Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

Definitions:

There are many definitions of the words I will be using. These are the definitions I will use. If you have a different definition that is OK, many words have multiple definitions. As long as you realise these are the definitions I am using. These definitions are here so the arguments can be properly refuted without a misunderstanding about the definitions.

Fertilisation: The point at which the 23 chromosomes from a sperm unite with the 23 chromosomes of the egg.

Embryo: The result of the first cell division after fertilisation (many people give lots of stages names here, gamete, zygote, blastocyst, since they are essentially about the one process I am using the one term for simplicity).

Conception: The starting point of a life

Twinning: The process by which a single embryo can become two embryos.

Life: A process that starts at fertilisation, or division in the case of asexual beings or twinning of embryos, and ends in death.

Human: Of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens

Theorem: A human life begins at conception.

Let x be a 'human life'.
Let C be a 'conception'.
Let T be 'undergone twinning'.

(x) means "for all x," (Ex) means "there exists an x."
& means "and" and v means "or."
=> means "implies," while ~ means "not."

The statement that for all human's conception implies that there is at least one human life is the following:
1.) (x)(C => (Ex))

The statement that twinning implies conception is the following
2. (x)(T => C)

Therefore for all human's twinning implies at least one human life:
3. (x)(T => C => (Ex))

*Edited after Masters comment

[Master]

I like it. I wish more of the Pro-Life people held this more reasonable view. This is a very nice choice of position for someone opposing abortion. I hope others accept this.

[Selfish_Meme]

People probably misunderstand me, I'm not anti-abortion. At least not yet, I thought the article greeneye put up was very good and got me thinking. Maybe we are arguing the wrong area. I still think a woman has the right to have an abortion but I think where that right derives is from social contract.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: People probably misunderstand me, I'm not anti-abortion. At least not yet, I thought the article greeneye put up was very good and got me thinking. Maybe we are arguing the wrong area. I still think a woman has the right to have an abortion but I think where that right derives is from social contract.

Do you believe a woman has the right to have an abortion at any time during a pregnancy?

If there is a point at which abortion becomes prohibitive, why?

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Do you believe a woman has the right to have an abortion at any time during a pregnancy?

If there is a point at which abortion becomes prohibitive, why?

If your asking for my opinion, no I don't think that later term voluntary abortions should be legal, and there is a point at which they become so. I am not sure I have determined that point to my own satisfaction yet.

A little more on the first question, I am writing a proof on the rights to abortion using the constitution and social contract that shows a lot of promise and I will post it here when it is finished. It should show why later term abortions should be illegal. It will NOT determine the point at which they become illegal.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Do you believe a woman has the right to have an abortion at any time during a pregnancy?

If there is a point at which abortion becomes prohibitive, why?

If your asking for my opinion, no I don't think that later term voluntary abortions should be legal, and there is a point at which they become so. I am not sure I have determined that point to my own satisfaction yet.

A little more on the first question, I am writing a proof on the rights to abortion using the constitution and social contract that shows a lot of promise and I will post it here when it is finished. It should show why later term abortions should be illegal. It will NOT determine the point at which they become illegal.

What is it then that you need to determine to define for yourself when abortion should be prohibitive.

[Prole]

I like the theory, and actually agree with it. Nicely done, Meme.

Anyway, I thought of another analogy; consider an animal that can become two seperate individuals at any point in life, such as a starfish or an earthworm. Chop either of them in half, and you can get two surviving individuals.

I believe the same holds true for a blystocyst. Hypothetically, if someone (a mature, born person) who was cut in half could become two people, would you say that they are not an individual? No, I think not. The same holds true for a blystocyst; it is an individual homo sapien, with the ability to become two.

gilbert wrote: What is it then that you need to determine to define for yourself when abortion should be prohibitive.
A valid question; with the underlying questions being "What are the factors that give someone personhood?" and "Does personhood entitle someone to protection even in the womb?" Based upon the two of these, "Under what circumstances is it acceptable to abort?" Also, "Are there any other non-moral reasons why abortion is not acceptable, such as safety?"

