A Thought Experiment

[Voice in the Desert]

First off this is my first post so go easy, I'm not trying to troll, start a flame war, or break any rules.

I have always been curious however how this would be responded to on a forum filled mainly with Christians, but of all backgrounds as well as pseudo-Christians and non-Christians.

In the spirit of intellectual honesty and openness, I will be up front with my beliefs which are 100% pro-life in every sense of the commonly understood meaning. I trust this doesn't need to be extensively defined.

Now for the actual question. I start with the assumption that those who consider themselves pro-choice do not support infanticide. While there are some who do, they are certainly outside the mainstream and I recognize they are not representative of all who choose to take this position.

Now if you do not support infanticide, then we can safely agree that if a baby is completely separate from the mother then killing it would be wrong and an act of murder. So far so good?

Now what about five minutes ago when the fetus/baby (I shall attempt to be neutral in language choice) was still in the birth canal, would it be acceptable to kill the baby/terminate the fetus at that point? What about a week ago when the fetus/baby was still inside the womb would that have been acceptable?

Now we know that historically speaking, birth has generally been a hazardous undertaking, both for the mother and the infant and that infant mortality rates have drastically decreased with improved technology. (and are still quite high in poorer countries). Now it is possible to do many things formerly considered impossible, one of these being that we can now deliver fetuses/babies at far younger ages/stages of pregnancy than previously possible. In fact it is entirely possible for some to survive outside the womb at an age younger than 6 months (22 weeks) something that would have been considered impossible even a few decades ago.

If we return now to the point where we agreed that the baby outside the mother was in fact a real person, I wish to ask as we move back, second by second, hour by hour, day by day, week by week, month by month at what point does it become morally acceptable to kill the baby/terminate the fetus? Or at what point does the fetus/baby become non-human, and can the position that it is not a person even be supported given the possibility of survival outside the womb.

Now given that medical advancements have made what is once impossible now possible. Might it not be reasonable to hypothesize that at some point our technology may indeed advance to the point where even younger fetuses/babies could be delivered and saved, and that we might discover conciousness, pain awareness, or other commonly accepted signs of humanity on both sides?

Now to abandon my neutral questioning for a moment. I think that this thought experiment demonstrates that there is no one point where those who support abortion can draw a clear line that in any way meaningfully differentiates abortion from infanticide, which is considered morally unacceptable. Rather than the same old flame war that always commences on such discussions, I would be interested in seeing a response to the actual thought process, because it is in my (admittedly biased) opinion one of the best entirely secular arguments against abortion I know of.

Thanks,
~Voice in the Desert

 

[Jedi]

Now to abandon my neutral questioning for a moment. I think that this thought experiment demonstrates that there is no one point where those who support abortion can draw a clear line that in any way meaningfully differentiates abortion from infanticide, which is considered morally unacceptable.

I agree that the question is a good one. When does the lifeform developing in the womb obtain personhood? The Catholic Church says it's at conception. I think the Methodists say it's when there's brain activity. Hmmm. A hard line to draw, indeed, but certainly not a default win for those who are pro-life. Just because a line is difficult to draw does not mean the line must therefore be at conception.

Here's something that will really bake your noodle. If personhood begins at conception, how in the world do identical twins fit into the picture? Let's suppose we have a fertilized egg. We'll call him Bob. However, one day, the fertilized egg splits into two, identical cells that are now developing into separate babies. We'll call them Tom and Mike. But if this happened, what happened to Bob? Did he just disappear? Is there a little of Bob in both Tom and Mike (and if so, what does THAT mean)?

Given this problem, I submit that conception is not the beginning of personhood, as persons are clearly being created after that point. Personhood must start later, once the cells can no longer divide to create different personalities.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

I never actually said personhood begins at conception. I said that there is no clear and single point where you can draw a line and say that this fetus is not in fact a baby, a person, a human being deserving of life and protection.

If we do not know the point, then it would seem to me that we should "first do no harm" and not in fact destroy what is quite possibly a human being.

I made the argument entirely on a secular reasoning, of course relying on morals that ultimately still must stem from a bedrock morality (such as the a priori assumption that infanticide is wrong)

 

[Phinehas2]

The other point is that even in countries where abortion is legal, different countries allow abortion at dfferent times, so what is the point of having an abortion at 12 weeks, as in many Euorpean countries, as opposed to 24 weeks as in UK.

