Why Abortion is Immoral

[jenny1972]

and her personal uterus?

Its debatable which person has more right to that uterus the fetus or the mother which one does the uterus serve what is its purpose ?

 

[SteveB28]

You are incorrect as I pointed out several times.


A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down�s or Turner�s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained�otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes ofgametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.


https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html



Edit: adding attribution



WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

Your source presents an OPINION. And a very heavily nuanced opinion at that - it is not hard to determine that she has a clear disposition towards views that condemn a woman's right to make choices about her body. In another article by Dr Irving, I see her repeating all of the fallacies concerning the Planned Parenthood forged videos - but I don't see any record of her correcting her assertions, once the forgeries had been revealed, as an unbiased scientist would.

She does not present any FACTS supporting the contention that a foetus is a human BEING. She falls into the fallacy of 'begging the question' by simply asserting it. Yes, she presents volumes of well-known information concerning fertilisation and foetal development, but these are well known by all participants in this issue. The claim that a foetus is a human BEING is one of personal opinion, not fact.

 

[Blondepudding]

Its debatable which person has more right to that uterus the fetus or the mother which one does the uterus serve what is its purpose ?

No, it isn't debatable. The fetus is surviving by being attached to the mother in the uterus. That fetus has no legal rights until they're born.

 

[SteveB28]

Its debatable which person has more right to that uterus the fetus or the mother which one does the uterus serve what is its purpose ?

Rubbish. Your own stated views give the lie to that statement. As in the case of most of your ilk, you 'grant' that it would be permissible that a women terminate her pregnancy in the case of rape, or incestuous relationships, or if the woman's health is severely threatened.

So you have already conceded that any 'rights' the foetus may have are negotiable and, moreover, that in these negotiations, the rights of the woman take primacy!

 

[Blondepudding]

Preventing someone from killing others is not ruling over their lives is a police officer who stops someone from killing others unfairly ruling over the criminals life ?

Apples and bricks. We're speaking of a woman's uterus. And how you propose your personal opinion should have entitlement to dictate the future of other women's uterus.
If you're a mother you've assumed what I consider to be the most sacred choice and life long commitment to human life imaginable.

If your child is a girl, would you want me to dictate what she can do with her life when she's an adult? Should my opinion overrule her rights?

 

[Beechwell]

so if awareness and consciousness determines if a human being is a person or not what if someone you cared for had to have a difficult operation and the doctors put them into a temporary coma to help them heal from the operation and machines kept them alive during this temporary time . Is that human being still a person when they are in the coma ? is it ok to kill them if someone came in and shot them should they be charged with murder or is that ok because they are not a person during that time ?

Honestly I don't know if a human being in a coma would still classify as a person. It doesn't really matter though, because of the following consideration: if you ask any waking human being if it would be OK to be killed if they enter into a comatose state for a time, they would certainly say no. In fact living in a society where it is ok to be killed in a temporary coma would be a terribly frightening concept to anyone. So considering a comatose human morally equal to a person is a moral imperative even if only for the sake of the waking human beings.

There is another thing I want to say generally about the current discussion: I think it is entirely pointless discussing biological particulars about when a human life - biologically speaking - begins, as long as it is not agreed that the moral concept of a human being is the same as a scientific biological one.
What I mean is, we need to reach an understanding about what we think makes a human being worthy of having a moral status (in contrast to say a piece is rock or a single tree)? I don't think it is our biological makeup, or even our specific genome.

 

[redleghunter]

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post. Oops!

No problem. Understand.

I think you will like reading the link.

 

[redleghunter]

Science does not clearly define personhood as starting from conception.

Take a twin. When an indentical twin begins, it begins after the sperm has joined the egg. This is not when the second fetus - the twin - begins. It begins later, some time after the first division of the fertile egg. Therefore, it is not always true that life begins at conception. A life can begin AFTER conception.

And we remember that "life" is not equal to "person".

You shifted the subject. We were discussing the beginning of a human being. Science does define such.


WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.




https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

There are several myths and misconceptions addressed in the linked paper.

 

[jenny1972]

No, it isn't debatable. The fetus is surviving by being attached to the mother in the uterus. That fetus has no legal rights until they're born.

actually the state chooses when the fetus has legal rights when abortion is no longer legal and in most states that is well before birth .

 

[jenny1972]

Apples and bricks. We're speaking of a woman's uterus. And how you propose your personal opinion should have entitlement to dictate the future of other women's uterus.
If you're a mother you've assumed what I consider to be the most sacred choice and life long commitment to human life imaginable.