I admit to nutshelling all of these questions, though they come up quite frequently in other threads, so will doubtless be (re)debated there. I don't want to derail a thread based on a seemingly valid theory.

[Gilbert1908]

Prole wrote: I like the theory, and actually agree with it. Nicely done, Meme.

Anyway, I thought of another analogy; consider an animal that can become two seperate individuals at any point in life, such as a starfish or an earthworm. Chop either of them in half, and you can get two surviving individuals.

I believe the same holds true for a blystocyst. Hypothetically, if someone (a mature, born person) who was cut in half could become two people, would you say that they are not an individual? No, I think not. The same holds true for a blystocyst; it is an individual homo sapien, with the ability to become two.

gilbert wrote: What is it then that you need to determine to define for yourself when abortion should be prohibitive.
A valid question; with the underlying questions being "What are the factors that give someone personhood?" and "Does personhood entitle someone to protection even in the womb?" Based upon the two of these, "Under what circumstances is it acceptable to abort?" Also, "Are there any other non-moral reasons why abortion is not acceptable, such as safety?"

I admit to nutshelling all of these questions, though they come up quite frequently in other threads, so will doubtless be (re)debated there. I don't want to derail a thread based on a seemingly valid theory.

No I completely reject the idea and concept that "personhood" has any bearing in the discussion.

"personhood" is a philosophical or legal construct, it has no basis in science nor is it objective.

It is first necessary to determine scientifically when a human life exists and THEN apply your philosophy.

[cap'n queasy]

Why would an newborn infant have personhood under that type of definition for personhood? A newborn certainly can't live without someone taking care of it. It wouldn't be a person either.

This is the same thing as any other group depersonalizing their enemy so they can kill them and still feel good about themselves.

Well, you are still a killer. You've killed someone if you've had an abortion.

Life obviously starts at conception which occurs at fertilization. The fact that this life is very fragile at first would lead a moral person to want to protect it, not destroy it because it's inconvenient.

[Prole]

gilbert wrote: No I completely reject the idea and concept that "personhood" has any bearing in the discussion.

"personhood" is a philosophical or legal construct, it has no basis in science nor is it objective.

That it matters whether something is "human life" is philosphoical in nature. Why does it matter morally if someone is biologically a human being or not? That question cannot be answered without some measure of philosophy.

Yes, some measure of epistomological knowledge is necessary when discussing abortion; the same is true for any issue. But whether or not the knowledge of when someone is scientifically an individual human has any implication in the abortion debate at all is a philosophical question in itself.

gilbert wrote: It is first necessary to determine scientifically when a human life exists and THEN apply your philosophy.
When saying this, you are already philosophizing. Saying "you have to know this and then start philosophizing" when one is already philosophizing about what knowledge is neccessary is logically contradictory.

[Gus]

If that was a proof that life starts at conception, it's pointless since you defined conception as that anyway.

[Selfish_Meme]

Conception is the start of a life, does human life start at conception though? That is what someone had put down a proof disproving in another thread. I intended this as a 'lets get past that' measure. We can use this proof to say an embryo is a human life and starts at conception by this definition. Now its there we can forget it and talk about other stuff. ;)

The other proof was being used by people to bash others less sophisticated around the head metaphysically with a large trout.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: does human life start at conception though

Depends on whether it is humans conceiving or not. If it is humans, then human life begins at conception.

Semantics do not change this fact of nature.

[The Grandmaster]

cap'n queasy wrote: Why would an newborn infant have personhood under that type of definition for personhood? A newborn certainly can't live without someone taking care of it. It wouldn't be a person either.

