Abortion Discussion

[redleghunter]

Running from the question I see

Frankly the "question" was a goad. And the above I would consider inflammatory.

 

[redleghunter]

I was including life in liberty. Without the right to life, the right to liberty does not exist.

Precisely and I am glad you now see the light of the subject at hand.

 

[redleghunter]

Possessing human DNA is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for moral consideration. If it was necessary, then non-human beings, whether animals, hypothetical alien creatures, or even spiritual beings like angels, would not be up for moral consideration. But they are up for moral consideration. If a cow became as smart and talked as any person, we would consider it as worthy of moral respect like we do a person. Therefore, I do not believe human DNA is a necessary condition for morality.

It not a sufficient condition either. If I took one of my cells, put it in a petri dish to grow, and spurred mutation such that the DNA was entirely new, I do not see that petri dish of human cells as carrying the same moral weight (or any moral weight, for that matter) a human being.

Because possessing human DNA is irrelevent to moral worth, showing an organism with a unique human DNA geneome means nothing to me.

Quite a few hypothetical statements above rationalized to fit a red herring.

I believe embryology is still taught in High school?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Please explain how a human life in gestation is not a living being.

Sure.
It is not "a human life" (which is a living autonomous being), but IT IS HUMAN LIFE, and what that means is that it is composed of human cells. A living being (that is not a plant) is an animal, an animal being, the member of a species. In this case an actual human animal. Not just cells that perhaps are constructing such, a construction that does not result in a living being until there is birth.

A small group of cells called a zygote, for instance, are in no sense a living animal being.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

If we go to a climate change thread scientific studies are well sourced. With abortion it seems science is an inconvenient truth.

You know it seems kinda funny that people would rather believe the "scientific guesses" that is climate change vs the scientific facts that are about human life. Go figure...

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Who is "advocating" an abortion? I am simply saying that the choice remain with the rape victim. That isn't "advocating" anything.

Except freedom.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

I believe embryology is still taught in High school?

Only if you're not sleeping, talking or texting in class...

 

[civilwarbuff]

The talking cow is a thought experiment to show that we can easily consider non-humans as worthy of moral worth. If possessing human DNA were necessary for moral worth, then we wouldn't consider non-human entities as possessing moral worth. But I consider all the fantasy and science fiction I have seen, from Chronicles of Narnia to Star Trek, and how I view the nonhuman characters who are practically persons as worthy of the same respect as the human ones. When I imagine them as real or think of other beings like them as, my feelings of moral worth towards the hypothetical do not diminish. However, if humanity was a necessary condition, then I should not have these feelings of moral worth. Because of this, I can only conclude that possessing human DNA is not a necessary condition for moral worth. If it was, I would discount any possibility of moral worth

If possessing an organism posessing human DNA was a sufficient condition to moral worth-i.e. if it was enough to warrant moral worth- then any organism with human DNA would require the same care and respect we give to all the all other people. However, I can take a petri dish, put a human cell in it, change some of the DNA through mutation, and watch it fill out the petri dish. I would not consider the petri dish as posssssing moral worth. However, if human DNA was sufficient for moral worth, then the petri dish would possess moral worth, as it fulfills all that is required for moral worth- namely, possessing human DNA. But it clearly does not.

Because of these thought experiments, particularly the second one, it appears that having human DNA does not automatically make some biological organism worthy of the same moral respect we give another person. If human DNA did automatically grant something moral worth, then we should arguing for the moral rights of petri dishes with human skins cells in them. But we aren't. So long as my petri dish thought experiment holds true, then saying "human DNA alone is all that is required for moral worth" is false.

I am not sure you know what you are talking about here. Please describe to me the "organism" that possess the 23 paired chromosomes of humans that you would not say is human. Unless you are saying human life is of no moral worth?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Only if you're not sleeping, talking or texting in class...

We didn't even have cell phones when I was there.....or pagers....we passed notes....

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Unless you are saying human life is of no moral worth?

I think you would be surprised as to how many people think that is true if you can't walk, talk or chew bubble gum. And even that is not a given if you are of the "wrong" political ideology...

 

[St_Worm2]

You are referencing criminal laws. The concept of life in being comes from the civil side, essentially saying that an estate must vest, if it vests at all, within 21 years of a life in being. The rule recognizes an existing person. If a fetus dies before birth it gets nothing. My point was that the pregnant woman--a life in being--should make the decision, particularly if she is a rape victim. A life in being is given primacy.......

............As it has been since 1973 where criminal law is concerned. My point was that Federal laws have always assigned personhood to an unborn child from conception (as do State laws), UNLESS (since Roe) his/her mother decides otherwise. These laws recognize both embryo and fetus as an existing human person who has the same rights as any other person does, EXCEPT in the case of abortion, that is.

