[The Flaming Jalapeno]

Killing an ant is probably not as bad as killing as chimp, which is probably not as bad as killing a conscious human. But killing an unconscious human, who isn't self-aware (eg - someone on life support who isn't awake) isn't as bad as gunning down someone on the street. Therefore, it isn't wrong to kill a human per se - someone who just has our physical form - but it is a moral decision as to whether or not a person (someone with self-awareness and consciousness) should die. Generally, humans are thought to develop these qualities of personhood in their formative years (outside the womb)..

Actually that argument can only be used so far. What about someone who has such severe mental deficiencies that they cannot realize their own existance - a vegetable? Would it be morally justifyable to kill that person that cannot realize their own existance? Also, although the baby may not be concious in a mother's womb, it still reacts to stimuli. And, after birth, the baby does not gain conciousness until it starts to breathe, so there is that few minutes/second where the baby is out of the womb but still uncouncious of the world.


It would be better to argue the point of biological dependency. If a being who is biologically dependent on another, a developing fetus in a woman's womb, it is up to the independent being to decide the fate of the dependent being. Don't know how you could ever convince pro-life people of that stance, but it's the strongest one.

[The Flaming Jalapeno]

And what's more:

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=regressive

[Maxim Litvinov]

Flaming Jalapeno - I can't see the problem.

If someone is a vegetable with no 'personhood', then the morality of killing them isn't dependant upon what they are thinking (they are not), but what their loved ones want and other exogenous factors. If the person is in a vegetative, non-person state, and their relatives want to kill them and they won't get into trouble for doing so, then go for it.

As for a new-born baby not being 'conscious' - well, I don't accept that the baby becoming a 'person' has anything to do with the notion of the 'consciousness' of starting to breathe. It has much more to do with the child building up self-identity and self-awareness. Before these characteristics exist, the morality of the situation is to be determined on the basis of what is best for the persons involved - ie. the parents.

[The Flaming Jalapeno]

I agree with you on the stance of who's decision it is to keep vegetables alive, it's just that if you're arguing with a pro-life person you can't automatically assume that the other person agrees with you're stance.

As for a new-born baby not being 'conscious' - well, I don't accept that the baby becoming a 'person' has anything to do with the notion of the 'consciousness' of starting to breathe. It has much more to do with the child building up self-identity and self-awareness. Before these characteristics exist, the morality of the situation is to be determined on the basis of what is best for the persons involved - ie. the parents.

I suppose, then, that one could argue that in the first few weeks after birth when a baby is still acknowledging the world you could still classify them as "unaware." Also, for babies born prematurely that still haven't developed their brain capacaties, could you also argue that they are "unaware" of their identity or the world, and are still eligible to for abortion. The theory doesn't quite add up. Conciousness and self-awareness are not the best way to classify someone as being alive or sharing the same rights as other humans.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Oh - I agree that a pro-life person won't agree with my concepts. They'll want to say that anything which was ever 'alive' or 'human' is somehow automatically sacred. They'll want to say that it's always wrong to kill a vegetable, no matter how vegetative. And I'd point out that we make decisions about whose life is worth living all the time - and isn't it better to have a strong framework to debate these notions, rather than retreating behind the facade of just asserting "human life is always sacred".


I agree that consciousness and self-awareness haven't got much to do with being 'alive'. I don't think being alive is the criteria you should be judging abortion/infanticide on. Slugs are alive, but it doesn't make it wrong to kill them. What 'constructs' the morality is the extent to which the object being killed has a concept of themselves. This self-awareness and sense of meaning I would call 'personhood'. And I believe it is a process, which isn't really fully developed in humans generally until about 2-3 years.

[Bryan]

chrisprice wrote:

Not trying to insult you. I guess sarcasm is not read well here.

I did not recognize that as sarcasm. No insult intended nor taken. done with that.

Let there be no doubt about it: when you kill a zygote, embryo, fetus, or infant, you are killing a human being. Others think that this is okay. But by challenging the humanity of the early stages, you implied that you do not.

Let there be no doubt about it, a zygote is not a human being. I can say it just as firmly as you can.

When I said

I believe that a zygote (fertilized egg) is simply a part of the woman's body. As such is has no rights.

I did not intend that to be an implied statement. I thought it was rather explicit. The zygote is not human.

A zygote, with proper care, can become a human, but it is not. A cell from any part of the human body, with proper medical care, can become a human being. But it is not.

I recognize the extremity of the contrast between the zygote and the follicle. However, the potential of the follical is indeed there.

