The most debated topic....Evar

tecoyah · Feb 12, 2013

I have hesitated to start this thread as it rarely leads to a well controlled debate, becomes emotionally charged, and often pisses people off....Yet it is powerful, important, and lively.

"The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You'd think the fight was over. Instead, there are mass rallies, bombings and intimidation, murders of workers at abortion clinics, arrests, intense lobbying, legislative drama, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions, major political parties almost defining themselves on the issue, and clerics threatening politicians with perdition. Partisans fling accusations of hypocrisy and murder. The intent of the Constitution and the will of God are equally invoked. Doubtful arguments are trotted out as certitudes. The contending factions call on science to bolster their positions. Families are divided, husbands and wives agree not to discuss it, old friends are no longer speaking. Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences. Amid all the shouting, it is hard for the adversaries to hear one another. Opinions are polarized. Minds are closed."
The abortion debate - Carl Sagan

Within the provided link, you will find what I consider the most informative and thought provoking article ever written on this subject, so compelling in fact it changed my mind on a few things.

I request anyone replying in this thread spend the ten minutes required to read it in full, before posting as that may lead to a more balanced debate.

Aeonpax · Feb 13, 2013

For starters, while Carl Sagan is a very intelligent man, he steps way outside his field of expertise, making the statement; "Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago." While I am ambivalently "pro-choice", I have read too many medical, scientific and philosophical papers that will state just the opposite. My point is; we just don't know for sure.

I conceived as a child and the abortion option was almost forced upon me by my ultra-fundamentalist parents and church elders (both groups publicly condemned abortion). But even as a child, precocious and stubborn as I was, I could not see what was forming inside me as a mere zygote or protoplasmic non-entity. As wrongfully as such a formation took place, every fiber of my being screamed "Life."

I support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and do not feel it is duty or responsibility to prevent another from pursuing such a legal right.

tecoyah · Feb 13, 2013

Aeonpax said:
For starters, while Carl Sagan is a very intelligent man, he steps way outside his field of expertise, making the statement; "Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago." While I am ambivalently "pro-choice", I have read too many medical, scientific and philosophical papers that will state just the opposite. My point is; we just don't know for sure.

I conceived as a child and the abortion option was almost forced upon me by my ultra-fundamentalist parents and church elders (both groups publicly condemned abortion). But even as a child, precocious and stubborn as I was, I could not see what was forming inside me as a mere zygote or protoplasmic non-entity. As wrongfully as such a formation took place, every fiber of my being screamed "Life."

I support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and do not feel it is duty or responsibility to prevent another from pursuing such a legal right.

I believe Sagan was referring to "Life" in general rather than "Human Life", at that point in the article. Thus we actually do know for sure, as both sperm and egg are alive before the cells combine.

Aeonpax · Feb 13, 2013

tecoyah said:
I believe Sagan was referring to "Life" in general rather than "Human Life", at that point in the article. Thus we actually do know for sure, as both sperm and egg are alive before the cells combine.

With all due respect, I disagree and stand by my opinion. To wit:

Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

Sagan may be allegorically referring to “life in general” but specifically, he plainly states that human life does not begin at conception. He inserts his own philosophy argument, which was up to that point, a scientific didactic. Considering that life has a myriad of different definitions depending on one’s proclivities, that makes his pronouncement a “slippery slope.”

For example, in his book “The Mind’s I”, Douglas R. Hofstadter explores life from the aspect of a “sentience” which can be ascribed to other animals and machines. It draws no conclusion but opens up the question that life may very well be, beyond what we humans think it is.

The Hindu’s and Native Americans (again for example) see “life” transcending us mammals into a more ethereal dimension personifying objects and abstractions with the human quality of “life.”

Then there are the Judeo-Christians and their concept of a spiritual soul, which they believe defines “life.”

Perhaps Sagan should have said “life as we know it” or at least what certain people believe it to be.

The debate on abortion isn't really about the procedure itself, but as to how we individually perceive or define life.