We KNOW what we are doing when we abort an unborn child No matter what our laws "allow" us to do, we are, at the very least, deceiving ourselves if we don't think we are killing a human being when an abortion is performed. We know that the decision to abort is not a moral one (any more than killing a child outside of the womb is), nor is it a necessary decision in over 99% of the cases. Rather, we make this exception to our laws, to God's laws, and to what our un-seared consciences are telling us, because it's convenient and expedient to do so.

This is a very sad state of affairs and has been now over 58,000,000 times since Roe. And while our abortion "exception" makes legal that which would never be made legal for any other reason ... and with well crafted thoughts and words gives our consciences some form of temporary relief if we are willing to turn a blind eye to what we're actually doing ... there is, nevertheless, a Judgment that we will all soon face.

Perhaps as a Christian, that's something you should consider advising/reminding people of as well, yes!

Yours and His,
David

 

[civilwarbuff]

Sure.
It is not "a human life" (which is a living autonomous being), but IT IS HUMAN LIFE, and what that means is that it is composed of human cells.

So, it is not an individual? Is it part of a collective? Maybe Borg? It is human life but not a human life??????? In all seriousness, where do you get this stuff from? My beliefs are biblical so please explain how you come to believe a statement like that.

 

[Chany]

Quite a few hypothetical statements above rationalized to fit a red herring.

I believe embryology is still taught in High school?

What red herring? People (if I recall, you brought it up) are saying beings that are "human" demands moral worth.

I am asking, by what merit we put moral worth into things, so as to discern whether a conceptus possess these traits. People appear to be saying the fact that a conceptus is "human" gives it . The only way this matters is if by "human" you mean "person", or if by "human" you mean an organism with human DNA. If it is the former, then we have to discuss what a person is. Which inevitably leads to the latter- human DNA is not sufficient or necessary condition for personhood in that is not required nor not enough to warrant personhood or moral responsibility, as my thought experiments are meant to show.

Just because the conceptus possesses human DNA does not mean it automatically garners moral worth. That is all I am saying. I am asking what does give it moral worth. What trait gives the conceptus moral worth?

 

[redleghunter]

Sure.
It is not "a human life" (which is a living autonomous being), but IT IS HUMAN LIFE, and what that means is that it is composed of human cells. A living being (that is not a plant) is an animal, an animal being, the member of a species. In this case an actual human animal. Not just cells that perhaps are constructing such, a construction that does not result in a living being until there is birth.

A small group of cells called a zygote, for instance, are in no sense a living animal being.

Interesting. If I had a hat and cane...

Let's stop the skirting. A human life is human life. A distinct life with their own code and 23 chromosomes from mom and 23 chromosomes from dad.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

we passed notes....

With pennies in them so when we threw them they would carry to the other side of the room, when the teacher wasn't looking of course...

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

As I mentioned to another poster we cannot be capricious with any human life.

Maybe not capricious, but WE CERTAINLY SHOULD TRY TO KILL SOME OF IT.

Cancer cells are human life, they are human (not pig or mosquito) DNA and they are alive, unfortunately.

 

[Archivist]

Except freedom.

Very true--thank you!

 

[Archivist]

............As it has been since 1973 where criminal law is concerned. My point was that Federal laws have always assigned personhood to an unborn child from conception (as do State laws), UNLESS (since Roe) his/her mother decides otherwise. These laws recognize both embryo and fetus as an existing human person who has the same rights as any other person does, EXCEPT in the case of abortion, that is.

We KNOW what we are doing when we abort an unborn child No matter what our laws "allow" us to do, we are, at the very least, deceiving ourselves if we don't think we are killing a human being when an abortion is performed. We know that the decision to abort is not a moral one (any more than killing a child outside of the womb is), nor is it a necessary decision in over 99% of the cases. Rather, we make this exception to our laws, to God's laws, and to what our un-seared consciences are telling us, because it's convenient and expedient to do so.

This is a very sad state of affairs and has been now over 58,000,000 times since Roe. And while our abortion "exception" makes legal that which would never be made legal for any other reason ... and with well crafted thoughts and words gives our consciences some form of temporary relief if we are willing to turn a blind eye to what we're actually doing ... there is, nevertheless, a Judgment that we will all soon face.

Perhaps as a Christian, that's something you should consider advising/reminding people of as well, yes!

Yours and His,
David

But I am specifically addressing abortion in cases of rape. Unless you believe in involuntary servitude, surely you would agree that an innocent rape victim should not be forced to carry the fetus to term against her will.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

[Matthew 12:7 NKJV] Jesus said: "But if you had known what [this] means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless." Your wanting to force rape victims by law to carry an egg with a sperm cell in it from their rapist to a full-term baby, that will be in the splitting image of their rapist, is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard. Leave it to those who call themselves Christians to come up with this statement from hell. You have no idea who Christ is or the trauma that women and young girls go through from being a victim of rape.

I believe that both the victim of rape and the victim of abortion--the unborn--deserve mercy!

 

[Archivist]

Personally I fail to see in scripture where it is OK to have the baby in the womb killed if the mother's life is in danger.

So you don't believe that you have a right to use deadly force to protect yourself or your family?