We have not yet developed the technology to turn a typical cell into a human. But it has the requisite parts, all the genetic material. Not very long ago the idea of conception in a test tube was absurd. (as was all of our current technology) At some time in the future, cloning will be viable.

Continue the concept of the sperm and the egg, invitro fertilization, implantation, and eventual birth. At what point does the sperm and egg become human. I (doctor, scientist, etc) take these things that are not human, and make them into human. I made a zygote. Which by your logic means I made a human. That is an awsome feat. I (doctor, etc)have done it. That ability must weigh into the zygote versus follicle cell.

OR, we can try that in reverse. Start with the birth of a human and trace it back to the invitro fertilization, then back to egg and sperm, then back to egg in sperm inside the female and male. While working backwards, exactly where in the chain is the transition from human into two cells?

I hold that your claim that a zygote is human is invalid for reasons I have just stated. To sum it up, given sufficient technology, any human cell can become a human. Where is the dividing line between the zygote and other living cells with the requisite chromosones. (remember that technology continues to advance.)

An added note: Scientists have already created a polio virus from the raw materials. This synthisized virus can infect animals, inflect the polio symptom, and obviously, reproduce. Now that is truely scary.

My point of this item: The dividing line between the quick and the dead is becoming more narrow getting more fuzzier by the day.

My position: The zygote is not human. As some time before birth, the fetus becomes human. Where it happens is a more than just difficult question.

Final point: Your claim that a zygote is human is your position. You have not produced any fact that justifies you or anyone else to force me to behave according to your beliefs rather than mine.

I appologize for some rambling and duplication, but as Pascal one said, I don't have the time to make this shorter.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Abortion is an abomanation to anything morally right. And it gos beyond murdering babies if you could believe it..

1: The act of abortion is funded mostly inorder to kill the innocent life of an embreyo for teenagers. Teenagers that did not think before they acted. They acted on impulse to have sex and did not even have the decency to use protection. And even if they did, it's no excuse for abortion. Can I in any way shape or form murder an individual? No? Then why should they get to?

2: What are our children learning from this? That they can take back all the wrongs they have commited? NO! They need to pay for thier misdeeds, they need to learn the value of a brain and be punished for thier course of action. Our children lack discipline and I blame the parents for supporting abortion. Force that child to give up thier life, that way, when she's at home caring for her young, she makes it a point to warn that child and others about the dangers of sexual intercourse and that you damn well better be prepared for the reprocussions involved. Sex is not bad, but it's serious stuff, and just as you treat that college degree you seem to think is so important, I expect that same respect with moral dignities and human life.

3: It amazes me how liberals are pro-life when it comes to prisoners but not children. They'll defend the lives of rapists and serial killers but scoff at the idea that there is value in the innocent embreyo's being. I've seen satan worshippers with a better core then that..

4: They think abortion should be the woman's right, what about everyone else's right? The father's, the famiely's, the child's, all those are not taken into consideration. It should atleast go through a court system before allowing them to butcher the poor kid.

And 5: Liberals want abortion to not only be accepted but encouraged. Luckily they have not ticked me off TOO much because of keeping it privately funded. I refuse to pay my tax money to fund whores and the murder of little babies. The day that happens is the day I DO become anti-American. As that is the day the America I know died, and in it's place is the liberal devil.

All abortion will bring is death, pain, immaturity, dellussion, and lack of self-restraint. Nothing good can come from it. This shouldn't even be an argument, it's common sense.

But as I said, I'd be happy with a court order that before any abortion can pass they have to have the judge's say so. He'll look over the ballot, decide from the information he was given if an abortion can be called and give the gaul to either pass or deny it's legislation. It brings a sense of justice, while at the same time the liberals don't lose completely. As I know to forbid it entirely would bring only more battles then they'd legalize it again and we'd be right back where we started.

[Yeddi]

4: They think abortion should be the woman's right, what about everyone else's right? The father's, the famiely's, the child's, all those are not taken into consideration.

Are they risking their lives? No. It is the womens decision, i would like to think she would consult with the father but when it comes down to it it is her life.

I'm interested now with the dicussion of Zygotes and the like to where people stand on the definition of "Life" and "Death"
People have stated that because a zygote can potentially grow into a human that it is "alive"... does this mean that to be 'life' there must be living tissue?
If one were to take this definition then for thousands of years we have been burying/burning people ALIVE!
Scary thought eh.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Don't get smartass with me please. I gave you more respect then that after you defended baby murder, not that you deserve it. Do the same for me.

