Actually, Mrs.Pigpen has made a great effort to avoid turning this into any kind of "hyper-emotional cry-fest," which careful attention to her previous posts would have shown. Preservation of embryos or fetuses for the women to consider wouldn't necessarily be an appeal to emotion. There are women who want to be informed, and they should have the opportunity to be as informed as possible.

While an abortion may not be medically or legally different for those performing the procedure, there is widespread misconception about the difference between merely life and individuality. In addition to this there is also the moral differences among all citizens which should be taken into account. Actual preservation of embryos and fetuses for display and educational purposes in regards to abortion would be far different from the rampant disinformation and altered photographs often used by abortion opposition groups today.

Presentation of an actual embryo or fetus at different stages of development would allow women to consider their choice more. They could decide for themselves, regardless of science, to what extent they consider a developing organism to be a person. They could decide for themselves whether their particular morals would permit them to extract such an organism with relief outweighing regret.

And in regards to showing pictures of appendices, etc... there are patients who refuse to allow certain medical procedures out of ignorance or fear of having a part of their body removed. In regards to these cases it is not unheard of for a medical professional to use photographs and other visual aids to educate a patient and set at ease their fears over such a procedure. Having all (or as much as possible) the information is valuable for any medical procedure whether it be an appendectomy or an abortion.

Referring to Cephus' above quote; emphasis added

Actually, our oldest documentation of abortion procedures date back approximately 5,000 years. They and the controversy surrounding them are nothing new, though much of the past controversy stemmed from male disapproval of women having "secret knowledge" in regards to conception and the termination of pregnancy.

*Reference: Eve's Herbs and Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance by John Riddle


Most people aren't given the impression by society (rather than science) that gall bladders and moles are persons. Most people have little to search for in their moral code when considering the removal of such clearly benign body parts, though I might point out there are in fact some who would refuse even to remove those if their life depended on it.

The questions are for lay people to consider a procedure which conflicts with certain morals and scientific misunderstanding. Women are asked to consider the questions to reduce confusion, mixed emotions and regrets later. Those with religious or personal opposition to the manipulation of any human anatomy, needing to remove a gall bladder or mole, might very well be asked to consider such questions as well were they to contemplate a diversion from their traditional belief system.

That, however, does not mean that life does not have an objective definition. What you seem to be practicing is a logical fallacy know as "Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)". Your argument suggests nothing except what people believe, this does not prove the definition is subjective, merely that many people weren't awake during biology class.


You do know that humans are not the only creatures who can be said to be alive correct. You do realize that not all lifeforms can "function without help" at any point in their lives. "Life" is a scientific concept, the object of study in the field of Biology, and has an objective definition. To suggest that it does not, to cling to what you believe "life" means without conceding to the reality of the scientific definition is, to borrow a Wertzism, "to bastardize the English language".

On that note, let's consider the implications of this anti-dictionary argument.


The definitions would be contradictory if one definition ruled out the other. The definitions are not contradictory because the word "child" can be applied to both without logical conflict. In order to make this clear let's look at the whole definition.

Does definition #1 mean I (a person past puberty) am not the child of my mother? Of course not. Is the dictionary contradicting itself then, is definition #4 being contradicted in some cases? No, again alternate definitions are listed merely to give another situation were the word can be correctly used, cumulative not exclusionary.

Not only has that middle ground been reached I, and a number of other posters, occupy (gasp, the "o" word) it. I urge other debaters to do so as well. It's actually a pretty comfortable place .

As for the difference between a fetus and a gamete as it applies to the word "person" . It will take me a minute to formulate an adequate response. But I'll give you a hint First a simplified version of the definition of person for focus (since we already agree both fetuses and gametes are alive)
Remember "a" is modifying human.
That's all the hints for now...

Was I born September 24 at 8:00 pm EDT or at 4:15 am EDT?

If a child is a person between birth and puberty, that's a specific time period that excludes the time prior to birth and the time following puberty. If a child is an unborn infant or fetus that excludes the time following birth. You did a nice job explaining the logical conflict whether you choose to acknowledge the presence of one or not.

And (again) having A modify human does not differentiate between gametes, embryos and fetuses when looking at the definition of person as "a living human." As this isn't the first time I've had to explain this I don't expect it to be the last.


As sure as sperm and ovum are alive by objective scientific standards, so to is an embryo or fetus. What you appear to be arguing, BecomingHuman, isn't so much life but individuality and personhood, which is an entirely different thing from life no matter how dependent upon life it may be.

I think you missed my point. When I said alternate definitions were cumulative it means that "child" can apply to both "a person between birth and puberty" and " An unborn infant; a fetus."

As well as all things which fit any of the other definitions.

A word can have multiple definitions. This does not mean there is a contradiction.

There is no logical conflict because the two definitions can (and do) co-exist.