This is just one problem with the abortion argument, those countries with 12 week limits aren't resetting their limit to 24 weeks based on the guidance and studies by the Royal College of Obstreticiens and Gynaecoligists in the UK. So why would the govenment trust the advice of the the Royal College of Obstreticiens and Gynaecoligists in the UK when 17 other country's governments and medical scientists set it at 12 weeks?

Come on, relying on expert professional medical advice is a lottery.

 

[lux et lex]

The other point is that even in countries where abortion is legal, different countries allow abortion at dfferent times, so what is the point of having an abortion at 12 weeks, as in many Euorpean countries, as opposed to 24 weeks as in UK.

This is just one problem with the abortion argument, those countries with 12 week limits aren't resetting their limit to 24 weeks based on the guidance and studies by the Royal College of Obstreticiens and Gynaecoligists in the UK. So why would the govenment trust the advice of the the Royal College of Obstreticiens and Gynaecoligists in the UK when 17 other country's governments and medical scientists set it at 12 weeks?

Come on, relying on expert professional medical advice is a lottery.

Even though I know the chances of you answering a question asked to you are slim, I'm going to do it anyway. What say you about the twinning argument? Clearly only one "life" at conception and then magically two.

 

[Jedi]

I never actually said personhood begins at conception. I said that there is no clear and single point where you can draw a line and say that this fetus is not in fact a baby, a person, a human being deserving of life and protection.

But you implied it, suggesting that because no clear point has been found, we must therefore assume it always is one; that because we don't know for sure, we should just play it safe.

The problem is that "playing it safe" can have bad consequences. Why risk the health of the mother or the financial well being of the couple because we've just tossed our hands up in the air on the issue and said "Well, I don't really know, so I'm going to just assume it's this answer because I don't know."

We can't presume that "no harm" is acheived only by inaction. We can easily do harm by neglecting to act.

In short, I can provide a mirrored version of the argument:

1.) The beginning of personhood can't be pinpointed
2.) Therefore, we don't know if the fetus is a person at any given point
3.) We know the parents are people
4.) We should act on behalf of those we know are persons over those we don't know are persons.
5.) Therefore, the interests of the parents should be sought over the interest of the developing fetus.

 

[Phaedros]

Even though I know the chances of you answering a question asked to you are slim, I'm going to do it anyway. What say you about the twinning argument? Clearly only one "life" at conception and then magically two.

It's clearly life at both points. The fact that it becomes 2 lives doesn't change the fact that it's still life.

 

[Jedi]

It's clearly life at both points. The fact that it becomes 2 lives doesn't change the fact that it's still life.

Of course it is. I never said otherwise. The issue here isn't whether or not the entity is alive; the question is whether or not it's a person. You and I both know you're not really concerned about whether or not something is alive. We kill things every day. Bugs, cows, plants, etc. But we don't really care about taking life when it comes to those things. Why? Because of the lack of personhood - we're not killing a "person."

So if it's "personhood" that we're interested in protecting, we need to be concerned with when it starts. When something starts being "alive" is, for our purposes, irrelevant. It's not even an issue of "human life," as we kill countless human cells every day whenever we scratch an itch, so unless we're ready to cry murder every time a human cell packed with DNA is destroyed, protecting an organism with human DNA isn't even our concern. It's all about whether or not the entity contains personhood.

 

[singpeace]

Good point.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

But you implied it, suggesting that because no clear point has been found, we must therefore assume it always is one; that because we don't know for sure, we should just play it safe.

The problem is that "playing it safe" can have bad consequences. Why risk the health of the mother or the financial well being of the couple because we've just tossed our hands up in the air on the issue and said "Well, I don't really know, so I'm going to just assume it's this answer because I don't know."

That's an incredibly weak philosophical and moral argument. You are balancing the lifestyle and financial well being of a couple vs the termination of a human life. You realize that isn't equivalent right?

And I implied nothing, I simply pointed out a logical moral and philosophical argument that starts on a common viewpoint (infanticide is wrong) and I am asking how far people are willing to go with that. Even if I didn't have a problem with abortion for biblical reasons, I know from a purely secular standpoint this discussion would make me pretty uncomfortable.

 

[Jedi]

That's an incredibly weak philosophical and moral argument. You are balancing the lifestyle and financial well being of a couple vs the termination of a human life. You realize that isn't equivalent right?