It's not the science inolved, it's the princable. The fact of the matter is 90% of all abortions are cause of stupid teenage whores or can't keep thier legs closed, then there's the other 7% of spoiled white girls who think they're better then the life of an innocent embreyo, or even by your souless standards.. "a future child".

Therfor this leaves the dimmunitive 3% of abortion patients who actually have a reason to have it. Not taking into consideration how most reevaluate the life of the child more then thier own and take the risk of themselves dieing anyway God bless thier souls..

Therfor your argument is stupid, and your only proving to be part of a growing problem of carelss people who have no sense of moral foundation and expect me and other tax payers to give up our hard earned money for your backward satanic views. No. It's not going to happen. I swear to God I will commit suicide before I allow myself to be subjected to bowing down before your murderers and prostitutes. Maybe you don't have an honor code, but I was raised better then that.

[Yeddi]

who think they're better then the life of an innocent embreyo, or even by your souless standards.. "a future child".

I do think they are more important yes.

3% of abortion patients who actually have a reason to have it.

I believe anyone who wishes to have an abortion has a reason so that point is moot as we will never agree on what constitutes a reason.

no sense of moral foundation

I have Morals, they just differ from yours.

and expect me and other tax payers to give up our hard earned money for your backward satanic views.

1. I too am a Tax Payer
2. Where have i ever mentioned anything about Tax payers paying for Abortion?
3. Backward? Abortion if of any time frame would be current and future, though it has existed forever i would imagine. And Satanic?

I swear to God I will commit suicide before I allow myself to be subjected to bowing down before your murderers and prostitutes. Maybe you don't have an honour code, but I was raised better then that.

And that is just completely pointless, and i'd prefer it if you didn't call me a murderer.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Okay, Big Evil. You move from defending the notion of babies lives being 'sacred' as such, to the concept that there is something wrong with abortion because of the *types* of people that do it.

So, presumably, you are now adopting the weak argument of stereotyping aborters.

Let's look at that stereotype:

The fact of the matter is 90% of all abortions are cause of stupid teenage whores or can't keep thier legs closed.

- First, I'd like to comment that the same type of people who refer to women who have sex as 'whores' are the ones that are prone to sexual violence.
- Second, I'd like to actually show you the facts. Have a look at the statistics - http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/adolescents.asp . There are 16 abortions per 1000 teenaged women in the US. And most of these are in the 18-19 (adult) age range. There are 37 abortions per 1000 in the 20-24 age range, and 24 in the 25-29 age range. In fact only 20% of abortions are by teenagers in the US. 55% are by those in their 20s. So, another 25% are over 30.
- For some reason you single out "spoiled white girls". This is also wrong. There are 20 abortions per 1000 Hispanics, and 15 abortions per 1000 non-Hispanics. And, where black abortion rates are about 31, White abortion rates are at 12.
- Another statistic that directly contradicts your assertion: for the majority of those having an abortion in the US, they have delivered at least one baby.

What does this tell you? Well, the figures aren't that great for making any good 'ethical' statements in my view. But they illustrate one point well - your statistical analysis is totally bogus.

Furthermore, since you use your poor (in fact, completely contrary to the actual statistics) statistics to state "Therfor your argument is stupid, and your only proving to be part of a growing problem of carelss people who have no sense of moral foundation", I can only think that seeing as your premises are fundamentally wrong, most probably your conclusion is also.

Any other made-up 'facts' for us?

[The Flaming Jalapeno]

Big Evil-

I can tell you feel very passionate about your stance, and you strongly believe abortion is murder. However, you seem to think that an embryo or a zygote has the same human rights as a regular human being; or in other words you think that at any stage of human development we should be treated as equal as any other stage. This is not true in any part of law, for example a minor is not punished as harshly as an adult for the same crime.

It is important to make a distiction in your logic. You believe that zygotes are human, but in reality they only have the potential to be human. Given the proper nourishment from the mother, as well as given that the zygote is able to split, form a follicle, and attatch itself to the vaginal wall is only when we can truly debate whether this small ball of cells is human or not. Interestingly enough, the odds of all the above happening are rather high.

Small clumps of human cells, IMO, cannot be considered human, and you have the false presumtion that these cells contain advanced organs such as brain, heart, etc. These developments only occur during final months of development.




