Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[EGross]

If you could hold a live, undeveloped fetus in your hands, could you crush it if you knew what it was?

Let's say that you have in hour hand a one week old human embryo, which consists of 100 cells that form the blastocyst.

And in your other hand you have a fly, whose brain has approximately 1000 cells.

Which one would you just crush?

That blob in the one hand has the potential, in 9 months, to be a fully functioning individual of his species. The other already is a fully functioning individual of it's species, with perhaps, family, children, and a place in the world.

The evolved person would not wantonly kill either. But there are times when the elimination of one or the other is considered to be necessary by the person who has the right to make that decision. And the debate is not about a potential person (that blob in your one hand) being allowed to continue, but it is about the person who holds that blob having the right to choose.

[catfish]

If you could hold a live, undeveloped fetus in your hands, could you crush it if you knew what it was?

My gut instinct says no, but then I would never purposefully extinguish any life without a reason to do so, least of all to prove a point. And I can't really pin down how much of that reaction is down to squeamishness anyway. But then, this isn't a question of what I would do, now is it?

Yes, it a question about what you and I both would do. Would I be out of line to infer from your words above that you're pro-life, yet pro-choice? I.E. You respect all (any) life but do not wish to oppress others?

You're muddling "potential human" with "potential person" again. A zygote/fetus is an individual human, a sperm/egg is a "potential" human.

Sure, that's the way you've chosen to define it, and that's fine. I guess the question should really be whether that zygote is alive enough to have an abortion be considered killing it.

I would argue that "alive" is either a yes or a no concept. I think you're refering to having "enough" attributes to be considered a "person" here? I would say causing the life of any individual lifeform to cease would be "killing" it. I.E. Cutting a branch off of a tree is not "killing" it but destroying enough to cease it's biological activity is.

Here again, you describe life as "potential life". What we are talking about is already "life". You meant the potential for personhood, correct?

Yeah, pretty much. I just don't see a zygote as having sufficient life to justify robbing an actually living person of their rights for.

Again, I'm going to say that "life" is a yes/no proposition. Can we at least agree that it's an individual lifeform and now add to that description that it's fully alive?
Basically, at which point do you consider it sufficiently developed to consider it an "actually living person"? Heartbeat, cerebral cortext, brain activity, 8.5 months?

---

And the debate is not about a potential person (that blob in your one hand) being allowed to continue, but it is about the person who holds that blob having the right to choose.

IOW, might makes right?

[Esquilax]

Yes, it a question about what you and I both would do. Would I be out of line to infer from your words above that you're pro-life, yet pro-choice? I.E. You respect all (any) life but do not wish to oppress others?

Essentially, yes. I like life, and in my ideal world abortions wouldn't be needed at all because contraception would be fool proof, people would be educated enough to use them and rape would never happen. Unfortunately we don't live in that world, and after weighing up the morality of the situation I've come to the conclusion that it's immoral to intrude on the- bodily, especially- autonomy of people in favor of a fetus.

I would argue that "alive" is either a yes or a no concept. I think you're refering to having "enough" attributes to be considered a "person" here? I would say causing the life of any individual lifeform to cease would be "killing" it. I.E. Cutting a branch off of a tree is not "killing" it but destroying enough to cease it's biological activity is.

Yes. Life is a binary concept, something is either alive or not, but we find some forms of taking that life to be acceptable. Again, nobody minds too much if you kill a bug, despite that being a life you're taking.

Again, I'm going to say that "life" is a yes/no proposition. Can we at least agree that it's an individual lifeform and now add to that description that it's fully alive?
Basically, at which point do you consider it sufficiently developed to consider it an "actually living person"? Heartbeat, cerebral cortext, brain activity, 8.5 months?

If I had to put a specific time on it, I'd say around the point of brain activity or consciousness. I don't value the zygote inherently, but once it's progressed to the point where it's viable outside of the womb and active mentally, then I'd say it has some stake in its own existence.

It is a difficult prospect, I will admit.

[EGross]

You are going to talk about brain activity to catfish?! I don't know if he will relate.

[catfish]

You are going to talk about brain activity to catfish?! I don't know if he will relate.

Knowing you, you probrably think a fart equates to brain activity. You probrably think you're smarter than everyone too.

---

Yes, it a question about what you and I both would do. Would I be out of line to infer from your words above that you're pro-life, yet pro-choice? I.E. You respect all (any) life but do not wish to oppress others?

Essentially, yes. I like life, and in my ideal world abortions wouldn't be needed at all because contraception would be fool proof, people would be educated enough to use them and rape would never happen. Unfortunately we don't live in that world, and after weighing up the morality of the situation I've come to the conclusion that it's immoral to intrude on the- bodily, especially- autonomy of people in favor of a fetus.

Now this is something I agree with.
So can I also assume that you find taking human life (without just cause) immoral also?

I would argue that "alive" is either a yes or a no concept. I think you're refering to having "enough" attributes to be considered a "person" here? I would say causing the life of any individual lifeform to cease would be "killing" it. I.E. Cutting a branch off of a tree is not "killing" it but destroying enough to cease it's biological activity is.

Yes. Life is a binary concept, something is either alive or not, but we find some forms of taking that life to be acceptable. Again, nobody minds too much if you kill a bug, despite that being a life you're taking.

Actually, some forms that I find acceptable like killing a fly that hovers around your food I would find unacceptable to do in the outdoors when personal "space" has not been violated. I.E. people who rip the wings off or kill just because they can.

