I are more than just a physical body, made up of genetic material. Right?

Genetic material is needed to be human, but it doesn’t make us human. Again, the question is do you believe a third person is in the room at fertilization? Then we can talk about it’s rights and where they come from for as long as you want.

If it's not a human what is it? A cat?

It is clearly human. That's not the issue.

Does a homo sapien blastocyst constitute personhood? If not, when?

Is personhood possible outside of homo sapiens? If so, what is/are the defining cross-characteristics?

 

[rjd970]

It is clearly human. That's not the issue.

Does a homo sapien blastocyst constitute personhood? If not, when?

Is personhood possible outside of homo sapiens? If so, what is/are the defining cross-characteristics?

This. I guess I need to be careful with language.

There is a beginning life and a beginning of personhood.

 

[Roustabout]

It is clearly human. That's not the issue.

Does a homo sapien blastocyst constitute personhood? If not, when?

Is personhood possible outside of homo sapiens? If so, what is/are the defining cross-characteristics?

Do persons have rights period and if so what is the source and grounding of those rights? You can change the terminology but it doesn't answer the question I've already posted.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Do persons have rights period and if so what is the source and grounding of those rights? You can change the terminology but it doesn't answer the question I've already posted.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

We have to define a person before we can figure rights or where they are grounded.

 

[Roustabout]

You're putting the cart before the horse.

We have to define a person before we can figure rights or where they are grounded.

Since you've got it figured out, please tell us how to define a person.

Or,i think we can all agree that you're a person. Where do your human rights come from?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Since you've got it figured out, please tell us how to define a person.

Or,i think we can all agree that you're a person. Where do your human rights come from?

I don't. That's the problem. You're selling the certainty.

You seem to think I'm a person. Others may disagree. Why do you think I'm a person?

 

[Wafflestomper]

Because it's a biological fact.

It's a biological fact that an embryo is human life but a sperm and egg aren't? That sounds more like a philosophical claim.

Ex nihilo? What the hell are you talking about. Like I said, you ought to take this up with established science.

Here's a question for you. Without an egg, what potential does a sperm have to become a human?
Without a sperm what chance does an egg have to become a human?

The answer to both is, none.

What are the chances of an embryo forming without sperm and egg? Probably about the same. A fertilized egg isn't the beginning of life if it relies upon prior processes for its own existence.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Okay, Roust - Let's do this dance a little differently this time. I want your opinion.
1. Do humans have rights?
2. If so, what is the source of those rights?

 

[Roustabout]

I don't. That's the problem. You're selling the certainty.

You seem to think I'm a person. Others may disagree. Why do you think I'm a person?

No I'm not, but thanks for the assumption.

 

[Roustabout]

It's a biological fact that an embryo is human life but a sperm and egg aren't? That sounds more like a philosophical claim.


What are the chances of an embryo forming without sperm and egg? Probably about the same. A fertilized egg isn't the beginning of life if it relies upon prior processes for its own existence.

Where did anyone say it didn't rely on prior processes?
Oh, they didn't.
You are clearly making a fool of yourself here.

To demonstrate your level of insanity, does anyone perform abortions on unfertilized eggs?
This is a discussion on abortion and you can't seem to figure out what an abortion is meant to accomplish.

 

[Roustabout]

Okay, Roust - Let's do this dance a little differently this time. I want your opinion.
1. Do humans have rights?
2. If so, what is the source of those rights?

I'm happy to share my position but you ought to have the stones to answer the question i've already presented multiple times. Redirecting a question towards me doesn't absolve you of that.

I'm pretty sure you already know I'm a Christian. My worldview is that humans have objective value. It is on the grounding that human rights can be established. So, let me first qualify that my pro-life position isn't because "the bible says so." Contrary to what you might believe about my position, I don't think human rights exist in the way you are thinking. I think human rights are justified, but only because humans have objective value.

Otherwise, human rights are an arbitrary human construct with no grounding, which means those rights can be given or taken away based on popular opinion, the changing whims of culture, or by whoever has the most guns. Of course, i suspect on some level all of you know this, or you wouldn't be evading the answer.

Since we scientifically know that human life begins at conception, then the burden of proof is on those who are wanting THE RIGHT to terminate life. Unlike many pro-life advocates i am not inflexible. I do see differences in a formed fetus and a one day old zygote. I acknowledge it's a difficult argument to say a zygote should have the same rights as a fully formed human, but that isn't my argument. If human rights exist then so does human responsibility. Even though i agree they may not possess the same rights (although they may), it is our human rights, as intelligent, autonomous moral agents, that place upon us an ethic to protect and preserve human life even at its earliest stage.

The mother's womb is a wonderful invention (whether you credit it to god or evolution) that is designed to house, protect and incubate life. We all exist because of this very special, and what i would define as sacred, process. Abortion is an absolute destructive evil to deprive life of its intended course and destroy this ethic.

So, i would say, as moral creatures, we have a much greater responsibility to account for our actions. And, a much greater responsibility to defend the defenseless even if we are unsure of when personhood begins. The issue isn't simply who has rights, but what burdens those rights place on those who hold them.

 

[rjd970]

No I'm not, but thanks for the assumption.

What’s the issue with explaining what makes me, you, or PKT a person? Im legit interested in what your thoughts are. This does not require an explanation of where rights come from.

Just simply, what makes up personhood?

Edit: NVM, just saw your response above