Your opinion on abortion ?

Blackflag: Not really. The debate already assumes that an embryo is a human being. We are arguing over whether a sperm cell should be considered one as well.

I have no interest in debating about whether or not sperm cells are human beings, though.

Chuz Life: Fair enough. Then perhaps we can just limit this to what it previously was.
A sperm cell is a living organism that is made up of molecules. An embryo is a living organism made up of cells. Both lack any organs or tissue, but unlike an embryo, the sperm cell is the very first conception of a human being. I see no way how one could logically support human rights for an embryo without supporting human rights for a sperm cell.

What is the key difference between a sperm cell, a collection of molecules which can turn into a human being, and an embryo, a collection of cells which can turn into a human being? Is the whole abortion debate simply off the fact that embryo's look eerily like a baby?

@admin - Thoughts? If one were to recognize an inactive embryo as worthy of human rights, would one also have to recognize the human rights of a sperm cell? Furthermore, what are your thoughts on equal rights? Do all human beings deserve equal rights, because take a look at any society and equal rights do not exist?

Just in case people got lost reading this discussion didn't pick up on my position, I support the choice to abort these...



Not these

Woops, both embryo pictures. Not these...

Okay, let's try something different. At what stage does this embryo look to human like to abort.

4 weeks


5 weeks


6 weeks


7 weeks


8 weeks


9 weeks


14 weeks

Blackflag: A sperm cell is a living organism that is made up of molecules.

Ummm No it isn't. A sperm cell is only a reproductive cell and a part of the organism which created it.

An embryo is a living organism made up of cells.

True.

Now here's a question. If it's a Human Embryo - what kind of organism is it?

Both lack any organs or tissue

That's not exactly true: " During the embryonic period most of the organ systems are established and this with an enormous rapidity. Cell divisions, movement and differentiation are the basic processes taking place during this phase. - http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/jfetalperiod/entwicklung01.html

unlike an embryo, the sperm cell is the very first conception of a human being.

Dafuq?

1. How is a sperm cell (un-united with an egg) in any way close to being a "conception of a human being?"
2. You have it completely ass backwards. An un-united sperm cell has only HALF the potential to be the HUMAN organism that a human embryo already IS.

I see no way how one could logically support human rights for an embryo without supporting human rights for a sperm cell.


Given your poor understanding of the biological facts, I can already see why that is.

What is the key difference between a sperm cell, a collection of molecules which can turn into a human being, and an embryo, a collection of cells which can turn into a human being?

Again, a (un-united) sperm cell has only half the potential to be be the human organism (being) that a human embryo already "is."

Is the whole abortion debate simply off the fact that embryo's look eerily like a baby?

No.

It's based on the fact that it already is a child, even when it is only in the first days of it's life and regardless of what it "looks like." Things are defined by the characteristics and attributes they have. Not by the characteristics and attributes they may temporarily lack.

Blackflag: I'm a fan of substantively equal rights. For example, I can understand the idea of a womens / mens segregated refuge shelter, because sometimes to treat people equally you have to treat them differently. BUT I'm not a fan of "positive" discrimination, generally speaking. It rarely creates the long-term social outcomes that it sets out to.

The way I see it, you can define life to begin at any arbitrary point you feel like. Arguments like this among abortionists/anti-abortionists are weird because it's like, swatting a fly stops a beating heart, you know? Skin cells die all the time but are technically "living" when they're a part of your body too. I think the only reasonable standard for when human rights take effect ought to be when something is so unique from your own body that it is CLEARLY no longer a part of it (and without the clearly, I mean, you'd be giving cancer human rights, so one must tread carefully with that). I just don't see any child in the womb as being very clearly not a part of the mother.

admin: I just don't see any child in the womb as being very clearly not a part of the mother.

Do you know what the placental barrier is and what its purpose is?

Chuz Life: Keeps the blood apart, from memory, though I could be wrong. Still I'd consider that very arbitrary too. Cancerous cells are also self-contained in their environment.

admin: Chuz Life: Keeps the blood apart, from memory, though I could be wrong. Still I'd consider that very arbitrary too. Cancerous cells are also self-contained in their environment.

The child in the womb has it's own heart and circulatory system. The placenta and placental barrier is made up of cells from the child (check the DNA.) And, the placental barrier keeps those two circulatory systems apart while allowing Oxygen and food and waste particles to cross.

Do cancers cells have their own heart and circulatory system?

Are cancer cells actual organisms or are they simply mutated cells that are genetically "part of" their host?