I would also hope that when you said there was absolutely no reason for abortions, you can at least agree with them if a mother's life is in danger. I had a friend once who got pregnant and who's doctor told her that she had to have an abortion or else she would die. Unfortunately she was not able to get an abortion, and both she and her baby passed away.



You also make many false presumtions about liberals. When liberals fight for better rights for prisoners, they do so mainly because most prisoners in America are not as "bad" as they are labeled to be, and are thrown in to prison for small midemeanors, or their cases were badly argued. I surely hope that you don't believe in punishing innocent people, because at the same time you are arduously defending small peices of biological matter.


And you like to play the blame game when it comes to finding a cause for the popularity of abortions. Although I can see why you dislike how teenagers can sometimes be very permiscuous(sp), I fail to see how they should be punished for doing so. Sex is not illegal (or at least to a certain age in America), and although there are some serious precautions that should be taken into account (STDs, for one), I don't see why they should be "punished" by having to bear the children that they create. This argument seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't, under your beliefs, we be praising the life of newborns? Then why should being forced to raise children be a punishment? If this is some sort of scare tactic, I would remind you that scare tactics in American youth have been largely innefective, especially considering the failed effects of such anti-drug programs as DARE. So please expand.

[Bryan]

Big Evil wrote:

Abortion is an abomanation to anything morally right. And it gos beyond murdering babies if you could believe it..

And continued along the same concept.

No, it is not an abomanation to anything. I can say that just as strongly and forcefully as you. I can hold my belief just as strongly as you. I have provided logic to support my position. You have not.

You make claims that are not backed up by fact. Questions have been put to you that you have completely ignored. In the end result, you really want me to live my life according to your emotions.

The primary difference between humans and other primates is that humans can use reason. When you make life controlling decisions based on emotions, you are not at all exercising your advantages as a human.

I hold the position that people who base their lives on their emotions and disregard reason, cause more pain and suffering in this world than any other classification of people. Are you one of them?

[chrisprice]

Bryan, you don't seem to get the important distinction. The zygote is not the same as a sperm/egg pair. Do you not agree with that? I agree with you that the sperm/egg pair, like the hair follicle only have the potential to become a human after some process. The zygote is the result of that process. You seem to think that just because you can control the process that it is less than what it is.

A human is a living organism with a certain DNA pattern. The zygote is a living organism with the same DNA pattern. There is no genetic change for the entire life for this organism. At the period "just before birth", nothing new has occurred genetically. Your assertion that it is not human is unscientific and relies on a mistake. The mistake is that zygotes are like sperms and eggs. After fertilization, there is no more sperm and egg.

If you still disagree, we must go one step at a time from now on.

[chrisprice]

It is important to make a distiction in your logic. You believe that zygotes are human, but in reality they only have the potential to be human. Given the proper nourishment from the mother, as well as given that the zygote is able to split, form a follicle, and attatch itself to the vaginal wall is only when we can truly debate whether this small ball of cells is human or not. Interestingly enough, the odds of all the above happening are rather high.

So if we are ever able to grow babies artificially, you would say that they are never human? How does being attached to the uterus relevant to what it is genetically?

Small clumps of human cells, IMO, cannot be considered human

So you agree that they are human cells? I wonder what kind of organism naturally produces human cells? Further, we are all just clumps of cells. You are looking for physical or functional similarities, not biological ones. Just because you don't know how to read DNA is not the baby's fault.

These developments only occur during final months of development.

This is a factual error. These critical functions occur by week 3. Please see this government site for details: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

[The Flaming Jalapeno]

So if we are ever able to grow babies artificially, you would say that they are never human? How does being attached to the uterus relevant to what it is genetically?

Who knows? Are the people who were grown in The Matrix considered human? I'll leave that open to discussion, but the point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between potential and actual. Sperm and egg cells have the potential to become a human. So does a zygote, and the potential is much higher. An embryo has an even higher potential, and as the weeks pass by the potential to become a baby increases even more. Eventually, the potentiality becomes actuality when the baby is born.

So you agree that they are human cells? I wonder what kind of organism naturally produces human cells? Further, we are all just clumps of cells. You are looking for physical or functional similarities, not biological ones. Just because you don't know how to read DNA is not the baby's fault.

What excactly are you getting at? There are thousands of types of human cells. If I cut off my finger, I am killing human cells but I am not killing a human being. We are a lot more than just clumps of cells. We are biologically independent animals, who are able to realize our environment and interact with the world amoung us. We can communicate, we can think independently, we can dissagree with each other and form arguments. We can eat food on our own, breath air on our own, and deficate on our own. We are concious. We can feel, we can hear, touch, taste, see and smell. A developing baby can do none of these. It is completely dependent on the mother. It does not have the capabilities to exist without the mother. Therefore, by this reasoning, the only person who is in charge of the future of this embryo is the mother.