A dictionary is used to figure out where a word can be applied correctly. This can be a number of circumstances which do not necessarily include one another in their individual definitions but do not explicitly rule out another definition either. Without one definition explicitly ruling out another, there is no contradiction.

This isn't about sensitivity. Hell, look at the maniac anti-abortion protestors who are cursing at pregnant women, throwing things at them, condemning them to hell, etc. You want to talk about sensitivity... go talk to those idiots.

Abortion is nothing new, it's been done for THOUSANDS of years. The ancient Egyptians practiced abortion. The only thing that is relatively new are the people who have *NO* business telling anyone what to do with their lives, feeling they can make decisions for everyone else.

Hugo writes:


None of those questions directed anyone toward an abortion, did they? And you don't have an 18-year financial commitment if you don't get your mole removed.

Abs like Jesus writes:


You're absolutely right, people should be informed of the FACTS. Having people screaming "You're murdering your baby" is not only not a fact, but it is a gross misrepresentation of reality. Being informed and being preached at, theatened and attacked are not the same thing. I have no objection to a woman being able to see a fetus if they wish to, but having it forced upon them in hopes of some emotional reaction is ludicrous. That needs to be between a woman and her doctor.

I'm aware that a word may have multiple definitions, but multiple definitions generally exist without logical conflicts present. A son or daughter may be a member of a tribe, immature and between the time of birth and puberty without any conflict. A child can not logically be both an unborn infant and between birth and puberty. There are two separate definitions offered which are each exclusionary, "explicitly ruling out another."

The dictionary offers the two definitions, but it is no less exclusionary than my trying to say that I was born both at 8:00 pm EDT and at 4:15 am EDT. While I may say I was born at both times, clearly they are both exclusionary and explicit in ruling out the other.


People screaming, preaching and threatening and attacking has nothing to do with the presentation of preserved embryos and fetuses. Mrs.Pigpen didn't suggest forcing jarred embryos and fetuses on anyone. She merely said that the considerations of women who did view such preserved developmental stages might or might not change their opinion on whether or not to abort.

What it seems you are doing is working out the logic of the situation in reverse.

As you said "A child can not logically be both an unborn infant and between birth and puberty. "

But both an "unborn infant" and a person "between birth and puberty" can be referred to as a child.

The tank example again. An tank cannot be both " An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks." and "A usually artificial pool, pond, reservoir, or cistern, especially one used to hold water for drinking or for irrigation." , "it is no less exclusionary than my trying to say that I was born both at 8:00 pm EDT and at 4:15 am EDT." as you say.

Yet both definitions describe an object that can be referred to as a tank.

The definition does not pre-suppose some child that must be unborn or between birth and puberty. It merely tells us that anyone that meets these criteria can accurately be referred to as child.

I noted you specified a time zone. I sincerely hope neither of us is going to be so picky as to make that necessary.

Abs,
With all due respect I am merely stating that this new evidence has scientist questioning what they know about whether or not babies feel sensations in the womb at the 8 week period. Why does everybody ignore what the article said about that? I am merely saying that if it's questionable, why do we continue?

Besides that, if the brain begins development between 3 and five months, there is definitely the chance for sensation in there somewhere and after five months it's pretty much a certainty.....so why do we continue to hurt our children this way?

Those "idiots" beleive that abortion is no different than legalized genocide. Just because you think a fetus has no right to live, many of us don't feel the same way. As long as they are not infringing on the legal rights of another, they can scream and yell all they want.

They well might have, of course that was not my point. The point is that even a pro-choice, provider of abortions recognizes that most women do not consider abortion as a procedure that is taken on without thought of moral, ethical and other considerations unlike the cancerous cells in that mole on my back. Only a moron would not recognize the difference between cancer cells and a fetus.

It seems pretty clear that the folks on one side of this issue will probably not change the minds of those on the other.

Something concerns me, though:

Men who are so adamant about an issue that would and could never physically affect them. It is we women who will always shoulder the ultimate choice and responsibility of abortion. It is really quite unfair for men to judge women on this issue, for that reason.

If the tables were turned, and the man was the one who became pregnant,
I can guarantee that many men would be singing a very different tune. It is
very easy to make judgements about issues that you will never have the misfortune to be faced with, on such a personal level.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. Abortion is not the problem,
it is a solution to the problem. Why are women having abortions?
Perhaps you men can answer that one.

Well the legal bondage that is marriage may be something. I know the smaller the town you live in the more i see younger people getting married for something to do, they break up in about three years, and it is amazing the amount of child support the flows here, most all the men pay child support that i know.

I don’t think that there is any one thing that is the main clause for a women or individual to decide on the option of an abortion. Things usually are not that pretty.

