my take on abortion:

[SPF]

Sure Douglas, if you interpret his statement to be 100% literal, face value, then he was incorrect. But he wasn't speaking like that, as almost nobody on the planet ever does.

But if you want to get back to the topic, feel free to. Again, I just don't know how you can argue against what we have been able to learn from the advances in technology. Just like we KNOW that water is made up of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, we KNOW thanks to advancements in technology what precisely happens at fertilization. And once again, for your benefit, what happens is that a new, unique individual comes into existence. A new human being is created at conception.

What I can't seem to do is figure on what grounds you think exist to actually believe that the zygote, embryo, and fetus located inside a womb is not actually a human being. I've seen you make unsupported assertions about *needing* to have blood, skin, and that the fetus *must* first breathe oxygen before it passes into the status of human being. But I don't see why this must be the case. You've still never defended that position with anything beyond, "because I said so."

Here again are 4 points that have been proven scientifically. For support of them I would reference you back to the dozens of dozens of text books and experts that I've quoted.

1. The life cycle of every human being begins at conception (or fertilization if you prefer)
2. At the moment of fertilization a new and unique organism is created.
3. The developmental stage of the newly created human being lasts approximately 25 years.
4. All human beings begin their lives as a simple organism that then develops to a complex organism.

So some questions that you have about what this means might be as follows:

Q1. Does this mean that at our very earliest stage we only consist of one cell?
A1. Yes. for an extremely short period of time before the cell divides.

Q2. Does this mean that there is a point where a human doesn't have blood, or a nervous system, or flesh?
A2. Yes, it takes a few weeks for these things to develop. But its amazing at how quickly the new human does develop these very important features.

Q3. But I thought part of being an organism meant that it could reproduce?
A3. Eventually humans are capable of reproduction. This is all part of the developmental phase of a human. The ability to reproduce doesn't exist for a number of years with humans.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You've still never defended that position with anything beyond, "because I said so."

That is a false quotation. I am pretty sure I never said any such thing.

Please at least try to NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

And don't respond by saying I am so literal - nothing close to what you say is true.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What I can't seem to do is figure on what grounds you think exist to actually believe that the zygote, embryo, and fetus located inside a womb is not actually a human being. I've seen you make unsupported assertions about *needing* to have blood, skin, and that the fetus *must* first breathe oxygen before it passes into the status of human being. But I don't see why this must be the case. You've still never defended that position with anything beyond, "because I said so."

The reason being it does not pass the test of being an actual animal.
An organism, the actual member of a species.

The whole point of womb activity is to build such an animal. That is the case for all animal species that reproduce their kind through gestation in a womb.

So, I would have though one could figure it out since it is blatantly obvious - a thing does not exist until it is built.

Prima facie that in itself says what is in the womb, supposing it is constructing a human being, is not yet that. And certainly early on is even more obviously not that.

So I would say, especially if you want to insist something early on in a womb is a human being, a very sophisticated and extended argument would be necessary. Otherwise, you are obviously on the false side of things.

edit: If a human being is only one cell (zygote) a human being is pretty much NOTHING, no more than the DNA (only one copy yet!) that maps out how a human being is to be constructed. (Before it is ever constructed at all if we are talking about the zygote.)

 

[SPF]

That is a false quotation. I am pretty sure I never said any such thing.

Please at least try to NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

It obviously was not an actual quote by you. It was however a realistic summary of the extent of the "evidence" that you provided. Which is to say, you don't bring anything to this discussion other than your opinion on matters which flat out contradicts known science. If you think I'm wrong, please present some supporting material outside of your subjective prerequisites for what constitutes a human being.

The reason being it does not pass the test of being an actual animal.
An organism, the actual member of a species.

The whole point of womb activity is to build such an animal. That is the case for all animal species that reproduce their kind through gestation in a womb.

So, I would have though one could figure it out since it is blatantly obvious - a thing does not exist until it is built.

Here are just a few of the problems with what you've said here. First, a zygote is a simple organism at its conception, which then very quickly becomes a complex organism. I have provided ample material for you that explains how at fertilization we have a new and unique organism that comes into existence. We literally can see this happen, it's not even something that's debated any more in the scientific world.

Secondly, and for the umpteenth time, the developmental process for humans does not end at birth. Humans take roughly 25 years to fully develop. Lots of development occurs prior to birth, and a lot of it takes place after birth. Reproduction for example is not possible until many years of development have taken place.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

First, a zygote is a simple organism at its conception, which then very quickly becomes a complex organism.

A zygote is NOT any kind of organism if by "organism" one means an actual animal.

Only if you want to confuse things would you use call a zygote an organism or a "one-celled organism."

"Complex organisms are those who as organisms (animals) are multi-cellular as opposed to "ONE CELLED ORGANISMS" that are never multi-cellular.

