Troll a sincere prolifer.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Asher

A person does, a fetus/zygote doesn't. That's why there's a distinction.

I wasn't referring to the fetus. I was referring to the mother, the doctor, you, me - everyone.

If we all normally accept that we are all free to make our own decisions in our daily lives, why should we try to deprive a pregant woman of her free will? Or a specific doctor? And so on.

[Ramo]

No neural activity? I believe the term for that is "dead."

[Ben Kenobi]

The idea that zygotes may become persons in the future, conditional upon many things, is not relevant to legal protection just as the idea that sperm or eggs may become persons in the future is not relevant to legal protection. Neither zygotes, nor sperm and ova have the neural and nervous sytems to warrant legal protection.

At what point would you consider neural and nervous systems sufficiently developed to warrant legal protection?

Asher:

1) People can come out of comas

Zygotes will grow and come out of the womb as an infant.

2) People in comas are not specifically biologically dependent on a host/another organism

They are biologically dependent upon life-support.

3) People in comas have been shown to be able to hear and be aware of their surroundings at least some of the time

So are unborn children. They can hear inside the womb.

4) People in comas are already people, they're just sick

And zygotes are already people, they're just small.

[Az]

nononono. their brain is not damaged physically, but it doesn't work. It's shut down or something, with the activity being "background noise". Completely cut off of the world, but they sometimes wake up.

I remember seeing this in movies, and on TV.

[Ramo]

At what point would you consider neural and nervous systems sufficiently developed to warrant legal protection?

Approximately the second trimester.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
1) People can come out of comas

Zygotes will grow and come out of the womb as an infant.

But only with the connection to the host, much like a sperm will grow and become a zygote with the connection to the egg.

I'm just trying to point out the holes in the logic. I realize it'll be hard to impossible to convince you, because your idea of what constitutes a person comes from your religion, which I don't follow.

They are biologically dependent upon life-support.

My argument was never that people dependent on something are not people, just that if you claim a zygote is a person a sperm is as well. They are both dependent and both have the potential of being a person.

So are unborn children. They can hear inside the womb.

I thought this was only in the third trimester?

And zygotes are already people, they're just small.

I disagree, and that's what we're arguing about aren't we.

[Ben Kenobi]

yavoon:

why not start at when the fetus gains sentience?

Do you have a definition of sentience?

When does the unborn child gain sentience?

dejon:

why should we try to deprive a pregant woman of her free will? Or a specific doctor? And so on.

See my earlier post in response to you.

BTW Brain death = irreverseable cessation of brain activity.

[Spiffor]

My radically pro-choice stance has no rational foundation. At least, not when it comes to define what fetus age is acceptable to abort or not. I use an arbitrary limit (3 months, as per the law in my country) and have absolutely no problem with that.

My pro-choice sentence comes directly from a social point of view. To me, giving birth to an unwanted child is the best way to turn the mother's and the child's life into a nightmare, the best way to create more suffering.
I am no fan of abortion, because it is a dreadful experience for the mother, except for a very tiny minority of *****es who just don't care. But it has sometimes to be done, when prevention didn't work, to avoid a very worse thing to happen.

I may alienate many people here on this forum.
But probably my biggest pride was to convince a student friend to abort. I wouldn't have done so if the situation hadn't been dire, but this time, it had to be done.

[Az]

Spiffor, but that's wrong. We should debate it. Lets say that we reach the point of the debate that we agree that fetuses are people.

Does that mean that we can kill the sick and the elderly too, from a social pov?!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
Spiffor, but that's wrong. We should debate it. Lets say that we reach the point of the debate that we agree that fetuses are people.

Fetuses have never been shown to be people scientifically. It all depends on how you look at the situation, and religious doctrines have chosen to look at them as people for various reasons.

As far as I know, biologically there's no signs that fetuses in the first trimester are sentient or even have brain activity at all, it's only in the second or third where that happens (and I don't support those abortions).