Like I just wrote above, we aren't concerned with the issue of "human life." It's a moot point. Unless you wanted to cry bloody murder every time I scratched an itch and killed untold thousands of individual human cells packed with human DNA. I find that unlikely.

That point aside, I think it's safe to presume that by "human life" you mean to refer to "a person." If this is so, then you're doing exactly what you deny in the next quotation: implying that we should just assume the entity is a person from the very beginning because a definitive beginning for personhood has not yet been pinpointed. For obvious reasons, this is unacceptable. We can't reasonably say, "this must be the answer because we really can't figure out what the answer is." It's like always circling "A" on a multiple choice test and thinking that everyone should agree that's the answer to the question simply because you couldn't pinpoint which one was the right answer. The problem in our situation is that you may be mandating a course of action that comes at the expense of two people for the benefit of a blob of cells that isn't even a person.

And I implied nothing, I simply pointed out a logical moral and philosophical argument that starts on a common viewpoint (infanticide is wrong) and I am asking how far people are willing to go with that. Even if I didn't have a problem with abortion for biblical reasons, I know from a purely secular standpoint this discussion would make me pretty uncomfortable.

If you implied nothing, then what was the purpose of your post? Did you not argue that since a clear line for the beginning of human personhood can't be drawn, we must therefore play it safe by assuming it's a person from the very start?

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

point aside, I think it's safe to presume that by "human life" you mean to refer to "a person."

No, we don’t put human life in quotes because we see human life as distinguishable from the gestating fertilized union of sperm and egg, the zygote onwards. In reality the life starts at conception.
We recognise you may not see it as a person but we do.

the entity is a person from the very beginning because a definitive beginning for personhood has not yet been pinpointed.

No, we have pinpointed the definitive beginning .

For obvious reasons, this is unacceptable.

So for obvious reasons it is acceptable for us.

"this must be the answer because we really can't figure out what the answer is."

rather this must be the answer because we can figure out the answer and your side can’t.

The problem in our situation is that you may be mandating a course of action that comes at the expense of two people for the benefit of a blob of cells that isn't even a person.

The problem in our situation is that you may be mandating a course of action that comes at the expense of a human life.

What expense of two people were you considering, no sympathy from me for them.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
No, we don’t put human life in quotes because we see human life as distinguishable from the gestating fertilized union of sperm and egg, the zygote onwards.

Distinguishable? How? You have yet to give any reason why this cluster of cells is any more distinguished from any other cluster of cells.

No, we have pinpointed the definitive beginning .

Haha, no you haven't. You just picked an arbitrary point in the course of materials coming together to form a person. Definitive my hide. The process of materials coming together to form a person starts before conception - or do you mean to say the united sperm & egg just pop into existence from nothing?

So for obvious reasons it is acceptable for us.

I see. Giving random answer is acceptable for you. Always circling "A" on a multiple choice test is acceptable because, well, you really can't figure out the real answer and A is just as good a guess as any. Astounding.

rather this must be the answer because we can figure out the answer and your side can’t.

Haha, not quite. Pro-choice advocates actually consider the different points at which human personhood might begin. Your side (I'm not even sure what to call "your side," since you identified yourself as pro-choice to some degree in the other thread) just blindly assumes it's at one point and disregards all other possibilities. And what's even more amazing is that you come across as thinking yourself superior because of this. Haha... oh, boy.

The problem in our situation is that you may be mandating a course of action that comes at the expense of a human life.

Granted, but that's only a "may." A chance. Whereas if the pregnancy weren't terminated, two individuals (the prospective parents) who are "certainly" persons will be negatively effected (at least in any case where the pregnancy isn't welcome news to the prospective parents or those close to them).

What expense of two people were you considering, no sympathy from me for them.

Really? Could've sworn you said you would vote pro-choice in the cases of rape and medical peril in the other thread. No sympathy for the parents, eh? /facepalm

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Distinguishable? How? You have yet to give any reason why this cluster of cells is any more distinguished from any other cluster of cells.

Any other cluster of cells such as an adult human? Sorry I don’t see how your statement makes sense. The human adult at 21 years old is still developing, just as the human zygote is developing at days old. But you are supporting the terminating of zygotes because you don’t think they are developed enough.

Haha, no you haven't. You just picked an arbitrary point in the course of materials coming together to form a person. Definitive my hide. The process of materials coming together to form a person starts before conception - or do you mean to say the united sperm & egg just pop into existence from nothing?