In other words, one-celled organisms exist as one cell for their entire life.
Very unlike what you are falsely calling an "organism" in the womb, and certainly very unlike a real person.

 

[SPF]

As I said, a zygote is only one-celled for a very very short period of time. It becomes multi-cellular very quickly. But to be fair, and precise, and accurate, which seems very important to you, I was being charitable. But by all medical and scientific textbooks that I know of, and every educated professional I have ever seen - all acknowledge that the zygote is a new, unique, individual, which qualifies as an organism.

Can you cite any material that speaks otherwise? Or once again is the extent of your denial "because I said so"?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

As I said, a zygote is only one-celled for a very very short period of time. It becomes multi-cellular very quickly. But to be fair, and precise, and accurate, which seems very important to you, I was being charitable. But by all medical and scientific textbooks that I know of, and every educated professional I have ever seen - all acknowledge that the zygote is a new, unique, individual, which qualifies as an organism.

Can you cite any material that speaks otherwise? Or once again is the extent of your denial "because I said so"?

You should not continue to be so obstinately against the truth.
Just because it has required to be figured out, can't you see that in figuring out the correct (truthful) way to view things, if nobody has done it up until now (the reason there is a big dispute, I would say), then you cannot expect to find someone to agree with everything I say. That is possibly one way to view things.
Even if that is not the case, your call for my views to agree with those of somebody else is beside the point, irrelevant.

It would be a really great move forward for you to agree that THE TRUTH IS WHAT MATTERS, and not who happens to be presenting the supposed truth.

On your views agreeing with somebody else, all you present is the conclusion you like repeated by some others who also like to express things in the same way you do. If they happen to be some sort of scientist, that is probably in itself a reason not to accept their supposed conclusion. Because scientists are notorious for being not all that particular to know language enough to truly reflect the nature of things they are supposedly trying to describe.

That is seen in the examples you present, they say things rather unknowingly (of what they are actually saying) and rather unthinkingly. For instance Nathanson as per the example. It is NOT GOOD TO TRY TO EXCUSE LINGUISTIC INCOMPETENCE including sloppiness unto even total blatant falsity.

People in ordinary discourse may express things sloppily and it may even be sufficient to convey the thought they want to convey, when what is being talked about is mostly understood already by the person being addressed. But in this matter of WHAT MAKES A HUMAN BEING A HUMAN BEING, that will never do.
As you well know and want to often say, the matter is very consequential. Every word counts for something and you can't skip a few and still be saying the same thing. To do so is to present false arguments. Sliding from this to that in order to seem to reach the conclusion you want.

btw, your "all the textbooks stuff" is not helpful - just present one that does what you say in your claim here, and I will deal with that. IF you want to actually be serious about this, and not simply dwell in some airy fairy land of gross and misleading generalizations.
I don't mean merely that someone else says, "the zygote is a new, unique, individual, which qualifies as an organism," but that they demonstrate how they can make that claim.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Reproduction for example is not possible until many years of development have taken place.

Yes but at least ALL HUMAN BEINGS have reproductive organs.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I have provided ample material for you that explains how at fertilization we have a new and unique organism that comes into existence. We literally can see this happen, it's not even something that's debated any more in the scientific world.

Your way of describing it is what is debatable. I have no dispute with what actually happens, and what can be seen with microscopes for instance.

There is a unique entity, but it is wrong to call it an "organism." That is simply to beg the question.
You have to point to what makes it an organism, if you are going to make that claim, going to call it an "organism."
Way I read biology and the nature of the world, since it does not even have the remotest semblance of reproductive organs, and since at least some reproductive capacity is a necessity of an actual animal organism in order to properly be called such, it is NOT an organism. Most definitely not.
And that is not to mention a lot of other elements an actual organism needs to have in order to be such.
Note we are NOT here talking about "one-celled organisms" - they are as far from the reality of a human being as one can get in the animal kingdom.

 

[SPF]

Just because it has required to be figured out, can't you see that in figuring out the correct (truthful) way to view things, if nobody has done it up until now (the reason there is a big dispute, I would say), then you cannot expect to find someone to agree with everything I say.

I think one of the issues I have is that there isn't any "big dispute". Again, you're one an island of one with your position. Nobody agrees with you, nobody.

As you well know and want to often say, the matter is very consequential.

Indeed it is, because your position would promote the legal termination of any and all unborn at any time during their development so long as they are still in the womb. Your arbitrary prerequisites for what is required to be called a human being permit abortion across the entirety of the pregnancy. I would be willing to bet you're not a father, and you've never had a pregnant wife. Otherwise, I think some maturity would have resulted from those experiences and your views might be a little different.

Yes but at least ALL HUMAN BEINGS have reproductive organs... at least some reproductive capacity is a necessity of an actual animal organism in order to properly be called such, it is NOT an organism.