Greetings Cap. Haven’t seen you in here before. Anyway Cap, your objection to applying personhood based on dependence is noted. I might point out, there is a significant difference between an embryo and a newborn, in that a newborn is living within no one’s body, and thus, is infringing upon the autonomy of no one. As it is independent, its existence doesn’t require the use of another person’s ability to control what is inside their body. This is not the case with the embryo, and their existence depends on the permission of another to allow this embryo the use of their body. I do not believe there is such a thing as a “right” to live inside the body of another, or utilize the body processes of another even for survival. Were this the case, people could be forced to be kidney donors for others who were in need.

cap'n queasy wrote: This is the same thing as any other group depersonalizing their enemy so they can kill them and still feel good about themselves.

Not really. In he case of abortion, the enemy is living inside the body of another, as well as not even being “a life” up until a point. The analogy is flawed.

cap'n queasy wrote: Well, you are still a killer. You've killed someone if you've had an abortion.

In order to be a killer in the sense you mean, one has to kill a person. Since abortion to a point is not killing a person, then there is not killer in question.

cap'n queasy wrote: Life obviously starts at conception which occurs at fertilization.

A life does not obviously start at conception occurring at fertilization in fact. There is great dispute among the scientific community as to when “a life” begins, and there have been encounters very nearing resulting in the exchange of addresses and meetings for fistfights on this very forum over it. But that a life begins a conception being a consensus in science is a misnomer, and incorrect.

cap'n queasy wrote: The fact that this life is very fragile at first would lead a moral person to want to protect it, not destroy it because it's inconvenient.

Were there a life in question, yes. As up to a point this isnt' the case, it isn't an issue.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: There is great dispute among the scientific community as to when “a life” begins

There is a simple way to test this theory. Try having a baby without an embryo. If you can then they probably aren't the beginning of human life.

If you can't, you should easily see that they are the beginning of human life.

[cap'n queasy]

Also I find the idea that one's child is "infringing on one's autonomy" a rather facetious viewpoint.

All children "infringe on your autonomy" whether they are born yet or not.

If you want total autonomy you should abstain from sex, because sex is how one creates a new human being, not a recreational activity.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Not really. In he case of abortion, the enemy is living inside the body of another, as well as not even being “a life” up until a point. The analogy is flawed.

Since you obviously don't have a problem with seeing an unborn child as an enemy, I don't think it is flawed at all.

[The Grandmaster]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: There is great dispute among the scientific community as to when “a life” begins

There is a simple way to test this theory. Try having a baby without an embryo. If you can then they probably aren't the beginning of human life.

If you can't, you should easily see that they are the beginning of human life.

Ahh, I see.

There is a simple way to test this theory. Try having a baby without an egg and sperm. If you can then they probably aren't the beginning of human life.

If you can't, you should easily see that they are the beginning of human life.

Ahh, so apparently, by your reasoning, masterbation is the murder of millions. Genocide. :ok:

[The Grandmaster]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Not really. In he case of abortion, the enemy is living inside the body of another, as well as not even being “a life” up until a point. The analogy is flawed.

Since you obviously don't have a problem with seeing an unborn child as an enemy, I don't think it is flawed at all.

Why would I have a problem calling an invading potentially life ruining entity an enemy?

And you altogether failed to address the fact that until a point, there is no life at all, to be concerned with, so the expulsion of it is fine.

[cap'n queasy]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Not really. In he case of abortion, the enemy is living inside the body of another, as well as not even being “a life” up until a point. The analogy is flawed.

Since you obviously don't have a problem with seeing an unborn child as an enemy, I don't think it is flawed at all.

Why would I have a problem calling an invading potentially life ruining entity an enemy?

And you altogether failed to address the fact that until a point, there is no life at all, to be concerned with, so the expulsion of it is fine.

It's not invading, the person's own actions caused it to be there. And if you think an embryo is not alive, I don't know what to tell you.

The fact is, people want to avoid the consequences of their actions, and have no qualms about killing their own children so they don't have to be responsible for them.

It's a pretty sick world.