As for women that argue about such among themselves, i would just say its about the same as guys at some point, some women look at it as an honor to be a housewife, some don’t, some only want to be that after they live life. People try to blame the fact that women have more freedom in the world or America. I think the other side of it, women with no freedom would be living like a beast, i try not to live like a beast, or define a human’s role based on biology. Then again we can always live off our reptilian and mammalian minds.

The problem I see with abortion is the fact the woman can make the choice of life and death without the courts being involved. The whole "abortion" issue is flawed IMHO. If you really want to hear a great argument why Roe vs Wade is flawed constitionaly...read some of Alan Keys arguments..it will open your mind quite a bit. A court should be involved in every abortion IMHO.

On a side note, I believe men should have a say in what happends. If a woman decides to have a baby..she can then hold the man financially responsible for the childs well being? Does this make any sense at all?

Many people make choices between life and death everyday without courts involved or needing to be involved. The court becomes involved in matters of life and death when it involves the life and death of a person, which doesn't apply in the case of abortion.

In regards to men affected by the decision of a woman, we have a separate debate for that if you would like to join us:
Men's Abortion Rights

The courts were involved, they decided more than 30 years ago that the fetus doesn't have any legal protection against abortion. It is now in the hands of the woman, where it belongs.

Hugo writes:


There are considerations with any medical procedure and doctors should always be careful to review all the options/dangers/implications of any medical procedure with the patient. That should be between the doctor and the patient though, only a moron (in your words) would try to intervene where they have no business.

Abs like Jesus writes:


As I recall, and I may be wrong, so if I am, I apologize, she suggested that an office which performs (or counsels, I would imagine) abortion should be required to have fetuses at various stages of development. While I'm all for them doing so at their option, to require them to do so is little more than a demand for emotionalism. It's like demanding that restaurants pull out pictures of a cow and point out the big soulful cow eyes while you're looking at the menu. Maybe you'll reconsider that steak.

I believe that before a woman has an abortion, she should be aware of her fetus' developement. A potential human isn't the same as a cow (though I'm not much of a carnivore anyway). It might not change their decision at all, a 6 to 12 week old fetus is not very developed at all, but they should be aware.

This is ignoring two other very important aspects: financial and emotional. I'm also curious as to why the same women who so vociferously claim that the abortion decision is theirs and theirs alone also seem to be the first to proclaim to the world that the man had an equal part in creating the child and should therefore be financially responsible for it. Guys are either responsible or they're not--can't have it both ways (although that seems to be the current legal viewpoint).

They should have the option, certainly, but it shouldn't be a requirement. If a woman is curious, it isn't like she couldn't search for thousands of pictures on the net anyhow.

And humans are only different from cows because of our own self-importance. Functionally and biologically, we're not so different, people just have the gall to think they're better than every other creature that walks the planet.

That a fetus is living is irrelevant, in itself. Chickens are living. Holsteins are living. We slaughter and eat both of those species (the morality of this is the subject of another debate).



A fetus may be human, but a human what? A human animal, or a human being? I would argue a human animal, which does not deserve protection more than any other species of animal.



If a fetus were a human being, which I do not believe that it is, then I would argue that abortion were murder, whether it had committed a capital crime, or not.



Because, in a brief moment of lucidity, a majority of the members of SOTUS were guided more by common sense and reason than by hysteria or emotionalism.

I would suggest you use more specific definitions for this debate (if you read the last couple of pages, you'd know why ).

A "human being" simply means an existent human, as the dictionary goes. A fetus is most certainly a human being.

As well as a human animal, but then again, we all are...

...and welcome to the forum, glad to have you aboard!

Just for my own knowing, are we trying to prove or disprove the fact of intercourse that leads to conception produces human material, or shall i say a fetus, zygote or what not?

What is the point of that, of course it is human in the sense its human material, or what i mean by that is its the same as a brain tumor, if it was alien material, the female body would grow an infection trying to dispose of it!

What if some study stated that human brains are not fully functional in the pure terms of a human until like 8 months after birth, could we still abort them at that point. I imagine abortion goes beyond such but stays in the realm of while in the womb.
Is this a battle of intelligence, or someone trying to push opinion or faith on each other? I would say its rather redundant to try and do such.

I guess what i am trying to get at here is i think some people would not allow abortion on just faith or and opinion, while nothing wrong with that in my opinion, i just feel that such a stance on the issues makes it rather stubborn to debate at that point.

I've read the last couple of pages, but I will still be happy to provide more specific definitions.



When I say "human being," I am meaning a creature which is conscious, which could carry on a conversation if it were not mute or otherwise disabled, which experiences a range of emotions at least as complicated as a dog might feel. Fetuses of any species do not qualify. Non-fetal dolphins or whales might (yes, I would grant a non-species creature "peoplehood" before I would grant it to a fetal human).



Thanks for the welcome...