What are you saying we don't know how to read DNA? We do know how to read DNA, we know which nucleotides code for which proteins. What we don't know, or at least to the extent that we should, is how these proteins help the growth and development of cells and organisms. But we are learning every day, and already we have learned a lot.

[fastspawn]

interesting argument that has been going on.

The way i see it, this argument can never be resolved because the lines of argument are not the same.

Faction 1 believes the zygote is human
Faction 2 believes the zygote is not human.

I am sure faction 1&2 believes killing a human is not moral.

SO the argument can be simplified into, "Are zygotes human?"

To this, there are so many postulations that cannot (or have never been) be scrutinized methodologically, that it is nigh impossible to come to a conclusion.

We cannot even say for certain whether it is possible to clone humans.(until of course we do it) So the postulation about growing humans from hair is redundant, and so is the matrix example.

At this juncture, there is only one method of having a child, and that is by having a sperm and an egg.
Not just a sperm and an egg, but the process of insemination needs to occur. Otherwise, it is impossible (at this juncture) to go into theories about cloning and moral dilemmas about whether Premature Balding is equal to Culpable Homicide.

Anyway, i guess, we can really resolve this controversy, when and if we humans get cloned.

[Todd D.]

What I don't understand about the whole "It's not self aware, therefore it's ok" argument is the idea of when exactly does something become self aware? Is it the moment that it takes it's first breath of gaseous oxygen? The moment that the umbilical chord is cut? By the argument of being self aware, I would think that it would be perfectly ethical to open a femal up for a cesarian, reach in, and hold the child's nose until it is no longer "living". I think it becomes very difficult to know exactly when someone becomes self aware.

I guess what I am saying is that there is no real way to answer this argument as to when life begins, and in that case, I must err on the side of safety. If an embryo isn't a human and is carried to term, hey great another human being, maybe they'll do great things, but if an embryo is a human, and it's killed, that is a terrible terrible tragedy.

[chrisprice]

Who knows? Are the people who were grown in The Matrix considered human?

Of course they were human. In fact, this example disproves your point.

the point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between potential and actual. Sperm and egg cells have the potential to become a human. So does a zygote, and the potential is much higher

I have given arguments why the zygote is a human, but no one has countered the argument itself other than to simply say it is not true for functional reasons. I will assume the argument cannot be countered until someone demonstrates that it is false.

Further, we have spent a great deal of time on the zygote. That is fine. But most babies are killed much later than this stage. So if we are to debate abortion, we are being fed a red herring. If you support that killing a fully developed fetus is morally justified, it certainly can't have anything to do with the zygote's inability to do calculus.

What excactly are you getting at?

I'm getting at the fact that only humans naturally create human cells. My finger is not the whole organism, but the zygote, being one cell, is the whole organism. So you cannot kill it w/out killing the whole guy.

What are you saying we don't know how to read DNA? We do know how to read DNA, we know which nucleotides code for which proteins. What we don't know, or at least to the extent that we should, is how these proteins help the growth and development of cells and organisms. But we are learning every day, and already we have learned a lot.

I was referring to you personally making an assumption (but a reasonable one) that you don't know how to read DNA. If all we did was read the DNA of the zygote, embroyo, fetus...teenager, we would get the same genetic data. That should be good enough to determine species.

We can communicate, we can think independently, we can dissagree with each other and form arguments. We can eat food on our own, breath air on our own, and deficate on our own. We are concious. We can feel, we can hear, touch, taste, see and smell. A developing baby can do none of these.

It is a shame that you have just defined a great many infants and disabled people out of the human race. Of course, it doesn't make sense. Their humanness is not a function of their actual ability, but their biological membership. But taken seriously, we must be prepared for atrocities…led by the Flaming Jalapeno. Congratulations!
[/quote]

[Maxim Litvinov]

Todd D. - of course different babies become self-aware at different times. Generally, however, children reach self-awareness at about 3 years of age. This is not a hard thing to experimentally prove - it is basically the same as identifying something like Piaget's stages.

So, while I agree if you are taking self-awareness as the measure then this opens the door for infanticide, and also that self-awareness is not entirely black-and-white, I don't see it really posing any problem for abortion. No new-born is self-aware.