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by obiwan18
One person's rights end where another's begin. If the unborn child is a person, then we have a duty to respect the life, even if it means sacrifices by the society to do so.

The only duty "we" have is to respect the free will of the pregnant woman until such time as she has made her decision.

Your opinion about the rights of people or fetuses, the duties of society are all just your opinions (regardless who share them or how many) - and if you impose your opinions on others, you do them harm by restricting their free will.

My point earlier stands - if you believe in respecting the free will of others, that should not change in any circumstance, and thus you must allow the woman to do as she wishes.

[Ramo]

nononono. their brain is not damaged physically, but it doesn't work. It's shut down or something, with the activity being "background noise". Completely cut off of the world, but they sometimes wake up.

I remember seeing this in movies, and on TV.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but no, I don't think that those who are brain-dead should have the legal rights of a "person."

[Ben Kenobi]

Approximately the second trimester.

Ramo:

So what do you suppose happens with fetal development? Everything comes into place all at once? Fetal development is an incremental process, in that lots of things need to happen before the unborn child can develop this brain structure. The unborn child might not have this structure now, but it will given time.

Secondly, how can one come up with a non-arbitrary standard of 'sufficiently developed?'

Asher:

But only with the connection to the host, much like a sperm will grow and become a zygote with the connection to the egg.

But the egg ceases to exist after conception. The mother does not.

I realize it'll be hard to impossible to convince you, because your idea of what constitutes a person comes from your religion,

Where have I used a religious argument in this thread?

They are both dependent and both have the potential of being a person.

Potential? No. The unborn child is an actual person, same as you or I. It would be nice if you could rebut why conception cannot work as the standard.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
Does that mean that we can kill the sick and the elderly too, from a social pov?!

I am in favor of Euthanasia as well. The difference between Euthanasia and abortion is that the dead subject can actually express his will to live or lack thereof (of course, I am against forced 'euthanasia').
When it comes to abortion, only the parents are able to express it. It may be sad, but this definitely cannot be changed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
But the egg ceases to exist after conception. The mother does not.

The egg does not cease to exist, it just "morphs" (is this the right word?), etc.

Where have I used a religious argument in this thread?

You haven't, but I know you're quite religious and I also know that it's most likely the basis for your beliefs even if you won't admit it...

Potential? No. The unborn child is an actual person, same as you or I. It would be nice if you could rebut why conception cannot work as the standard.

You're completely avoiding the issue, again.

If a zygote is a person, a sperm is a person. You're conveniently labeling the zygote as a person without any real basis. You admit it biologically (and specifically) depends on the mother, but you ignore the fact that the sperm is classified as a person by the same logic, as it and the egg transform to become the zygote which you claim is a person.

[Ramo]

So what do you suppose happens with fetal development? Everything comes into place all at once?

Where did I say that?

Fetal development is an incremental process, in that lots of things need to happen before the unborn child can develop this brain structure. The unborn child might not have this structure now, but it will given time.

And I've already explained why this is irrelevent.

Secondly, how can one come up with a non-arbitrary standard of 'sufficiently developed?'

What do you mean? As a semantics point, any standard is arbitrary. Are you asking me which qualities define a second trimester fetus to have a sufficiently developed brain and nervous system?

[Ben Kenobi]

I thought this was only in the third trimester?

Asher:
Missed this one.

Hearing is not a prerequisite for personhood. Otherwise the deaf are not persons.

Spiffor:

My pro-choice sentence comes directly from a social point of view. To me, giving birth to an unwanted child is the best way to turn the mother's and the child's life into a nightmare, the best way to create more suffering.

What about adoption? If the mother does not want to take care of the child, why not give her to someone who does want to take care of her.

I am no fan of abortion, because it is a dreadful experience for the mother, except for a very tiny minority of *****es who just don't care.

So abortion causes pain and suffering? Why then approve of a medical procedure that harms women?