No, that’s not what I have described, it is not the materials coming together it is the materials that have come together. We have pinpointed the definitive beginning, see my point above.

I see. Giving random answer is acceptable for you.

Well that’s our sides answer and it is acceptable to us. Our side’s position isn’t random, it where is observable, see my point above, the human adult can only develop from the human zygote providing someone doesn’t destroy the human at some varying point of the human’s development as a foetus. That some humans think that’s 12 weeks and some think it is 24 weeks just goes to show how little they can agree on when a human being can be destroyed.

Haha, not quite. Pro-choice advocates actually consider the different points at which human personhood might begin.

so that means what I said you cant figure it out.

Granted, but that's only a "may." A chance. Whereas if the pregnancy weren't terminated, two individuals (the prospective parents) who are "certainly" persons will be negatively effected (at least in any case where the pregnancy isn't welcome news to the prospective parents or those close to them).

I couldn’t care less about the parents they made the choice of sexual intercourse and this is the consequence, they are still alive, the life they created is dead.
Have you seen scans of 12 week old foetus being aborted Jedi? Would you like to? Looks like a baby to me, moves around to avoid the tools ripping it apart.
Rather than say ‘haha’ don’t forget I think your position is utter depravity.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Any other cluster of cells such as an adult human? Sorry I don’t see how your statement makes sense.

No, as in "any other cluster of cells." Why you seem to be stuck on adult humans remains a mystery. Eyeball cells. Skin cells. Cells that make up any portion of the human body. Take your pick. There's plenty.

The human adult at 21 years old is still developing, just as the human zygote is developing at days old. But you are supporting the terminating of zygotes because you don’t think they are developed enough.

Incorrect. It's not a matter of whether or not it's developed enough, as if it holds a particular status from the beginning and is just a matter of growth. It's a matter of whether or not it's a person and to date, you haven't given a single shred of evidence to lead us to believe that personhood must begin at conception.

No, that’s not what I have described, it is not the materials coming together it is the materials that have come together. We have pinpointed the definitive beginning, see my point above.

You're only repeating yourself now. Why is it a person at the point of conception? Why is it that at that point, we talk about materials that "have come together" and disregard the necessary parts that still have yet to come together? Why is the unification of the sperm and egg so pivotal when other parts are equally necessary for human development (say, the creation of the sperm or egg or the nutrients that create them)?

Well that’s our sides answer and it is acceptable to us. Our side’s position isn’t random, it where is observable, see my point above, the human adult can only develop from the human zygote providing someone doesn’t destroy the human at some varying point of the human’s development as a foetus.

Ah, but that's only partially true. You're forgetting a huge factor: the continuing assembly of the fetus inside the womb. The zygote will NOT develop into a human adult if left to its own devices. If you truly "left it alone," it would develop no further. Something else has to keep building it - the mother's body. You keep insisting it will be just fine if no one messes with it; on the contrary, if no outside force messes with it, it will never become anything and will simply perish.

I'm not saying the development of a zygote isn't necessary for a person to be made. I'm saying that it's random to pick this point of development as being any more important than the previous steps or those yet to come. Why here and not there?

That some humans think that’s 12 weeks and some think it is 24 weeks just goes to show how little they can agree on when a human being can be destroyed.

That doesn't negate the possibility that it could very well be when the organism is able to process thought. That there is disagreement only demonstrates that there's differing evidence about when that happens, but you can't just toss your arms up in the air and give up. If that's your philosophy, you might as well become an agnostic, because there are so many ideas about God and Heaven that people just can't seem to decide how to get there, so all of them must be wrong and you should just funk it altogether.

so that means what I said you cant figure it out.

You're coming across as arrogant again. "lol, you can't figure it out and we have the answer all along!" I submit that you've only chosen a random answer because you, like everyone else, can't figure it out. Not really.

You're like a flat earth advocate, saying that because someone doesn't have all the answers about the geometry of a round earth, their idea is inferior, wrong, and should be disregarded while the idea of a flat earth is embraced because hey, those flat earth advocates have it all figured out. I'm sorry, but in nearly any disagreement where complete knowledge isn't assumed, this is going to be an issue and getting stuck on it contributes nothing to the discussion.

I couldn’t care less about the parents they made the choice of sexual intercourse and this is the consequence, they are still alive, the life they created is dead.