David · Feb 13, 2013

Abortion is murder and I'm not going to bother making any (securer BTW) arguments that won't change any minds... In fact I've stated my position and now I'm out before this thread blows up in my face.

tecoyah · Feb 13, 2013

Aeonpax said:
With all due respect, I disagree and stand by my opinion. To wit:
Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

Sagan may be allegorically referring to “life in general” but specifically, he plainly states that human life does not begin at conception. He inserts his own philosophy argument, which was up to that point, a scientific didactic. Considering that life has a myriad of different definitions depending on one’s proclivities, that makes his pronouncement a “slippery slope.”

For example, in his book “The Mind’s I”, Douglas R. Hofstadter explores life from the aspect of a “sentience” which can be ascribed to other animals and machines. It draws no conclusion but opens up the question that life may very well be, beyond what we humans think it is.

The Hindu’s and Native Americans (again for example) see “life” transcending us mammals into a more ethereal dimension personifying objects and abstractions with the human quality of “life.”

Then there are the Judeo-Christians and their concept of a spiritual soul, which they believe defines “life.”

Perhaps Sagan should have said “life as we know it” or at least what certain people believe it to be.

The debate on abortion isn't really about the procedure itself, but as to how we individually perceive or define life.

Excellent points...I stand corrected

Mermaid · Feb 18, 2013

l find abortion morally wrong but as a woman l support a woman's right to control her body and decide what to do with it . not everything that isnt considered morally acceptable can be illegalized .because we are not living in the middle age.

Elmer Gantry · Feb 27, 2013

I am very pro life and I've been a member of Right To Life for decades. I also respect the law of the land but disagree with RvW. To me the pre-born human life is precious and the child's right to life is sacrosanct. Though I am reluctant to compromise on the right to life,I can make two exceptions.

1) In cases of rape and incest.

2) To save the life of the mother (rare) situation.

Abortions should be safe and rare........

xrayeyes · Jun 18, 2013

"The debate on abortion isn't really about the procedure itself, but as to how we individually perceive or define life."

^This

As a woman I struggle with this on different levels. There are so many layers to this issue.

I "understand" but don't always agree or like the different positions made by many. What I don't understand are people like Gosnell who would perform an illegal late term abortion and then murder the live baby when it is unsuccessful. I don't understand the MSM reluctance to report this story, and the public's disinterest in seeing justice. I don't understand how anyone can support partial-birth abortion? How is that not outright murder? How would any mother benefit from the baby's birth into the birth canal, only to be killed while in the canal? Why was that ever a legislative debate? It is barbaric!

tecoyah · Jun 19, 2013

xrayeyes said:
"The debate on abortion isn't really about the procedure itself, but as to how we individually perceive or define life."

^This

As a woman I struggle with this on different levels. There are so many layers to this issue.

I "understand" but don't always agree or like the different positions made by many. What I don't understand are people like Gosnell who would perform an illegal late term abortion and then murder the live baby when it is unsuccessful. I don't understand the MSM reluctance to report this story, and the public's disinterest in seeing justice. I don't understand how anyone can support partial-birth abortion? How is that not outright murder? How would any mother benefit from the baby's birth into the birth canal, only to be killed while in the canal? Why was that ever a legislative debate? It is barbaric!

I have seen much interest in the media on this story, from live coverage of the trial to consistent reporting as things progressed....perhaps you missed it. I have also noted outrage across the board over the actions this man took, which is far from support.
Obviously, it is considered "outright murder", and he will spend the rest of his life in prison because of it.

Road Warrior · Jun 21, 2013

Aeonpax said:
.....Sagan may be allegorically referring to “life in general” but specifically, he plainly states that human life does not begin at conception. He inserts his own philosophy argument, which was up to that point, a scientific didactic. Considering that life has a myriad of different definitions depending on one’s proclivities, that makes his pronouncement a “slippery slope.”

If you take a DNA skin swab from the inside of my cheek it will contain "human life". That doesn't mean those cells are equal to a "human being". A human zygote, blastocyst or even a fetus up to a certain point isn't a human being either. Human beings don't suddenly pop into existence, they must be grown. An apple seed is not the same as an apple tree.

David · Jun 21, 2013

Road Warrior said:
If you take a DNA skin swab from the inside of my cheek it will contain "human life". That doesn't mean those cells are equal to a "human being". A human zygote, blastocyst or even a fetus up to a certain point isn't a human being either. Human beings don't suddenly pop into existence, they must be grown. An apple seed is not the same as an apple tree.