An embryo by definition is in fact a new life and should be afforded the same rights and protections we as citizens enjoy.

Although I do not feel abortion should be illegal per se I do think that abortion has become a method of birth control and this is where people not unlike myself begin to have serious issues with it's application. To me it certainly appears the rights of the biological father as it pertains to the unborn child are not even acknowledged in such cases and this troubles me.

There are most certainly cases where rape, incest, or other mitigating factors clearly dictate the mother should have exclusive rights as it pertains to terminating the pregnancy but in the vast majority of cases the father does not have a voice if the mother decides to abort. If on the other hand the mother wants to carry the child to term and the father does not he is left no alternative but to become a father and financially support the child.

I do not suggest that a father should have the right to terminate a pregnancy because he does not wish to become a father but by the same token I do not feel a mother to be should hold exclusive power of veto over a new life when the biological father expresses a wish to raise and support the child.

Seems like you want this thread more:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=2237

Obviously, an embryo is a new life. That it should be afforded the same rights and protections as a sentient human being is an assertion that I personally find nonsensical. I'm assuming that your use of the word "citizen" was a misnomer.



I feel awkward using the words "unborn child" when referring to a fetus. I understand the intention - if the life of the embryo or fetus is not terminated, it will certainly become a child - but in the same way a lump of clay is an unborn vase, or a fir in an unborn Christmas tree. When the fetus has in fact developed into a full child, the father might have rights regarding its care. But I disagree that the biological father has any rights until after the the fetus has become a child, and then not any automatic rights. Being the sperm donor is not the important contributory factor involved in fatherhood.



Why? If abortion is murder, the circumstances of conception do not make it any less so.

An existant human what? Since we have previously established that you can't define a person by saying it's a human person, I'll assume you mean an existant human organism. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Of course, an existant human organism doesn't distinguish between unviable fetuses, sperm and ovum. Just as those gametes, as existant human organisms, are not persons neither are embryos and fetuses prior to viability independent of the woman's biological function.


As I have said previously in this debate, an embryo or fetus is not a new life. Sperm and ovum are both living with their union representing a shift in form and development. We don't grant rights to living human organisms just for being alive and human in nature. We protect under law individual persons, which an embryo or fetus prior to viability does not represent.

I would like to point out that the word "human" can be used as a noun... That, I believe is a major cause of misunderstanding in this thread.

That is why it is possible to define a difference between a person ("A Living Human") and a gamete (A living thing of human origin).

In the definition of person "human" is being used as noun.

In it's noun usage "human" means "A member of the genus Homo, and especially the species sapiens". A gamete is only part of a member, a fetus is and individual member...

As nouns represent persons, places or things, both a fetus and a gamete qualify as nouns, turnea. Human as a noun can qualify as either a person or thing as there are distinctly human persons and distinctly human organisms at the cellular level.

Only you are attempting to say the use of "a living human" in the definition of person is referring to person as "a member of the genus Homo." Additionally, only you are attempting to say that a gamete is merely a part while a fetus is a full fledged member. Presumably you are using your noun argument coupled with your "member" argument to differentiate a fetus from a gamete as a person in noun usage rather than a thing. Of course, this would ultimately again be trying to justify a fetus as a person by defining a human as a person, which you can't do.

However far out of your way you may go to attempt defining a person as a human person, you simply cannot do this.

If this is not what you are doing, by all means explain how the use of human differentiates between a fetus and a gamete, and explain upon what you are using to define a fetus as an individual member excluding gametes.

Back to the straw man again.
If the first two explanations of how I must be using person to define person fell apart on examination... If I deny that that is what I doing repeatedly... What exactly leads you to believe that this "explanation", this extrapolation of what my argument "must" be, would be any different? In the interest of efficiency, might this portion be skipped?

As for the use a "human" in the definition of person. Let's examine the definition of human's noun usage.

Definition of "human"
Since I am not, repeat, am not attempting to define a person as "a person" let's focus on the first definition. The dictionary is not trying to define a person as a person anymore than I am. No point in trying to invalidate it as an authority.

That is why the following statement:

Is false.

Here, then, is the true point of contention.
To be a member of a genus one must be a member of a species that fits under that genus.

What does it mean to be a member of a species, in the biological sense? Let's check the definition.