It's all about the fetus, isn't it? Why you place its rights over the rights of others remains a mystery, especially when there's doubt that it's even a person at certain points. Further still, you're presuming the situation is such that the prospective parents were just irresponsible. What about those who have medical conditions? What about those who get raped? I guess you don't care about them either, huh? Touching.

Have you seen scans of 12 week old foetus being aborted Jedi? Would you like to? Looks like a baby to me, moves around to avoid the tools ripping it apart.

You know, that's funny, because my focus right now is conception - MUCH earlier than 12 weeks. Don't confuse the issue. I've already stated previously that there's reason to believe the fetus becomes a person at some point during the womb. 12 weeks is pretty far along. Even so, this argument is an appeal to emotion with little intellectual value: its thrust is to establish similarities between the subject and audience to create a connection and generate sympathy. Like I said earlier, this appeal is lost if we were to show the audience a picture of the gooey cluster of cells it was in the earlier stages of development.

Rather than say ‘haha’ don’t forget I think your position is utter depravity.

And rather than pointing your self-righteous finger at others who disagree with you, thinking yourself superior and voicing that thought, you need to stay focused on the discussion and realize that maybe - just maybe - you could be wrong and need to treat those who disagree with you with respect instead of flaming with with accusations of moral depravity.

To clarify, you and I don't disagree on values, which falsifies your accusations of depravity. We both agree that human persons ought to be protected whenever possible. What we disagree on are the facts: whether or not our subject is a human person. It makes no sense to accuse someone of moral depravity when what you disagree on is something other than moral values.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

No, as in "any other cluster of cells." Why you seem to be stuck on adult humans remains a mystery. Eyeball cells. Skin cells. Cells that make up any portion of the human body. Take your pick. There's plenty.

Ok so not any cluster of cells, just the ones you are thinking of. I am not a mind reader. The zygote is a particular cluster of cells which is already the development of a human being, the clusters you cited, aren’t.

It's a matter of whether or not it's a person

It is a person in development, it wont develop into anything else and it wont develop any further at the point at which your side terminates it.

You're only repeating yourself now.

good, maybe you will get it.

Why is it a person at the point of conception? Why is it that at that point, we talk about materials that "have come together" and disregard the necessary parts that still have yet to come together?

Because they have to come together. why are oranges orange.

Why is the unification of the sperm and egg so pivotal when other parts are equally necessary for human development (say, the creation of the sperm or egg or the nutrients that create them)?

because the other parts of the human being can’t develop unless they come together. Why are oranges orange?

Ah, but that's only partially true.

No its fully true, the human adult can only develop from the human zygote providing someone doesn’t destroy the human at some varying point of the human’s development as a foetus.

You're forgetting a huge factor: the continuing assembly of the fetus inside the womb.

that’s what the development is so is integral to my point above.

The zygote will NOT develop into a human adult if left to its own devices. If you truly "left it alone," it would develop no further.

To truly leave it alone you would have to abort it.

I'm not saying the development of a zygote isn't necessary for a person to be made. I'm saying that it's random to pick this point of development as being any more important than the previous steps or those yet to come. Why here and not there?

Its not random, it is a point in time and no point in time or event before conception can develop into a human being.

That doesn't negate the possibility that it could very well be when the organism is able to process thought.

yes it does negate it, that’s exactly what it does.

It's all about the fetus, isn't it?

obviously not, if I have observed the parents are still alive when the baby has been killed it most definitely isnt just about the foetus.

You know, that's funny, because my focus right now is conception - MUCH earlier than 12 weeks. Don't confuse the issue.

Have you seen scans of 12 week old foetus being aborted Jedi? Would you like to? Looks like a baby to me, moves around to avoid the tools ripping it apart.

Even so, this argument is an appeal to emotion with little intellectual value:

A scan is a scientific thing, not a flat earth, it shows that the baby at 12 weeks is clearly a person, it is shocking for anyone with any sensitivity but if you get emotional don’t use your straw man as an excuse.

And rather than pointing your self-righteous finger at others who disagree with you, thinking yourself superior and voicing that thought, you need to stay focused on the discussion and realize that maybe - just maybe - you could be wrong and need to treat those who disagree with you with respect instead of flaming with with accusations of moral depravity.

OK so you think my position is self righteous and I think your is utter depravity, now we have been honest about how we view the others position perhaps less of the ‘haha’?