Again, says who? Why is this the case? On what grounds are you making this assertion? You do realize that due to genetic mutations that people are born with deformities and do not possess reproductive capacity. Is your position really that these poor children that grow into adults are actually not human beings? I think you owe all of them an apology.

btw, your "all the textbooks stuff" is not helpful - just present one that does what you say in your claim here, and I will deal with that. IF you want to actually be serious about this, and not simply dwell in some airy fairy land of gross and misleading generalizations...

There is a unique entity, but it is wrong to call it an "organism." That is simply to beg the question.
You have to point to what makes it an organism, if you are going to make that claim, going to call it an "organism."

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

 

[DavidFirth]

She is also held hostage if she has health problems during the pregnancy. She is also held hostage if she was not healthy enough to carry the child after pregnancy. She is also held hostage for the 9 months, then the following 18 or more years. It it's a boy, then about 25 more years. If the child fails to support it's own child, then mom gets care of that one an additional 18 years. Assuming that she is healthy enough to carry the child, and about half of the parasites are aborted for health reasons, without a known cause.

Additionally, later age pregnancies and unhealthy mothers have caused the death rate due to pregnancy to climb in the US. It's not a big number who die, except for the dead mom, it's a factor for her.

An unborn child is NO parasite. Was Jesus a parasite before He was born? I think not.

A woman who is not healthy should take measures to prevent pregnancy so it shouldn't happen. That's on her.

A child can be given up for adoption so the mother is not burdened for 18 or so years so you're wrong about that.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I think one of the issues I have is that there isn't any "big dispute". Again, you're one an island of one with your position. Nobody agrees with you, nobody.

I suppose we can only attack each other personally and make unsubstantiated claims if that is how you figure best to proceed?
Nobody agrees with me on what? That it is not murder to kill a fetus?
Are you kidding? When it seems majorities in our societies do not accept a "pro-life" position, surely there are vast numbers who do not think it is murder to abort.
They would not do it if they thought it was murder, in my humble opinion.

So your false unsubstantiated opinion is not only a personal attack, it is undoubtedly false that nobody agrees with me. (In the sense that they would IF they were to survey what I say, that is of course.)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

"a living being" is the second definition (2):
"an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster)

This is NOT arbitrary, as you falsely label my pointing to characteristics of an organism.
It demands the organism have organs, which is not surprising since "organ s" is principle part of the word "organism."
This clearly shows a zygote could never be an organism.

Should I bother to point out the confusions and inapplicabilites of what you say about these two definitions? Or can you already see, in the fact you focus on definition (1) when definition (2) is more applicable to living beings, the one more truly applicable, that what you say in response to Merriam-Webster is confused and off base?
I.e. There is no organism without organs, and certainly no human being.

 

[SPF]

I suppose we can only attack each other personally and make unsubstantiated claims if that is how you figure best to proceed?
Nobody agrees with me on what?... So your false unsubstantiated opinion is not only a personal attack, it is undoubtedly false that nobody agrees with me.

Nobody agrees with you in your unsupported, unsubstantiated position that a human being does not exist until it exits the womb and takes its first breath. If you think I'm wrong, then all you have to do is show me one person on the planet who agrees with you that there is no human being until it exits the womb and takes its first breath. Until you can show me one, then I feel justified in what I'm saying.

I.e. There is no organism without organs, and certainly no human being.

Well, we know this isn't true. We know there are single-celled organisms. And thus, since we know there are single-celled organisms, we know that your assertion that an organ is required to be present in order for something to be classified as an organism is demonstrably false.

Now, as for the early developmental stage of a human organism...

A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. Unless severely damaged or deprived of nutrition or a suitable environment, the embryonic human will develop himself or herself by an internally directed process to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage.

The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity — a human being — who comes into existence as a zygote and develops by a gradual and gapless process into adulthood many years later.

Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it.

The human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, nor is it merely a "potential human being," whatever that might mean. Rather the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete — though, of course, immature — human organism.

Unlike the embryo, the sperm and egg whose union brings a human being into existence are not complete organisms. They are both functionally and genetically identifiable as parts of the male or female parents. Each has only half the genetic material needed to guide the development of a new human being toward maturity. They are destined either to combine to generate a new and distinct organism or simply die.

Even when fertilization occurs, the gametes do not survive: Their genetic material enters into the composition of a new organism. (A somatic cell that might be used to produce a human being by cloning is analogous not to a human embryo, but to gametes.) The difference between human gametes and a human being is a difference in kind, not a difference in stage of development. The difference between an embryonic human being (or a human fetus or infant) and an adult is merely a difference in stage of development.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Unlike the embryo, the sperm and egg whose union brings a human being into existence are not complete organisms. They are both functionally and genetically identifiable as parts of the male or female parents.