Definition of "species"
Let's consider "a" for a moment. When it says an organism capable of interbreeding it cannot mean at just any point in that organism's development. Other why we (or any other organism) wouldn't be members of a species until sexual maturity. Therefore, the definition must be referring to an organism's ability at some point in its development to interbreed.
At no point is it's development is a gamete (by itself, or with other gametes) capable of interbreeding, they are an important part in the process. But they are not all that in necessary. A fetus on the other hand (given normal development) will reach sexual maturity and be capable of interbreeding. In other words, you can't have a bunch of sperm and eggs reproducing on a gamete farm. No matter what the conditions or how long you wait for them to development. They may, on the other hand, merge to from a zygote, a separate organism, which can then development into a breeding organism. This would not form a second generation of gametes. This is why a gamete is not a member of the genus "homo".
"Human" but not "A Human".
Edited to Add:
Another reason. In our species we achieved interbreeding by sexual reproduction. That is to say, members (in general, barring abnormal deformities and the like, can't make a rule on the exception ) have to be members of a sex. In order to be a member of a sex, one must have organs to produce gametes. At no point in the gametes production do they have gamete-producing organs. Thus they cannot reproduce sexually and are not members of our species.

Forgot to add the clarification.
The post above (which in its bulk may defy interpretation concerning its purpose ), substantiates my claim that a fetus is, by non-legal definition, a person (as opposed to a gamete which is not). Therefore the terms "potential person", "potential life" etc. simply do not apply. It is my belief that all persons should have legal safeguards on their lives and that our current lack of restrictions on abortion are unacceptable and need to be revised.
That's the point...
Edited to add:
What's left then are the issue of viability and consciousness, however, having the legal value of life on either of these is purely a matter of opinion. Public opinion should not be the deciding factor in deciding whether or not a person's life is valuable. It is too subject to prejudices.

Wow. I won't have enough hours this lifetime to sort through that amount of semantic confusion. I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous, turnea - I don't know you well enough to authoritatively make that claim - but I will observe that you can make words say anything you want to with skillful obfuscation.

I will state bluntly that, to me, according to the definitions that I bring into this argument, a 'human being" and a "human animal" and a "fetus" and "zygote" (etc., etc.) are all unimportant distinctions unless the consciousness that you dismiss is taken into account. Consider this fictitious dialog:

Marvin: A fetus is a human being. You can't kill it. It's alive.

Carson: A chicken is alive.

Marvin: What does that have to do with it?

Carson: I saw you eating KFC yesterday.

Marvin: What does that have to with it?

Carson: A chicken is alive.

Marvin: But a chicken is a chicken! It's not a human being!

Carson: Wha does that have to do with it?

Marvin: You can't equate human beings with chickens! Human beings are HUMANS! Chickens are CHICKENS!

Carson: What is it that makes humans more important than chickens?

Marvin: Humans are HUMANS! It's obvious.

Carson: Pretend that it isn't obvious to me. Now explain to me what it is that makes humans more important than chickens.

I'll stop here. At this point, it should be plain that without invoking concepts such as "soul" or "consciousness" or "mind" Marvin's argument falls apart.

I'll state that this as clearly as possible, so that there is no misunderstanding:

IF THE HUMAN ANIMAL HAS NOT REACHED THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT CAN BE SAID TO BE CONSCIOUS, IT DOESN"T DESERVE PROTECTIONS THAT WE DON'T GRANT TO EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

A human animal becomes a human being when it becomes conscious (according to the definitions that I bring into this argument). Viability doesn't matter. It isn't murder to kill a chicken because a chicken is not a conscious, sentient being, human or otherwise.

I'm not a Christian, the bible isn't a sacred book to me, I don't believe in a god or gods, I don't believe in the soul - I don't believe in anything supernatural at all - and that is ultimately what this argument is about.

One last time: just because it is alive and a member of my own species doesn't give it any special protection.

Consciousness is the factor that, to me, is the demarcation point.

For what it's worth, I don't like killing. I catch spiders and set them free when they become trapped in my living room. I'm not convinced that killing to eat, except to avoid starvation, is entirely ethical.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Emphasis added to personal quote

I've omitted the second definition you provided for human as it would be counter productive to the discussion. Thus far in the cited post you haven't shown my argument to be false. You are still the only one attempting to say that a fetus is somehow more a member of the genus Homo than a gamete. Moving on...

Emphasis added
If you get a chance, I would love to hear how gametes are not all that necessary in the process of sexual reproduction. Even with current cloning and other medical technology it is necessary to have at least one gamete present. And as I highlighted in the definition you provided, in case you had forgotten, gametes do qualify as living organisms. They also unite to form an offspring whether it be human or any other respective animal. (Inter)Breeding is not something organisms at the cellular level (namely gametes) are incapable of.

When gametes fuse they represent the union of two separate organisms to form a single new organism. That new organism, if it should survive as a biologically independent organism, is typically replete with a new generation of gametes. With females they come pre-packaged while with men they will be developed over much of the course of their lifetime. Just as with any other cell or living organism, a gamete is distinctly a member of its respective genus and/or species.

Of course, belonging to any genus or species, or possessing the ability to reproduce, still does not make an organism a person.

