I think I’m beginning to understand the sad position of many ‘anti’s’ and it is worse than I feared from the beginning. The anti’s have a simple position it is to stop abortion. That is it that is as far as they need to go or understand. Why do women seek an abortion, because abortion exists. Why are women pregnant with unwanted children, because they know they can have an abortion. As I’ve said before to them abortion is the alpha and the omega. Simple, Dogmatic, Simplistic. ** The problem is that the world is not so simple it is very rarely clean cut, everything doesn’t always fit neatly into little boxes. Reality can be complex. In such a world is dictatorial dogmatism likely to work? But to admitting that the issues surrounding abortion are complex is what the ‘anti’s’ hate because to realise that only weakens their simplistic argument that just making abortion illegal will end all those problematic issues. I admire Huck (and I’m sure he’d be surprised by that) his tenacity but he cannot disguise his evasiveness when it comes to discussing the complexities, he always pulls away to return to that simple premise – that the existence of abortion is the only real problem get rid of that and all the other problems will be easily solved. However the few hints we get of the things they would do to resolve these other issues are in themselves simplistic or incredibly vague, like abstinence based sex education or the supposed economic and social help that seems to evaporate when put under scrutiny. ** The thing that worries me most is the way that this faith in a dogma (like all dogmas) has corrupted the people holding it. For the ‘anti’s’ this is not about discussing the issues it is about ‘winning’. Such a thing as hypocrisy on their part seems acceptable if it ‘scores a point’. So anything put forward by them (however biased in their favour) is hailed as unbiased proof and anything contradicting it is attacked as ‘obviously’ biased. ** Think on this - Huck states –“There is no truly “objective” (value-neutral) approach to sex education; it inevitably involves a moral dimension. The real debate is over the proper moral framework” This gets close to the ‘anti’s’ belief it isn’t a matter of what works or doesn’t work in the real world, that is secondary, what is of much greater import is what is ‘morally right’ as defined by them. This means that even if something worked but was deemed immoral by them it would have to be attacked by them and they would even wish to stop it. But an unproven idea even one that seem not to work that was deemed to be moral would be supported, and those that criticised it would be attacked. The thing is what is moral? Who decides what is right and wrong, what are the accepted rules and standards of human behaviour? Some religions say they know and many of the anti’s links here have been to religiously based sites or written by people with a strong view of religion. But religion is based in faith and belief, what it thinks of as moral is not based in the real world, but on the dogma of religious doctrine. This Huck tells us is the ‘real debate’, but is that a debate? If a persons views of what will work is not based in the real world but on their faith in what should work whatever argument or criticism levelled at them will be seen as a test of their faith not of the evidence? If someone believes that the Earth was created out of what was sneezed out of their deity’s nostril and that their place in heaven is contingent on them having faith in that ‘fact. Then they will fight tooth and nail against any evidence that might be produced to prove that the Earth is not snot.
MagicMedicine wrote Abortion - The reasons to remain legal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good morning people. I realize all of your arguements against abortion stem from religious beliefs and moral issues. The problem though, is that we live in America, where it's supposed to be about the freedom to choose. Just because some people believe one way dosnt make their way right. The entire issue of abortion is completly arguments of opinion. Just because some people believe in God does not mean that everyone has to. I think people that do not agree with abortion should back off. I respect their opinions very much, but enough is enough. If they don't agree with it, don't do it, but that does not give them the right to dictate others lives, which is exactly what they're trying to do. Somebody having an abortion does not harm another person in any way shape or form. I strongly believe that if you are so against basic rights such as choice and freedom, you should find a new country to call home. If you have the need to put further blocks on our freedom, you need to move. I understand you do have you opinion, and if your opinion is that abortion is wrong, I completly respect that. But you should not dictate how I run my life. That is wrong and selfish. __________________
I should have been more clearer. What I mean is nothing new will be added from the time the egg/spem fuse...as in nothing else will be added to make it more human. Yes, the life will now be able to produce it's own cells, sorry for the confusion.
Ok. Under your definition of human life, not only fetuses but the following things would be considered "human life": 1) Human corpses, 2) Stem cells from a fetus, 3) Stem cells from a living human being, 4) My left arm. What the hell? YOU are the one who needs to review biology, kid. Sorry, a person DOES add cells to their body. (Mitosis anyone?) They don't just mysteriously "develop" them over time. They are brand new cells. My fingernails have human DNA and 46 chromosomes. By your own definition of human life ("DUH DUH DER" as you so eloquently put it) my fingernails should be considered human life. Or perhaps you'd like to revise your definition of human life so that it doesn't include my fingernails? You claim I'm ignorant for not accepting that definition, then you immediately argue against it yourself when it's applied to anything that isn't a fetus.
Obviously, a corpse is not life. All the other examples are parts of another organism. Unborn children are not appendages.
Then you need a better working definition than 46-chromosomes-and-human-DNA, since the things I mentioned have human DNA. I agree that unborn children are not appendages...they're more like parasites.
I believe Jozak's definition included the word "distinct," which excludes all your lame examples. Fine, but they are clearly human.
Distinct compared to what? Are twins not human? Would a clone not be human? You will not convince me by repeating that over and over, until you provide a working definition of what a "human" is. So far what I can figure out from your posts is that a human is "a living being with human DNA distinct from any other living being". Is this correct?
Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted say that this has been one of the more interesting and informative threads that I've read through. keep it up. 'Cause i'm still on the fence.
I suppose I would reword it "a distinct living being with human DNA," which would encompass clones and identical twins but exclude body parts.
What about the great apes, which we share over 98% identical DNA with?? Now are they are human? They have human DNA...
Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree with your definition, but let's use it for the sake of argument. Let's fast-forward about a hundred years and do a thought experiment. Suppose that there exists a way to take cells out of your body and grow them into another human being. They aren't distinct from you YET, but you've also said that the POTENTIAL to become a human is important. If such a treatment becomes available some day, would it be immoral to allow your own cells to die naturally? Now let's suppose that instead of it being 2100 and YOUR cells with the potential to become a human, it's 2004 and the cells in question are a zygote with the potential to become a human. The zygote is a distinct living being and it has human DNA. Would it be MORE immoral or EQUALLY immoral to kill these as opposed to cells from adults in 2100? They're both made out of the same stuff...but one has distinct DNA and the other does not. How can you consider a few cells to be a human, just because they have the potential of someday becoming a human? This ignores the fact that they have no capacity for rational thought AT THIS POINT IN TIME. Just about anything has the "potential" to become rational at some distant point in the future. A fetus can potentially become a rational human. A zygote can potentially become a rational human. A sperm cell can potentially fertilize an egg and become a rational human. A carbon atom could potentially form a simple kind of self-replicating life, which could potentially evolve into vertebrates, which could potentially evolve into mammals, which could potentially evolve into apes, which could potentially evolve into rational humans. I think the important question is not the potential to become a rational human, but whether or not a fetus is a rational human being at this point in time, which it clearly is not.
I think he's saying that the moment you took those cells out of your body and began the process that would grow that life, you shouldn't be allowed to abort that process. That is what I would define abortion as: the aborting of the process that makes humans. The whole debate is whether that should be allowed...
Cells can't become human unless they are genetically manipulated through cloning. The unborn don't have the potential to "become" human. They are developing humans with innate potential. Again, your whole analogy is fatally flawed, because other human cells cannot develop as human beings by merely changing their environment. This fantasy scenario of yours hardly constitutes a cogent argument. Once again, I reject your premise that the unborn "become" human; rather, they are humans in the earliest stages of development. As you've acknowledged, this qualification excludes newborns. As I said before, sperm and egg are genetically transformed into a completely new organism when fertilization occurs. Neither of them "becomes" human on its own. By contrast, a zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is one organism at various stages of development. This is even more strained than your magic cell fantasy.
I'm getting an 85 in biology..woohoo. Now what do you think about them breeding adult (not from babies) stem cells by using a womans unfertilized egg? I mean that egg is half of a possible human being....., so isn't it mean to use it just to save people from cancer?
We come back again… It is strange that this is the ground where not only many of the anti’s but also many of the pro’s feel more comfortable, arguing over what is or isn’t human. ** Is abortion right or wrong, well I’ll tell you one thing it is repulsive, but then so is war and dropping bombs when it is known that many will kill totally innocent men, women and children. But many of the Christian right that shout the loudest about being against abortion are often the ones that defend such actions as being for the ‘greater good’. In my view war can be necessary but I also think that all other practical avenues that might avoid it must be explored. The other thing with war is that if it is threatening or is needed then the circumstances and problems that have mean it is imminent have been overlooked or ignored. So to me if there is a bloody conflict it is it is never glorious and a time for waving flags it is a failure and we should feel collective shamed. I think the same of abortion. But that doesn’t mean I would not necessarily support a war or an abortion. So like conflict, shouldn’t we be asking why it has got to such a repulsive point? What can we do to limit or stop the seeming necessity of the action. This is where the anti-abortionist seem to me to show the paucity of their argument which seems to be based on the idea that since they (and in many cases their religion) says it is wrong then it must be stopped. When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they don’t seem to have many realistic ideas. ** What to me is the problem is how do we deal realistically with the strong desire there seems to be for abortion. The anti’s still seem to think that just making abortion illegal will end that desire or make it go away I think that is a fallacy. Pushed and the anti’s argument seems to be that making abortion illegal will be the first step toward actually starting to help people from getting pregnant with unwanted children in the first place or in looking after them and assisting them in looking any unwanted children that may come along that they would want to keep. This would involve financial assistance, housing, cheap childcare, better general education and a host of other measures. The only problem as is clear from the past pages is that they seem vague on the details and more importantly the right wing political movements they support seem unlikely to support such measures or are actually hostile to them. It is my conclusion that these people have as their goal making abortion illegal and all other considerations are at best secondary at worse unimportant. And from what I’ve read, I’m afraid, it seems closer to the latter.
That's what the abortion issue is all about, is it not? If I can convince some anti-abortionists that a fetus is not human, then the rest is a moot point because there is no other reason to guarantee a fetus the right to life. Most of us who are pro-abortion, myself included, will not accept the view of abortion as a "bloody conflict" or "repulsive point"...no more than, say, slaughtering animals for food. Using such terms to descibe abortion presumes that we believe that abortion is the killing of a human, which most of us do not. I agree.