The difference is those would only be cheek cells where a fetus is the whole of a human body. Now i you want to make a personhood argument fine, just keep in mind a 'person' as most people would think of such a thing (thinking, having memories, being self-aware, having a personality, etc.) doesn't fully develop until AFTER birth (about 6 months old).

Road Warrior · Jun 21, 2013

David said:
The difference is those would only be cheek cells where a fetus is the whole of a human body. Now i you want to make a personhood argument fine, just keep in mind a 'person' as most people would think of such a thing (thinking, having memories, being self-aware, having a personality, etc.) doesn't fully develop until AFTER birth (about 6 months old).

Take the nucleus of a cheek cell and replace the nucleus of an unfertilized egg and you'd have the same "whole of a human body" but you still wouldn't have a human being. You'd have zygote.

Wanna guess which of these embryos is human and which isn't?

David · Jun 22, 2013

Road Warrior said:
Take the nucleus of a cheek cell and replace the nucleus of an unfertilized egg and you'd have the same "whole of a human body" but you still wouldn't have a human being. You'd have zygote.

Wanna guess which of these embryos is human and which isn't?

And if that zygote/embryo/fetus has human DNA, it's human. This argument you're making is very popular and is a clever way of trying to use biological arguments in place of personhood arguments (that fall apart for the reason I mentioned earlier) but it's biologically illogical.

"It's just a bundle of cells," doesn't really work when that describes every biological life form on the planet. The only biological difference between a human zygote and you is numbers.

Road Warrior · Jun 23, 2013

David said:
And if that zygote/embryo/fetus has human DNA, it's human. This argument you're making is very popular and is a clever way of trying to use biological arguments in place of personhood arguments (that fall apart for the reason I mentioned earlier) but it's biologically illogical.

"It's just a bundle of cells," doesn't really work when that describes every biological life form on the planet. The only biological difference between a human zygote and you is numbers.

Absolutely. I though I said that already. Oh yeah, I did:

Road Warrior said:
If you take a DNA skin swab from the inside of my cheek it will contain "human life". That doesn't mean those cells are equal to a "human being". A human zygote, blastocyst or even a fetus up to a certain point isn't a human being either. Human beings don't suddenly pop into existence, they must be grown. An apple seed is not the same as an apple tree.

My cheek cells are human. So are my pubic hairs. That's not the same as calling those human things a human being.

David · Jun 23, 2013

Road Warrior said:
Absolutely. I though I said that already. Oh yeah, I did:

My cheek cells are human. So are my pubic hairs. That's not the same as calling those human things a human being.

If a developing life has human DNA, it's human. If your CHEEK cells have human DNA, there human cheek cells. As I said, this line of argument is biologically illogical.

tecoyah · Jun 24, 2013

key words....."Human Being"

David · Jun 24, 2013

tecoyah said:
key words....."Human Being"

A phrase with no scientific meaning. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not coming at this from some religious POV. If you're going to attack my argument, I'll only accept scientifically informed counterpoints. Otherwise I'll continue to

and point out the logical holes I keep seeing.

tecoyah · Jun 25, 2013

David said:
A phrase with no scientific meaning. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not coming at this from some religious POV. If you're going to attack my argument, I'll only accept scientifically informed counterpoints. Otherwise I'll continue to and point out the logical holes I keep seeing.

Both the terms Human, and the term being are well established scientific designations. When these are used to define our species it is completely understood by scientists, (and one would hope everyone else), that it is meant to define a being that is human....basically a functional homo sapiens.

The level of development is often debated, but the species is not. That you do not accept this is unimportant in debate...as you are projecting opinion over fact.

David · Jun 25, 2013

tecoyah said:
Both the terms Human, and the term being are well established scientific designations. When these are used to define our species it is completely understood by scientists, (and one would hope everyone else), that it is meant to define a being that is human....basically a functional homo sapiens.

The level of development is often debated, but the species is not. That you do not accept this is unimportant in debate...as you are projecting opinion over fact.

Again, if you're arguing species, a human zygote/embryo/fetus is, well, human. If you're arguing personhood, then 'aborting' anyone under the age of 6 months is just as valid as as aborting them before birth. A person is human the moment they have human DNA (conception) and they become a fully developed personality at about 6 months after birth.

As I said,

and holes in logic.