Gametes are capable of function and reproduction independent of the original organism's other biological functions. As it stands they are considerably more capable of interbreeding than an embryo or fetus, yet they are not persons. Also, when you say "A fetus on the other hand (given normal development) will reach sexual maturity and be capable of interbreeding," you are merely assuming that normal development will result in a viable organism independent of the woman's biological functions. I would remind you yet again that there are estimated to be approximately 80% or more fertilized eggs which spontaneously terminate, working against your common assumption.


So tell me, are those who are either sterile or now without the necessary organs to produce gametes no longer members of either a sex or our species? Just what does a woman who undergoes a hysterectomy or a man who loses his goods become if such organs are, as you claim, necessary to be members of a sex and of our species?

Gametes, embryos, fetuses and mature adults all belong to the same genus and species. They are all alive and they are all human. Only the last is a person. The others represent only the potential to become such. You have no argument from me about the embryo and fetus being alive and human, but these alone do not qualify an organism as a person.

I'm prepared to agree to disagree as the semantics are getting old. I will, however, be prepared (if not happy) to address any future attempts to classify a fetus as a person while simultaneously excluding gametes. We do at least seem to be in agreement that the laws should protect persons rather than merely living organisms.

[quote=Chasuk,Sep 23 2003, 11:42 PM] I will state bluntly that, to me, according to the definitions that I bring into this argument, a 'human being" and a "human animal" and a "fetus" and "zygote" (etc., etc.) are all unimportant distinctions unless the consciousness that you dismiss is taken into account...IF THE HUMAN ANIMAL HAS NOT REACHED THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT CAN BE SAID TO BE CONSCIOUS, IT DOESN"T DESERVE PROTECTIONS THAT WE DON'T GRANT TO EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

A human animal becomes a human being when it becomes conscious (according to the definitions that I bring into this argument). Viability doesn't matter. It isn't murder to kill a chicken because a chicken is not a conscious, sentient being, human or otherwise. [/quote]
Chasuk:
First I think we need a bit of clarification, giving your own definition to the terms "human animal" and "human being" is misleading. I assume you mean "non-conscious human being" and "conscious human being" as has already been discussed all humans fetuses or otherwise are animals (belong to the taxonomic kingdom animalia) therefore there is no distinction to be made by the term "human animal". As for human being, let's look at the definition of "being".
[quote=The American Heritage Dictionary as provided by Dictionary.com]#2 
 
  a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing. 
  b. The totality of all things that exist. 
 
#3 
 
  a. A person: “The artist after all is a solitary being” (Virginia Woolf). 
  b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence. 
  c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.[/quote]
Definition of "being"
A fetus satisfies two of these definitions, therefore a fetus is a "human being".

Finally, I would like to note that a number of animals have consciousness. A conscious state is a basic prerequisite for intelligence. Dolphins, chimps, and my dog are all conscious (aware of internal and external stimuli). So consciousness (as an "all-or-nothing" concept") is not really a difference between humans and many animals.

Make sense?

[quote=Chasuk] Wow. I won't have enough hours this lifetime to sort through that amount of semantic confusion. I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous, turnea - I don't know you well enough to authoritatively make that claim - but I will observe that you can make words say anything you want to with skillful obfuscation.[/quote]
[quote=Abs Like Jesus]I'm prepared to agree to disagree as the semantics are getting old.[/quote]
This thread (and other) have been blessed with many of this type of comments, I will take up the importance of semantics (sound like a contradiction in terms? I assure you. Hint look up semantics in the dictionary) in the Debating Tactics thread and edit in a link to my post here later. All I'll say right now is that semantics is not something to be ignored (I think Wertz has demonstrated this rather forcefully in a number of threads )

Abs Like Jesus:
[quote=Abs Like Jesus][quote=turnea,Sep 22 2003 @ 09:46 PM]As for the use a "human" in the definition of person. Let's examine the definition of human's noun usage. 
[quote=The American Heritage Dictionary as provided by Dictionary.com]1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.[/quote]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
That is why the following statement:
[quote=Abs Like Jesus]Only you are attempting to say the use of "a living human" in the definition of person is referring to person as "a member of the genus Homo."[/quote]
Is false[/quote]
I've omitted the second definition you provided for human as it would be counter productive to the discussion. Thus far in the cited post you haven't shown my argument to be false. You are still the only one attempting to say that a fetus is somehow more a member of the genus Homo than a gamete.[/quote]
Of course that really isn't the same thing is it?
You made the assertion that I was the only one "attempting to say the use of "a living human" in the definition of person is referring to person as "a member of the genus Homo." I said that statement was false. You implicitly agreed with me by removing the second (and only other) definition of the noun usage of "human" as irrelevant. So I think I'm going to stand by that statement
[quote=Abs Like Jesus]If you get a chance, I would love to hear how gametes are not all that necessary in the process of sexual reproduction.[/quote]
That's what I get for making a typo.
I meant to type "But they are not all that is necessary." My mistake.