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
Ok so not any cluster of cells, just the ones you are thinking of.

No, the ones I specifically mentioned over and over again. Further still, the "God created it, so we must not kill it" argument doesn't work. We take life all the time and it's not always murder. Indeed, we take "human life" all the time and it's not always murder (as in self-defense and war). Further still, God not only permitted but mandated the taking of human life constantly in the Old Testament. In short, just because God creates life does not mean we cannot take it.

The zygote is a particular cluster of cells which is already the development of a human being, the clusters you cited, aren’t.

Granted, I never said otherwise. The problem here is that you have failed to demonstrate why a cluster of cells on the road to developing into a human being is, in its current, undeveloped state, to be treated as more special than any other cluster of cells. It only "may" become a thinking, breathing, conscious person. It is not yet there and we can only treat things as they are, not as what they may become. Otherwise, we should be treating everything from a sperm to an egg to the nutrients that compose the sperm and the egg as people, entitled to all the rights thereof, because they are on their wey to developing as a person, assuming all the proper conditions are met.

It is a person in development, it wont develop into anything else and it wont develop any further at the point at which your side terminates it.

Define "person in development." Is it a person? Does it have personhood yet? The phrase just muddies the waters here. Is it a person or not from the moment of conception? Saying "It will some day be a thinking, conscious person assuming all the conditions are met to develop it into such" can be said of a lot of things and if THAT is the criteria of something that ought to be treated as a person, then nearly every little scrap of material that has the potential of forming the organic lifeform of a human being should be treated as if it were already one, which would widen the definition of "human person" so much that it would lose nearly all meaning. Again, it is for this reason that we must treat something for what it is, not as what it may become.

good, maybe you will get it.

No, repetition of what you previously said only wastes your time and those you mean to communicate with. It contributes nothing to the discussion that wasn't there previously.

Because they have to come together. why are oranges orange.

And why is that the difinitive point? Why is it that those two materials coming together is any more important than any other stage of human development? Granted, if it didn't happen, the person would not exist. But the person would likewise not exist without the creation of the sperm or the egg or the nutrients the body uses to create the sperm or the egg. Why not start at those stages, which are equally important in the course of human development? Or why not later - say, when human brain activity begins (hard to have a person without a mind, wouldn't you say)?

because the other parts of the human being can’t develop unless they come together.

So? The cluster of cells in the womb can't develop unless the sperm and egg are first created. The development of humans requires the creation of cells prior to conception - why is that not the first step?

No its fully true, the human adult can only develop from the human zygote providing someone doesn’t destroy the human at some varying point of the human’s development as a foetus.

Again, you're not seeing the whole picture. It's not only inaction that will enable human development, but the ACTION of an outside source putting the zygote together in the first place: the mother's body. The zygot/fetus cannot survive or develop on its own. It is completely dependant on someone else to develop it. Action. Without that continued action, the cluster of cells will never be anything more than what it is.

that’s what the development is so is integral to my point above. To truly leave it alone you would have to abort it.

Practically speaking, sure. But that's just because the mother can't tell her body "Hey, stop developing this cluster of cells." It's a matter of control, which is really causing you to miss the point. The zygote/fetus, if left to its own devices (i.e. if the mother's body just shut down on its efforts of developing this cluster of cells), will NEVER be anything other than a gooey cluster of cells. If it was truly left alone, it wouldn't be anything.

Its not random, it is a point in time and no point in time or event before conception can develop into a human being.

And I submit that at no point in time or event after conception without the constant work and development from the prospective mother's body will a cluster of cells develop into a human being. You're just begging the question here. Conception is merely a step - a necessary step - but only one of many. I could just as well say "the cells obtain personhood at the point in time it obtains a brain, because at no point in time or event before brain development can it develop into a person." You're just picking a spot in the long train of important events and saying, "It won't turn into a human without this." Well, what about all the other equally necessary steps without which, it will not develop into a human being?

yes it does negate it, that’s exactly what it does.

What?! How? Please explain to me how people disagreeing over when something happened must therefore mean that all of them must therefore be wrong and the event never happened in the first place. Disagreement over the facts does not change the facts themselves or even that people are wrong because others have different ideas. If this were true, then I declare us both wrong and this discussion should end immediately.

obviously not, if I have observed the parents are still alive when the baby has been killed it most definitely isnt just about the foetus.

Your sympathy was the reference. Don't confuse the matter.

