(June 7, 2021 at 1:09 pm)Helios Wrote: This line of reasoning will get no were.

Embryology isn't a line of reasoning it's a science.

Quote:Embryology isn't a line of reasoning it's a science.

I never said Embryology was a line of reasoning . I was clearly talking about the reasoning you were attaching to it.

(June 7, 2021 at 2:11 pm)Helios Wrote: I never said Embryology was a line of reasoning . I was clearly talking about the reasoning you were attaching to it.

All I did was paraphrase a developmental biology textbook. I must have missed the line of reasoning you are talking about:

"Fertilization is the process whereby the gametes—sperm and egg—fuse together to begin the creation of a new organism."

(Edit: I removed a longer excerpt to keep things concise.)

That literally doesn't address my point 

Right, because your point is dissociated from the contents of my comment apperantly.

No, my point was not dissociated from the contents of your comment, Anything but ....

(June 7, 2021 at 1:09 pm)Helios Wrote: Then it's a question then of more developed or less...

Okay. In what way is it a question of more or less development then? Development lasts throughout the lifespan, from the moment you are conceived to the moment you die. There are as many, if not more, developmental stages beyond the womb than prenatally (at least in humans).

Given that fertilization initiates this entire process of development, that is the most significant and important landmark. Anything after that is just grasping at subjective and arbitrary straws.

Quote:Okay. In what way is it a question of more or less development then? Development lasts throughout the lifespan, from the moment you are conceived to the moment you die. There are as many, if not more, developmental stages beyond the womb than prenatally (at least in humans).

Yup, there will be more development stages even after the womb. So what? There is nothing wrong with separating the in the womb from the out womb nor is there any issue pointing out that overall a fetus is less developed than a 12-year-old if we view development as accumulation. Also, your point misses the kind of developments to the number. So this doesn't help your case in the slightest. 

Quote:Given that fertilization initiates this entire process of development, that is the most significant and important landmark. Anything after that is just grasping at subjective and arbitrary straws.

And your landmark is totally arbitrary too. Why fertilization? Why not sex? Why not the development of the sperm? Why not progenitors' birth? And Why only the start? Why not at a later stage. The start is not always the significant part or the most important. Your selection is just as subjective and arbitrary as anyone else's and is hardly compelling as a case. 


Please note ultimately I consider the question of development an irrelevant topic when it comes to abortion. I was simply putting forth a possible defense of such a view. There is a far better reason for pro-choice.

(June 7, 2021 at 5:40 pm)Helios Wrote: Also, your point misses the kind of developments to the number. So this doesn't help your case in the slightest. 

To the number? You mean ascribing value according to how many developments they've accumulated? If so what is your cutoff number? Presumably, most people would save an infant's life over an elderly person (making "number of developments" inversely correlated with what people value.)

Quote:And your landmark is totally arbitrary too. Why fertilization? Why not sex? Why not the development of the sperm?

There's nothing arbitrary about fertilization. That is when embryology marks the beginning of a new organism; it's the process during which the full novel genome of an organism is established, and its developmental trajectory initiated. (Sperm is just one of the gametes involved in fertilization, and sex initiates the process by which gametes are brought into contact, etc.)

Quote:Please note ultimately I consider the question of development an irrelevant topic when it comes to abortion. I was simply putting forth a possible defense of such a view. There is a far better reason for pro-choice.

Sure, like I said before, I tend to dislike pro-choice arguments because they are avoidant in nature—as you just demonstrated. Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy; it is the removal and expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb before it can survive. To say that this is all irrelevant to abortion is rather contradictory to put it respectfully.

Quote:To the number? You mean ascribing value according to how many developments they've accumulated? If so what is your cutoff number? Presumably, most people would save an infant's life over an elderly person (making "number of developments" inversely correlated with what people value.)

I specifically said type, not number. Please actually respond to my actual points. As for the elder vs infant game. I can play too. If people had the choice to sacrifice a five-minute-old fetus of a total stranger to save their 4-month-old baby. Which do you think they would choose? You see this is a bad argument.

Quote:There's nothing arbitrary about fertilization. That is when embryology marks the beginning of a new organism; that it is the process during which the full novel genome of an organism is established, and its developmental trajectory initiated. (Sperm is just one of the gametes involved in fertilization, and sex initiates the process by which gametes are brought into contact, etc.

Yes, it is arbitrary there is no objective reason to value a put significance on fertilization as opposed to anything else. Simply saying "but a new organism " is no more significant than some else saying " but two people fucked " or "it now has eyes" you're simply attributing significance to it.

Quote:Sure, like I said before, I tend to dislike pro-choice arguments because they are avoidant in nature—as you just demonstrated. Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy; it is the removal and expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb before it can survive. To say that this is all irrelevant to abortion is rather contradictory to put it respectfully.

Nope, it's not avoiding it's simply not wasting time on irrelevant points or getting dragged down in pointless rabbit holes. That's the only thing I have demonstrated and there is nothing contradictory about it. Pro-choice is reasonable. Anti Choice is nothing but a parade of bad reasoning hollow appeals to science and emotionalism.And i don't mean that respectfully.