[quote=Abs Like Jesus]They also unite to form an offspring whether it be human or any other respective animal. (Inter)Breeding is not something organisms at the cellular level (namely gametes) are incapable of...When gametes fuse they represent the union of two separate organisms to form a single new organism. That new organism, if it should survive as a biologically independent organism, is typically replete with a new generation of gametes.[/quote]
What you describe hear is not really interbreeding. Gametes fuse and recombine genetic material. The production of this is not the first stage of development in another "baby gamete". Interbreeding (reproducing) is not simply the recombination of DNA. The recombination must result in another organism(s) of the "same kind" according to the definition of reproduction a fetus is not an undeveloped gamete, it is a different organism all together.
[quote=Abs Like Jesus]Also, when you say "A fetus on the other hand (given normal development) will reach sexual maturity and be capable of interbreeding," you are merely assuming that normal development will result in a viable organism independent of the woman's biological functions. I would remind you yet again that there are estimated to be approximately 80% or more fertilized eggs which spontaneously terminate, working against your common assumption.[/quote]I concede that point and offer the substitution of "full development" for "normal development" as an amendment. My point is still the same.
[quote=Abs Like Jesus]So tell me, are those who are either sterile or now without the necessary organs to produce gametes no longer members of either a sex or our species? Just what does a woman who undergoes a hysterectomy or a man who loses his goods become if such organs are, as you claim, necessary to be members of a sex and of our species?[/quote]
That is precisely why I noted one cannot "make a rule on the exceptions" taxonomic categories (such as "species") are general classifications. In general the organisms we call Homo sapiens can interbreed. If this were not true there would not be a species. Of course, there are exceptions but the species classification is a rule that cannot and as such cannot be made based on exceptions. Unless you want to negate the entire science of taxonomy because of this apparent discrepancy.

Turnea, you are probably a very nice person. You have certainly learned how to use a dictionary. However, you have also ignored (quite willfully) every dissenting point that Abs Like Jesus, or I, have made.

We understand with COMPLETE comprehension every point that you have made, and have made our understanding abundantly clear.

We just happen to disagree with you.

I'll quote myself:



Okay, so I lied in the above quote. It was the penultimate time, not the ultimate.

I am not "species-ist." I don't automatically value the lives of humans more than I value the lives of dolphins, chimpanzees, or dogs. In fact, I can state unequivocally that I value the life of my dog more than I value the lives of some humans.

To make my point more clear, if I discovered tomorrow that flies were conscious, I would throw my flyswatter away forever.

Now do you get it?

When you demonstrate that you at least understand my point, I will be willing to proceed with this dialogue. Until that occurs, I bid you adieu.

That's interesting. I though I was addressing your points when I pointed out their logical inconsistences. You did make more than one point, you know?


Certainly, you don't believe in the death of any animal with consciousness (which implies that you eat very little meat, those cows are conscious, you know.) while you believe that any animal (including people) without consciousness should be able to be killed without legal consideration.

This is purely your opinion.
Why exactly would one be ready to allow people to be purposefully killed based purely on your opinion on whose life is valuable?

Maybe I misunderstand - but if self-awareness (consciousness) is in fact the demarcation point there are probably hundreds of comatose patients in hazard's way as we speak. And I'm not even getting into the issues that surround what brain activity decides "consciousness" ---

There is no bright line demarcation point that I can think of - they're all as arbitrary as the different rules that apply under Roe v. Wade at each trimester.

.... maybe I should add that I'm talking about the artifical breaking into trimesters themselves --- and the sudden shift in rules that apply at each trimester break. Not necessarily the rules themselves --

Tigers2B1 - please do not post twice in a row. If you were the last person to post in a thread and want to supplement your post with more information, all that you need to do is go in & edit your post. You may start a new one if you have more to add after 12 hours have passed since edit window will have closed. Thanks.

Of COURSE it's my opinion. It would be very odd to express someone else's opinion. On the occasion that I do (which is very infrequently), it is in the form of an obvious quote.

We make the decision to kill living creatures every day based purely on our opinions of which lives are valuable. Why should a human fetus be exempt?



I was a very strict vegetarian for several years, so your surmise is correct. I do eat beef, now, but with a real sense of shame and remorse. There are health issues that I don't need to go into here as a lame excuse for this admitted hypocrisy; let's just abbreviate it and say that I would be very ill without consuming meat regularly, and I value my life more than I do the lives of cows.

Thank you for resuming this debate without further reiteration, and my apologies if I have seemed impatient or impolite.

As a safeguard against the abuse of what are possibly the most ecologically powerful animals on this planet. I'll admit this is a very humanistic position (I, you see, am something of a "species-ist.") but I believe that the survival of humans is extremely important because of their power to affect the survival of (potentially) every living thing on this planet.