Again, I'm going to say that "life" is a yes/no proposition. Can we at least agree that it's an individual lifeform and now add to that description that it's fully alive?
Basically, at which point do you consider it sufficiently developed to consider it an "actually living person"? Heartbeat, cerebral cortext, brain activity, 8.5 months?

If I had to put a specific time on it, I'd say around the point of brain activity or consciousness. I don't value the zygote inherently, but once it's progressed to the point where it's viable outside of the womb and active mentally, then I'd say it has some stake in its own existence.

It is a difficult prospect, I will admit.

For me, if I had to draw a line that wasn't at conception, it would be when the zygote attaches to the uterus.
I look at this way... It's kind of like someone snatching you and dropping you off naked on some small, private island. They give you all the food and air you need. It's perfect weather. Clean and sanitary and comfortable as Hades. Then they get all fucking mad at you for eating their food and whack ya.

Life isn't fair, huh?

[Silver]

For me, if I had to draw a line that wasn't at conception, it would be when the zygote attaches to the uterus.
I look at this way... It's kind of like someone snatching you and dropping you off naked on some small, private island. They give you all the food and air you need. It's perfect weather. Clean and sanitary and comfortable as Hades. Then they get all fucking mad at you for eating their food and whack ya.

The only way this comparison would logically work is if the island was sentient and mad at the human for stealing all its resources.

[Esquilax]

You are going to talk about brain activity to catfish?! I don't know if he will relate.

Oh, come on. I'm perfectly willing to be nice if he is, and the discourse has gotten noticeably more civil over the last few pages, I ain't gonna throw him under the bus now.

Now this is something I agree with.
So can I also assume that you find taking human life (without just cause) immoral also?

Well, that goes without saying.

Actually, some forms that I find acceptable like killing a fly that hovers around your food I would find unacceptable to do in the outdoors when personal "space" has not been violated. I.E. people who rip the wings off or kill just because they can.

Agreed, and that's the difference; we instinctively dislike mindless cruelty, but we're perfectly willing to kill the fly once it becomes a direct inconvenience. The fly's life isn't worth the trade off for our comfort; I feel that the zygote is in the same position, at least until it develops a little more.

For me, if I had to draw a line that wasn't at conception, it would be when the zygote attaches to the uterus.
I look at this way... It's kind of like someone snatching you and dropping you off naked on some small, private island. They give you all the food and air you need. It's perfect weather. Clean and sanitary and comfortable as Hades. Then they get all fucking mad at you for eating their food and whack ya.

I think there's a flaw in that analogy. A more accurate one would be that I own the island, and either someone accidentally skydives onto my perfect island, or someone else dumps them (possibly forcibly) onto my island. Now, while it's certainly not that person's fault that they ended up on my island, I'm certainly not obligated to host them in my house for nine months, and then on my island sharing my things for eighteen years after that, am I?

[catfish]

C'mon. Nobody says a word about my spelling "mistake"? lol

---

Now this is something I agree with.
So can I also assume that you find taking human life (without just cause) immoral also?

Well, that goes without saying.

Now what is just cause? If the mother doesn't want saggy tits or strechmarks? What if she doesn't want to stop smoking or taking drugs?
Or do we just agree that all killing of human life is wrong and assign degrees of "wrongness" to it. I.E. It's wrong to kill a female fetus for sexist reasons but it's really wrong to kill a fetus to maintain some image of beauty as portrayed by the media.

Actually, some forms that I find acceptable like killing a fly that hovers around your food I would find unacceptable to do in the outdoors when personal "space" has not been violated. I.E. people who rip the wings off or kill just because they can.

Agreed, and that's the difference; we instinctively dislike mindless cruelty, but we're perfectly willing to kill the fly once it becomes a direct inconvenience. The fly's life isn't worth the trade off for our comfort; I feel that the zygote is in the same position, at least until it develops a little more.

Do you mean the zygote is in the same position with someone else in control or do you mean that you too would swat it like a fly?

For me, if I had to draw a line that wasn't at conception, it would be when the zygote attaches to the uterus.
I look at this way... It's kind of like someone snatching you and dropping you off naked on some small, private island. They give you all the food and air you need. It's perfect weather. Clean and sanitary and comfortable as Hades. Then they get all fucking mad at you for eating their food and whack ya.

I think there's a flaw in that analogy. A more accurate one would be that I own the island, and either someone accidentally skydives onto my perfect island, or someone else dumps them (possibly forcibly) onto my island. Now, while it's certainly not that person's fault that they ended up on my island, I'm certainly not obligated to host them in my house for nine months, and then on my island sharing my things for eighteen years after that, am I?

But the mother (except in the case of rape) willingly invited the zygote to come stay.
The way the law is set up here in the states, we have what is called "squatter's rights" which allows someone to basically live on your property rent-free. Then with evictions, there's a standard appeal procedure which can be extended for months. In some places here, an ex can have you evicted out of your own house. An artical of clothing is sufficient to prove residency in some states. In most, just receiving mail at an address establishes legal residence.

[NoraBrimstone]

Why would a woman have an abortion if she "willingly invited it to stay"? What a load of absolute bollocks.

[catfish]

Why would a woman have an abortion if she "willingly invited it to stay"? What a load of absolute bollocks.

Well she didn't put a lock on it, now did she?
In fact, she invited some dick over to throw up all over the place and didn't even expect him to clean up...