Chuz Life: Well that all depends. I mean, my computer has a circulatory system and is not alive. Liquid cooling. Basically no definition of life in general will say that a circulatory system is a standard. Plenty of living things have no blood. Dependence, on the other hand, is a standard. And frankly a child is a heavily mutated egg if you want to go into that language. Just like I'd say a child is part of its host so long as it is literally attached to and inside its body, so too would I say a cancer cell is a part of its host so long as it is literally inside and attached to somebody's body, and until it has been killed with radiation or cut out I would continue to affirm that concept.

admin:
The way I see it, you can define life to begin at any arbitrary point you feel like. Arguments like this among abortionists/anti-abortionists are weird because it's like, swatting a fly stops a beating heart, you know? Skin cells die all the time but are technically "living" when they're a part of your body too. I think the only reasonable standard for when human rights take effect ought to be when something is so unique from your own body that it is CLEARLY no longer a part of it (and without the clearly, I mean, you'd be giving cancer human rights, so one must tread carefully with that). I just don't see any child in the womb as being very clearly not a part of the mother.
Makes sense.

Chuz Life: Oh wow, I'm glad you said this, because it goes back to my fetus vs embryo point. Do you know what age an embryo gets a heart and circulatory system?

I still do not understand how this

is any different than this


Like admin said, we can all decide on an arbitrary point in the creation of an out of womb human being, but it really doesn't change the debate. Both sperm and an embryo are living things without sensory emotions, thought, and instinct. In essence they are just husks that have shit inside them trying to reproduce. The reason abortion exists is because many women do not want to be burdened by a future child at their stage in life. I sympathize up until 8-11 weeks.

At 8-11 weeks we see the beginning of organs, skin, and the development of the brain. It is no longer a bundle of cells, but semi-independent.

I think the only reasonable standard for when human rights take effect ought to be when something is so unique from your own body that it is CLEARLY no longer a part of it
Well there is one thing I disagree with actually. A fetus is dependent on the mother, but so is a child out of the womb. The child out of the womb is still dependent on the mother for food and learning how to survive and adapt, so while the child is no longer apart of the body, there is still an integral connection.

You can debate with me on the specific week abortion should be stopped, but in the later stages of abortion, 12-20 weeks, you have a breathing entity which is capable of basic thought and processing, and depending on how late the surgery is, pain in the abortion surgery. Shouldn't there be some point in the pregnancy process where we need to draw a line and say it is inhumane to kill this living, thinking, and feeling creature? If you think it is wrong to kill a baby that just came out of womb, then wouldn't it be wrong to kill the same baby a couple weeks before being birthed, or even in a lot of cases a week before birth?

Blackflag: No you don't. Even in late stages of pregnancy you don't have a BREATHING entity. And you certainly don't have consciousness.

admin: Okay, that is where science and yourself reach an impass. In the late stages of pregnancy, a fetus does have a consciousness. It has a brain and is capable of thought, however unintellectual and meaningless that thought might be, the fetus is still conscious. Have you ever heard of early birthing? In some cases a fetus can be extracted from the womb early if it is an emergency. The final weeks of pregnancy are more for finishing developments and providing enough nutrition for the fetus to survive outside the womb.

You are right about fetuses not technically breathing, but they do consume oxygen, and I wasn't trying to be literal to begin with. Do you know why 14 weeks is a milestone in a woman's pregnancy? It is usually about this time that a fetuses organs become functional. That means it does have conscious, it can feel pain, and it can attempt to process events surrounding it, although it is probably rather boring in the womb. Research any credible medical report and they'll reach the same conclusion. The brain is in fact the only organ an embryo has before becoming a fetus.

My question I posed to you is how is a 24 week fetus inside the womb any different, or less dependent, than a 2 week baby outside the womb?

Blackflag: Well, I gave you two answers to that question. Heck, if a baby gets abandoned by its mother, picked up by somebody else, that baby has a very good chance of survival at 2 weeks. Not so much as a fetus. I know early birthing is a thing, but it requires birthing. A crazy huge number of changes occur during that time.

admin: Well, I gave you two answers to that question. Heck, if a baby gets abandoned by its mother, picked up by somebody else, that baby has a very good chance of survival at 2 weeks. Not so much as a fetus.
That might be because a fetus doesn't exist at two weeks. This debate is essentially over whether a 24 week old human is allowed to live over a 26 week old human. I mean, come on admin, look at your post and tell me that isn't a fallacy. The whole idea is that a mother should go through with the birth at this stage, giving the fetus which now has the same capabilities as an out of womb newly born an equal chance to live.

I just do not understand how it is malicious to kill an out of womb baby, but not a developed fetus which can survive outside the womb. Make the claim that it is okay for a woman to abort an out of womb baby, and then your argument might have some legitimacy.

Blackflag: When a fetus is not yet "alive" I don't see why "chance to live" is relevant. And this is ultimately what it comes down to: I don't think that certain organs functioning or whatever qualifies something as living. Those are inherently arbitrary standards. What classifies a living thing is relative independence and function.

We need to have a debate over late term abortion one day haha.