But it has sometimes to be done, when prevention didn't work, to avoid a very worse thing to happen.

So it is a lesser evil to kill someone? If the unborn children are persons, then abortion kills a human person.

I may alienate many people here on this forum.
But probably my biggest pride was to convince a student friend to abort. I wouldn't have done so if the situation hadn't been dire, but this time, it had to be done.

No, your anecdote merely provokes sorrow, for the mother, and for her child.

When it comes to abortion, only the parents are able to express it. It may be sad, but this definitely cannot be changed.

So why can't parents kill their infant children?

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Asher:
Missed this one.

Hearing is not a prerequisite for personhood. Otherwise the deaf are not persons.

Strawman...
It's a sign of sentience. That's the importance of it. It's not the only sign, but it is a sign nonetheless.

If you're going to keep insisting zygotes are persons, please post links to evidence to them being sentient.

The burden of proof is on you. Posting it as fact as you've been doing doesn't do anything.

[Gangerolf]

Zygotes... I don't like that word. Makes me think of big green slimy aliens from the planet Zorg.
Please use the term "babies" from now on

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Fetuses have never been shown to be people scientifically. It all depends on how you look at the situation, and religious doctrines have chosen to look at them as people for various reasons.

Medical textbooks say that individual human life begins at conception. Full stop.

Now, the question becomes, should all human beings be persons?

As far as I know, biologically there's no signs that fetuses in the first trimester are sentient or even have brain activity at all, it's only in the second or third where that happens (and I don't support those abortions).

Well, what is sentience anyway?

Within the first trimester, we begin to see a complex brain form. 5 weeks to be exact.

The egg does not cease to exist, it just "morphs" (is this the right word?), etc.

It becomes a zygote, and the egg and sperm cease to exist. Check a medical textbook.

If a zygote is a person, a sperm is a person. You're conveniently labeling the zygote as a person without any real basis.

At conception, a zygote forms from the union of the sperm and egg, two haploid cells fusing to form a diploid cell with the capacity to grow and develop. All the genetic information determining physical charateristics are present from the moment of conception onwards.

You haven't, but I know you're quite religious and I also know that it's most likely the basis for your beliefs even if you won't admit it...

Ad hominem.

[Asher]

I'm already starting to see this thread go in circles and I really don't like debates with heavy religious undercurrents, so I'll make my final statements now.

A zygote is simply a cell formed when the sperm and egg meet. I think it's silly to arbitrarily define this as being a person, and I think it's even more silly to build an entire case against abortion based upon this, particularly when there is absolutely zero evidence backing it up.

I think that, using the same logic behind classifying the zygote as a person, the sperm and egg should also be classified as persons. Sperm, egg, and zygotes are all very early and necessary parts and contain DNA for a new person, which is why I consider them all "potential persons".

Calling them "persons" is ridicilous, IMHO.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
So abortion causes pain and suffering? Why then approve of a medical procedure that harms women?
[...]So it is a lesser evil to kill someone? If the unborn children are persons, then abortion kills a human person.
[...]So why can't parents kill their infant children?

As I said, I do not want to enter this debate, and I knowingly use the 3 months limit as an arbitrary limit for abortion. I am very glad by hiding behind this legal decision, and I won't ever try to justify it, because I have no idea of what justifies it. As I said, it is not my problem.

What about adoption? If the mother does not want to take care of the child, why not give her to someone who does want to take care of her.

That would be great, but adoption procedures suck in France (I agree they should be developed). And I know she'd have kept the baby if she had delivered it.

No, your anecdote merely provokes sorrow, for the mother, and for her child.

I know very well my anecdote provokes sorrow for the mother, and will probably provoke sorrow for her other future children when they'll hear about this sibling they have never known. But this sorrow is nothing in comparison to the wasted lives this unwanted child would have meant. The sitation was dire, you can be sure of that.