Therefore, I believe humans should constrain themselves to laws which protect the survival of each person, unless that person's survival unavoidably threatens the survival of another person and even then their should be some sort of review (medical, judicial, governmental) etc. This is my opinion, my vision for a healthy society, one with respect for the lives of individual persons.

Sorry, if I came across as impolite myself. I've actually enjoyed your taking part in the discussion. Puts the argument in a bit of a different light.

We keep comatose patients alive for the living, not for the patient. As for brain activity, I suppose there will one day be an absolute measurement of brain waves that can precisely determine whether an individual is "conscious" or not; right now even the definition of consciousness is still slippery.

I tend to think of consciousness as awareness that one is aware - I probably learned that in a psychology class decades ago.

I think my dog is conscious, but I may be anthropomorphizing. Are cows conscious? I don't know. Do they have any fear of their own self-extinction? If they do, then I would consider it murder to kill them.

Likewise for human fetuses.

This is an interesting point, perhaps even unique. I've certainly never encountered it; what you seem to be saying, if I am recapping correctly, is that, because humans are so incredibly important for the survival of all life on this planet, we should not take any human life except for under extreme circumstances, lest we eliminate that one person who might have been critical to the existence of our, and other, species.

Hmm.

I'm not quite sure how to respond. My first thought, and don't take this the wrong way, is that this response has been engineered AFTER experiencing the gut-level emotion that abortion is wrong. It does seem a bit if a stretch. Forced, even. Second, I see it as an extraordinary and ingenious extrapolation of: "We can't abort that baby, because it might grow up to be the next Gandhi or Martin Luther King or Mother Theresa."

My answer, of course, would be: "But it might also end up as the next Hitler or Manson or Gacey."

We would both be right, which sort of cancels each other's arguments out.

At the end of the day, you believe that a human fetus is as important as a toddler. There, I respectfully disagree, for reasons you already know.

We will probably never convince each other, but at least it has been an educational experience.

The argument that we keep comatose patients "alive for the living" can be extended to anything and everything else IMO -- including a fetus. If this idea can't be extended to fetuses, then I'm not sure why there is this special exception for comatose patients only and not for other 'biology.'

As for determining "consciousness" - I'm not aware of anything that indicates certain brain activity as the hallmark of self-awareness. So, even if I accepted the demarcation, and I don't at this time, it doesn't appear to create any sort of workable model for determining when an abortion is appropriate and when it is not appropriate. I would suggest that even new-borns are in danger under that model since it is suggested that "self-awareness" is something that does not come along until sometime after birth. My only point is that the "consciousness" demarcation isn't a good one IMO.

Of course - you see that I offer nothing as an alternative -- appears I can only gripe

It's often the decision of the closest relatives whether or not to pull the plug on a comatose patient.
Actually, there is a fairly definitive landmark of self-awareness for brain activity. Development of the brain cortex, coupled with the thalamus, acts as a mechanism to channel that consciousness. This happens at approximately 20 weeks gestation. intensive explanation here

Of course the real sticking point is whether consciousness should be the standard for legal protection. I argue that it should be personhood.

and also make note of the fact that this issue shouldn't be ruled by public opinion. The law should be written to protect the lives of persons in as many situations as reasonable (those were the person's right to life does not threaten the life of another.)

I wasn't suggesting any exceptions. In the case of the comatose, the parents, (possibly siblings), children, and spouse are the "living" to which I was referring. In the case of abortion, it is the pregnant woman.



Consciousness might not be the ideal demarcation point, but I am currently aware of no other which would be superior.

Now, that wasn't very helpful, was it?

And I'm agreeing with you, except that I believe that "personhood" is meaningless/non-existent without consciousness.

I know that the definition of consciousness is tricky, and debateable, but I will provisionally define it as:

A quality or state of being experienced by a living creature, wherein that creature is aware that it/she/he is aware, and, when awake, is capable of fearing for its/her/his own self-extinction.



I will agree with you, consistent with my definitions of personhood/consciousness above.

Note that my definitions/beliefs are always subject to revision (being a big proponent of the scientific method).

Mrs. Pigpen,
I didn't read the article concerning the issue of consciousness that you left, but I know the facts surrounding it.

I feel it is a valid issue. Looking just at myself, (thankfully I posess the consciousness to do so) I can honestly say that without this awareness I wouldn't matter. If I physically existed only as human DNA, what value would that be to me if I was unaware of even my own existence.

Just something I've given thought to.

So given the definition that experience proceeds personhood, is a Zygot a person?

Without reading all 27 pages of debate that has occurred here, I would like to express my opinion.

Unless you have been in a situation where you have had to consider abortion, your thoughts are purely theoretical. Abortion is not the right choice, but it should not be illegal.