Have you seen scans of 12 week old foetus being aborted Jedi? Would you like to? Looks like a baby to me, moves around to avoid the tools ripping it apart.

Again, refer to my previous post. I've already responded to the "but it looks like a baby and I therefore relate to it" argument.

A scan is a scientific thing, not a flat earth, it shows that the baby at 12 weeks is clearly a person, it is shocking for anyone with any sensitivity but if you get emotional don’t use your straw man as an excuse.

A scan is just a picture. It has no bearing on the nature of the subject being photographed. Again, the only thing a scan can do is show us what it looks like and you're just using the fact that it looks so human and thus relate it to those who are clearly persons to argue that this, too, is a person. I'm not saying it isn't (again, my focus is conception - not 12/24 weeks of development after that point), which really calls into question your understanding of who you're throwing this arguments at.

OK so you think my position is self righteous

No, your position is not, but you have failed time and again to keep the ad hominems separated from the intellectual discussion. You can't stay objective and time again accuse the other side of being less holy, less godly, or less moral than you. That adds no value to the discussion and serves only to stroke your own ego.

and I think your is utter depravity

Then apparently, you didn't read my comment on this when I pointed out that we disagree not on value but on the facts, which negates any accusations of yours toward the other party of moral depravity.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

No, the ones I specifically mentioned over and over again.

So not the one I asked you to consider.

Further still, the "God created it, so we must not kill it" argument doesn't work. We take life all the time and it's not always murder.

Specifically, we are not God and Christ’s teaching is not to kill.
Jeremiah 20:17 “For he did not kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave, her womb enlarged forever.”
The zygote is a particular cluster of cells which is already the development of a human being, the clusters you cited, aren’t.

Granted, I never said otherwise. The problem here is that you have failed to demonstrate why a cluster of cells on the road to developing into a human being is, in its current, undeveloped state, to be treated as more special than any other cluster of cells.

apart from the cluster being the developing human being and the others aren’t?

It only "may" become a thinking, breathing, conscious person. It is not yet there and we can only treat things as they are, not as what they may become.

But aborting it is not even treating it to what it may become.

Define "person in development." Is it a person?

Yes it’s a person in development, if it wasn’t, what could it be that is in development?
As I said it is a person in development, it wont develop into anything else and it wont develop any further at the point at which your side has it terminated.

And why is that the difinitive point? Why is it that those two materials coming together is any more important than any other stage of human development?

Let me repeat the context, those two materials coming together leads to the human being’s creation and development, the other clusters of cells such as skin cells doesn’t.

Granted, if it didn't happen, the person would not exist

You’ve got it, sperm and egg may exist but never result in a human being on their own.
None of the rest of the argument is relevant, the teenager that joins the army and is killed as a soldier wont develop past teenager, but it isn’t the start of life.

Again, you're not seeing the whole picture.

No its fully true, the human adult can only develop from the human zygote providing someone doesn’t destroy the human at some varying point of the human’s development as a foetus.

It's not only inaction that will enable human development, but the ACTION of an outside source putting the zygote together in the first place: the mother's body. The zygot/fetus cannot survive or develop on its own.

Well that life for you, get used to it, if your side has the zygote terminated it can’t survive, if on the other hand your side leaves it alone it will naturally develop.

Your sympathy was the reference. Don't confuse the matter.

Obviously not, if I have observed the parents are still alive when the baby has been killed it most definitely isnt just about the foetus.

Again, refer to my previous post. I've already responded to the "but it looks like a baby and I therefore relate to it" argument.

It looks like a baby and it is, abortion is murder of a defenceless baby and life.

A scan is just a picture.

Do you know what I am referring to as a scan? I suggest you ask me if you don’t know.
I also suggest you see the scan, would you like me to pm it to you?

Again, the only thing a scan can do is show us what it looks like and you're just using the fact that it looks so human and thus relate it to those who are clearly persons to argue that this, too, is a person.

I know its human and a growing person.

No, your position is not, but you have failed time and again to keep the ad hominems separated from the intellectual discussion. You can't stay objective and time again accuse the other side of being less holy, less godly, or less moral than you. That adds no value to the discussion and serves only to stroke your own ego.

Which is an ad hominem, thank you for making your view clear, and you know mine.