But please know that I would love to avoid abortion any time possible. My girlfriend and I both don't want children before several years, and we have become really paranoid and overly cautious about it, to be sure. We don't want her to abortion at all. But should it become necessary because of an accident with the contraception, we would want the child even less.



[/QUOTE]

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Medical textbooks say that individual human life begins at conception. Full stop.

This is ambiguous and silly.

Which medical textbook? How do they define human life, did they mean the beginnings of human life, the beginnings of development of human life, etc? It's all very important, and I think you're misreading.

It becomes a zygote, and the egg and sperm cease to exist. Check a medical textbook.

This is nonsense and semantics -- the sperm and egg cease to exist individually, but that's just because they form the zygote together. The zygote is the product of the sperm and the egg.

All the genetic information determining physical charateristics are present from the moment of conception onwards.

The genetic information determining characteristics is also present in the sperm and eggs, ergo they are people too.

[Ramo]

I would define a "person" as a being warranting legal protection. So saying that zygotes should be legally protected because you consider them to be persons is totally circular reason.

[Ben Kenobi]

dejon:

The only duty "we" have is to respect the free will of the pregnant woman until such time as she has made her decision.

Begging the question. You assume the unborn child is not a person, the very point at hand. If the unborn child is a person, then your argument falls apart.

Your opinion about the rights of people or fetuses, the duties of society are all just your opinions

Nope. Scientific evidence, not opinion.

Ramo:

And I've already explained why this is irrelevent.

How so? Everything the unborn child needs to develop this brain structure is present at the point of conception.

Are you asking me which qualities define a second trimester fetus to have a sufficiently developed brain and nervous system

Yes.


Gangerolf:

Please use the term "babies" from now on

I need to be scientifically accurate, so I will use the scientific terms when called for. But you are right, a zygote is just the smallest baby we have.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

A person in a coma is a person.

most deffinitely

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

http://www.sfuhl.org/n_sources.htm

"But before we begin, a comment might be in order about the moment when it all gets started. A new human being is conceived when a sperm fertilizes an egg. The sperm has 23 chromosomes and so does the egg. But the fertilized egg has 46, half from each parent, and is genetically unique. These 46 chromosomes, which are fixed at conception, establish the child's sex and are a blueprint for how it will develop, both during pregnancy and after birth."


Spiffor:

That would be great, but adoption procedures suck in France (I agree they should be developed). And I know she'd have kept the baby if she had delivered it.

So the problem is not the child, but in the system. Why don't you folks spend some money to fix the system, rather than fixing the children to fit the world?

So saying that zygotes should be legally protected because you consider them to be persons is totally circular reason.

Ramo:

True. Without a definition of personhood, you would be right, but if you look at my posts I have defined what personhood should be, as an entity with human DNA possessing the intrisic capacity to grow and develop.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Spiffor
My radically pro-choice stance has no rational foundation. At least, not when it comes to define what fetus age is acceptable to abort or not. I use an arbitrary limit (3 months, as per the law in my country) and have absolutely no problem with that.

My pro-choice sentence comes directly from a social point of view. To me, giving birth to an unwanted child is the best way to turn the mother's and the child's life into a nightmare, the best way to create more suffering.
I am no fan of abortion, because it is a dreadful experience for the mother, except for a very tiny minority of *****es who just don't care. But it has sometimes to be done, when prevention didn't work, to avoid a very worse thing to happen.

I may alienate many people here on this forum.
But probably my biggest pride was to convince a student friend to abort. I wouldn't have done so if the situation hadn't been dire, but this time, it had to be done.

you could argue for the deaths of a lot of people that way

I mean, the Nazi's thought that genociding the Jews was the best for everyone

Jon Miller

[Sava]

I'm so happy I inspire such amusing threads.

[Japher]

I have defined what personhood should be, as an entity with human DNA possessing the intrisic capacity to grow and develop.

So... an acorn is an oak tree?