Not true they are parts of those participating in the reproducing.
They bear the same genetics, but that is because their sole role is to pass on the genetics.
They are PRODUCED by the organisms (actual people) who thus demonstrate they have reproductive abilities and hence fulfill one of the requirements of being a human being organism. They are products of the people, never parts of the people.
edit: Like in the case of a factory that produces spare parts - they are parts from the factory, NOT parts of the factory itself.

If they can't get a small matter like that correct, one can certainly question what competence they might have to pronounce on anything else.

 

[SPF]

Not true they are parts of those participating in the reproducing.
They bear the same genetics, but that is because their sole role is to pass on the genetics.
They are PRODUCED by the organisms (actual people) who thus demonstrate they have reproductive abilities and hence fulfill one of the requirements of being a human being organism. They are products of the people, never parts of the people.
edit: Like in the case of a factory that produces spare parts - they are parts from the factory, NOT parts of the factory itself.

Sure, that’s fine. The important thing though here is that you once again have just called all people born with genetic defects that cause them to be incapable of reproduction non-humans. Utterly insulting and simply not true.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The difference between human gametes and a human being is a difference in kind, not a difference in stage of development. The difference between an embryonic human being (or a human fetus or infant) and an adult is merely a difference in stage of development.

A difference between human gametes and a human being is the difference in kind referred to here. A much easier to recognize difference between gametes and a human being is that gametes are single cells, and a human being is from from that. It is a being, not merely something bearing human substance that happens to have unique genetics.

For there to be a being or actual animal organism :
Organism [Biology-Online] noun
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.
It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

So yes there are one-celled organisms, but they are NOT animals. I would hope you at least agree a human being is an animal, and not a plant or bacterium, etc.
There are in other words six different kinds of organisms, and human beings certainly do not fall in any of the one-celled categories.

So IT WILL NEVER DO TO CLAIM THE ZYGOTE IS A ONE CELLED ORGANISM, especially if one is simultaneously claiming it is a human being, since an animal is always very multi-cellular and a human being is always an animal.

If you must call anything (other than a cancer) that consists of human cells and is found in or near a womb, an "organism," if that is the way you keep track of the fact it consists of cells with unique DNA, then perhaps, well if you must you must. But do not be mislead unto thinking one is (not very truthfully!) calling it that because it is a human being animal, for it could never be that. And a caution is very much required here: being not very precise, calling it what it really is not in the technical sense, mostly that is misleading and to be avoided.
And please note the "technical sense" is given here in the dictionary definition.

 

[SPF]

I’ll wait for a reply to #236

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Sure, that’s fine. The important thing though here is that you once again have just called all people born with genetic defects that cause them to be incapable of reproduction non-humans. Utterly insulting and simply not true.

You at best come far from any charitable construction, but rather misconstrue.
I did not call people with genetic defects non-humans. You are pretty much bearing false witness again.
What is necessary is to notice in general the human being organism characteristics. That it is something that generally comes with reproductive equipment; if such is defective, that does not make the person a non-human being. None reproduce all the time, and many never reproduce. Nevertheless, human beings reproduce sexually, it is the type of animal that continues the species in such a fashion and the exception of defective organs in a way proves the point - were all human beings not able to so reproduce it would be the end of the species.

Perhaps, rather than speaking of reproductive abilities as, "one of the requirements of being a human being organism," we should probably talk of "generally a characteristic," since not all things work well all the time.
To avoid what you take to be some great insult.
Perhaps you can express it better to avoid the supposed insult you are so concerned about.
Thing is we are talking about real animals that generally have some such equipment, although it may be defective or even not yet fully developed.
THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL OF SUCH IN THE ZYGOTE, i.e. it is not an organism, an animal of the human being species.

Other things like responding to stimuli (USING SENSES) and homeostasis being generally features of a real human being are pretty much absent in the womb and certainly nothing of the zygote. There are no sense organs there, so no possible reaction to stimuli in the sense generally found in actual human beings.
Homeostasis is interesting in that the one cell of the zygote just disappears into being one of the many cells of the embryo - is NOT maintained as some sort of organism itself as would have to be the case were homeostasis to be there.

 

[SPF]

The bottom line here is this:

1) In order to be considered a human organism neither the current ability or future ability to reproduce are prerequisites.

The validity of 1) can be demonstrated by the fact that all human beings are born without the current ability to reproduce and some are born without the future ability to reproduce.

2) A zygote is still considered an organism, just as an embryo and a fetus are.

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

Finally, even IF you were able to convince the scientific community that a zygote was not a human being, there's nothing you have ever said that would demonstrate that a 7 month old fetus would not be a human being other than the fact that it hasn't breathed air yet. And that is an assertion that you have zero defense for beyond "because I said so".