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,
So not the one I asked you to consider.
Specifically, we are not God and Christ’s teaching is not to kill.
Jeremiah 20:17 “For he did not kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave, her womb enlarged forever.”
The zygote is a particular cluster of cells which is already the development of a human being, the clusters you cited, aren’t.

There are two separate arguments you've made here and whenever I address one, you just switch to the other, so let me be very clear here.

One argument is essentially "God created life, so we shouldn't take it," but this just isn't very consistent with how people act. We kill flies, skin cells, and even people in times of war and in self defense, but in none of these cases is the killer accused of murder or moral depravation. Saying "God told us to kill and eat" doesn't adequately excuse the fact, since none of these cases (and more) involve consumption of the deceased. The fact is that humans can and do take life - even human life - without becoming murderers or immoral.

The second argument you're using is that the zygote/fetus is "a person in development." I've already pointed out how this is left wanting as an argument to defend it. If the cluster of cells is not yet a person (i.e. not yet "developed" in respect to personhood), then it lacks the characteristics that warrant protection as a person. We must treat things as they are, not as what they might become if all the necessary conditions are met. Otherwise, we should soon find ourselves accusing others of murder every time a guy masturbated or a woman allowed herself to have a period and thus lost an egg that was a "person in development" that just didn't have the right conditions met to enable its development further.

But aborting it is not even treating it to what it may become.

Okay... I've been saying all this time we shouldn't be treating it as something other than what it currently is.

Yes it’s a person in development, if it wasn’t, what could it be that is in development?

You're muddying the waters with the phrase "person in development." Is it a person or not? It's a "yes" or "no" question. The phrase you're using seems to indicate that it's a quasi-person, which is morally nonsensical.

Let me repeat the context, those two materials coming together leads to the human being’s creation and development, the other clusters of cells such as skin cells doesn’t.

What about sperm cells or the female egg as individuals? They, too, are equally necessary materials, created individually, to the development of human beings. Why do you insist that development starts only when these two materials mix when the process of material mixing starts long before that (e.g. the gathering of materials to build the sperm and the egg)?

You’ve got it, sperm and egg may exist but never result in a human being on their own.

"On their own." There's that phrase again. The funny thing is that the zygote and/or fetus will also never result in a human being "on its own." It has to constantly be developed by another person (in this case, the prospective mother). It is not "on its own." Indeed, if it were truly on its own without more materials being guided to further develop it, it would perish. Just like a sperm. Just like an egg.

None of the rest of the argument is relevant, the teenager that joins the army and is killed as a soldier wont develop past teenager, but it isn’t the start of life.

I agree. Same concept applies to the zygote. Human development starts before then.

No its fully true, the human adult can only develop from the human zygote providing someone doesn’t destroy the human at some varying point of the human’s development as a foetus.

This is not the only condition. You're completely forgetting the continued and necessary involvement of the prospective mother. Take her out of the picture and the zygote/fetus will develop no further and perish "on its own." The coin flips on both sides when it comes to the development of a human being: (a) it must be constantly formed and developed by the parents thorughout its time in the womb and (b) this process of forming and development must not be critically hindered to the point that the subject is terminated. You keep focusing on part (b) when part (a) is equally, if not more critically, important.

Well that life for you, get used to it, if your side has the zygote terminated it can’t survive, if on the other hand your side leaves it alone it will naturally develop.

If we left it alone, it would perish. Beyond conception, the mother is constantly feeding, building, and developing the cells into something more. Without that involvement (i.e. if the zygote/fetus were truly left "on its own" without direct external or parental support), it wouldn't develop into anything more than a gooey cluster of cells.

It looks like a baby and it is

So... if an object looks like something, it must be that something? That's an interesting assumption...

abortion is murder of a defenceless baby and life.

Not necessarily, as even you admitted that people should have a choice to abort in the case of rape or medical emergency. You're not entirely anti-choice, you sly dog.

Do you know what I am referring to as a scan? I suggest you ask me if you don’t know.

I also suggest you see the scan, would you like me to pm it to you?

I've seen them. Its thrust comes by being graphic, elliciting an emotional response from the viewer, but nothing more. It serves to create a connection with the viewer by showing it something that looks like itself. To prove this, the same scan would lose its power if it showed the cluster of cells at a much ealier stage. Why? Because it doesn't look like the audience.

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et lex,

What say you about the twinning argument? Clearly only one "life" at conception and then magically two.

You mean 'two'? . Yes they are two lives. Would you care to address the question I asked please.