If your child is a girl, would you want me to dictate what she can do with her life when she's an adult? Should my opinion overrule her rights?

If i knew that any of my children were planning to hurt or kill someone else i would definately try to prevent them from doing that yes .

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Should a woman that miscarries, which is a spontaneous abortion, be tried for neglect and possible manslaughter?

Of course not. And any woman who chooses to not carry a fertilized egg to birth and childhood should have that choice respected.

 

[Blondepudding]

actually the state chooses when the fetus has legal rights when abortion is no longer legal and in most states that is well before birth .

And fetal protection laws are often a violation of the civil rights of the woman.

If i knew that any of my children were planning to hurt or kill someone else i would definately try to prevent them from doing that yes .

But your children would be adult.
And their choice is theirs. While their choice has no right to choose for me. That's the meaning of freedom and Constitutional protection of the viable citizen adult. The 1st amendment, the 3rd, the 4th,the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment.

 

[jenny1972]

Honestly I don't know if a human being in a coma would still classify as a person. It doesn't really matter though, because of the following consideration: if you ask any waking human being if it would be OK to be killed if they enter into a comatose state for a time, they would certainly say no. In fact living in a society where it is ok to be killed in a temporary coma would be a terribly frightening concept to anyone. So considering a comatose human morally equal to a person is a moral imperative even if only for the sake of the waking human beings.

There is another thing I want to say generally about the current discussion: I think it is entirely pointless discussing biological particulars about when a human life - biologically speaking - begins, as long as it is not agreed that the moral concept of a human being is the same as a scientific biological one.
What I mean is, we need to reach an understanding about what we think makes a human being worthy of having a moral status (in contrast to say a piece is rock or a single tree)? I don't think it is our biological makeup, or even our specific genome.

Well of course that is at the heart of the abortion debate and if agreed upon there would be no debate i hope as people who are pro-choice become educated about fetal development they will realize that the unborn are not really blobs of tissue that are not alive after all .

 

[redleghunter]

Should a woman that miscarries, which is a spontaneous abortion, be tried for neglect and possible manslaughter?

Of course not. A miscarriage is involuntary and unintended. Abortion is a premeditated action. There is intent.


Why do people continue this fallacious line of rationalizing?

 

[Blondepudding]

Of course not. A miscarriage is involuntary and unintended. Abortion is a premeditated action. There is intent.

And a miscarriage is the expulsion of matter from the uterus. It can be induced with intent and that is the whole crux of spontaneous abortion. Keyword, abortion.

Why do people continue this fallacious line of rationalizing?

Talk to those who have sponsored bills in different states making a miscarriage a legal issue in the pursuit of the anti-abortion agenda.

 

[redleghunter]

And fetal protection laws are often a violation of the civil rights of the woman.

But your children would be adult.
And their choice is theirs. While their choice has no right to choose for me. That's the meaning of freedom and Constitutional protection of the viable citizen adult. The 1st amendment, the 3rd, the 4th,the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment.

Is an embryo a human being? Meaning is human life at conception a human being? If not what do you base your position on?

 

[redleghunter]

And a miscarriage is the expulsion of matter from the uterus. It can be induced with intent and that is the whole crux of spontaneous abortion. Keyword, abortion.


Talk to those who have sponsored bills in different states making a miscarriage a legal issue in the pursuit of the anti-abortion agenda.

You failed to see my point about intent.

 

[Blondepudding]

Is an embryo a human being? Meaning is human life at conception a human being? If not what do you base your position on?

Well, being it arrives due to a human sex act, it certainly isn't a platypus.

 

[redleghunter]

Your source presents an OPINION. And a very heavily nuanced opinion at that - it is not hard to determine that she has a clear disposition towards views that condemn a woman's right to make choices about her body. In another article by Dr Irving, I see her repeating all of the fallacies concerning the Planned Parenthood forged videos - but I don't see any record of her correcting her assertions, once the forgeries had been revealed, as an unbiased scientist would.

She does not present any FACTS supporting the contention that a foetus is a human BEING. She falls into the fallacy of 'begging the question' by simply asserting it. Yes, she presents volumes of well-known information concerning fertilisation and foetal development, but these are well known by all participants in this issue. The claim that a foetus is a human BEING is one of personal opinion, not fact.

She gave scientific fact. Try addressing the scientific facts.

 

[Blondepudding]

You failed to see my point about intent.

Oh, I got that point. You failed to realize that there are those who hope to criminalize spontaneous abortion in the name of being anti-abortion.
And if there was respect for life you'd realize my womb is none of your business.