Abortion is morally wrong

[GrandizerII]

No, it shouldn't. I said it before. This isn't about fetuses being persons or not. Rather, this is about fetus' rights (if they have any) vs host's rights.

Person argument is a red herring and, in my opinion, disingenuous.

The claim would be that it is personhood that grants moral protection and not simply being a human being. I don't agree with that claim but I don't think it is a stupid or incredulous claim(like the claim that a fetus is not a human being).

Ok, so let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a person. So what? Should this mean a woman must, therefore, suffer into having an unwanted "person" in her body for nine months?

[JuliaL]

Debating if fetuses are human beings is like debating if the earth is round. You are correct in that we should not be debating whether or not fetuses are human beings as this is completely obvious(except to the stupid and incredulous). Personhood has a place in the debate I think so I disagree with you there.

Human, yes. Being, no. Or at least there is some grey ground along the continuum of egg, blastula, gastrula, embryo, zygote, fetus, baby. I agree that there should be a line at some point where personhood emerges along with the rights granted that status. But it is a fuzzy grey line placed arbitrarily and seemingly without reflection by anti-choicers at conception. I wish to tease out their justification for this placement. It appears readily open to attack.

I don't wish to open the stem cell COW (can of worms) here, but I'd like to see the justification used to differentiate between 'embryonic' and 'adult' pluripotential cells. Anti-choicers have been claiming that adult stem cells are just fine morally but embryonic aren't. If you could actually revert adult stem cells completely, wouldn't they then be subject to the same moral restrictions as claimed for fertilized eggs? They again, with proper care, share the same potential for development into adult humans.

[bennyboy]

A fetus is not a person. You have provided zero evidence to show that a fetus is a person. You have made no attempt to show that a fetus is a person.
You have also given no reason why a being with human DNA should have a right to live if it is not a person.

I'm sorry. I'm pro-choice, or at least pro-pro-choice. But appealing to evidence in this case is silly. We're talking about an arbitrary line in the sand, and people can draw it wherever they want.

If you are talking about evidence that an entity can feel pain, or can interact with its environment, or can sustain itself outside the womb, then that's fine. But defining a person in any of those terms is no less arbitrary.

---

Human, yes. Being, no. Or at least there is some grey ground along the continuum of egg, blastula, gastrula, embryo, zygote, fetus, baby. I agree that there should be a line at some point where personhood emerges along with the rights granted that status. But it is a fuzzy grey line placed arbitrarily and seemingly without reflection by anti-choicers at conception.

Maybe it's because it's the only completely non-arbitrary event, and therefore the only definition that does not allow for moral gray areas or ambiguity.

[Losty]

A fetus is not a person. You have provided zero evidence to show that a fetus is a person. You have made no attempt to show that a fetus is a person.
You have also given no reason why a being with human DNA should have a right to live if it is not a person.

I'm sorry. I'm pro-choice, or at least pro-pro-choice. But appealing to evidence in this case is silly. We're talking about an arbitrary line in the sand, and people can draw it wherever they want.

If you are talking about evidence that an entity can feel pain, or can interact with its environment, or can sustain itself outside the womb, then that's fine. But defining a person in any of those terms is no less arbitrary.

Meh. I was just trying to make a point which was ignored by him anyways. My brain isn't in this debate. Lol.
After the last 500,000 debates on abortion(give or take :p ), I have learned something about myself. Or rather, I have changed my position a little. I am 100% pro-choice. That isn't where I began but it's where I am now. I don't believe a fetus is a person, but even if we say a fetus is a person at all stages I am still pro-choice.

But you're right. One cannot provide evidence to prove a fetus is or is not a person, because what constitutes a person is subjective.

[Heywood]

Debating if fetuses are human beings is like debating if the earth is round. You are correct in that we should not be debating whether or not fetuses are human beings as this is completely obvious(except to the stupid and incredulous). Personhood has a place in the debate I think so I disagree with you there.

Human, yes. Being, no. Or at least there is some grey ground along the continuum of egg, blastula, gastrula, embryo, zygote, fetus, baby. I agree that there should be a line at some point where personhood emerges along with the rights granted that status. But it is a fuzzy grey line placed arbitrarily and seemingly without reflection by anti-choicers at conception. I wish to tease out their justification for this placement. It appears readily open to attack.

I don't wish to open the stem cell COW (can of worms) here, but I'd like to see the justification used to differentiate between 'embryonic' and 'adult' pluripotential cells. Anti-choicers have been claiming that adult stem cells are just fine morally but embryonic aren't. If you could actually revert adult stem cells completely, wouldn't they then be subject to the same moral restrictions as claimed for fertilized eggs? They again, with proper care, share the same potential for development into adult humans.

Stem cells are constituent cells and have no potential by themselves to ever become a human being. To become a human being a stem cell needs to be fused with an unfertilized egg(which has had it nucleolus removed). A stem cell requires the intervention of an intellect and the addition of outside parts. It isn't any more of a human being than a sperm.

Now if this intervention and addition of new parts occurred, you would have a human being. You would have something contiguous, that can grow in the proper environment, reproduce, metabolize, maintain homeostasis, etc.

[JuliaL]

Stem cells are constituent cells and have no potential by themselves to ever become a human being. To become a human being a stem cell needs to be fused with an unfertilized egg(which has had it nucleolus removed). A stem cell requires the intervention of an intellect and the addition of outside parts. It isn't any more of a human being than a sperm.

Now if this intervention and addition of new parts occurred, you would have a human being. You would have something that can grow in the proper environment, reproduce, metabolize, maintain homeostasis, etc.

Please explain why the additional care and materials are required for the stem cell to gain protected status and not for the fertilized egg? Are you saying that at some, unexplained and seemingly arbitrary, point, the assemblage of chemicals which is the stem cell and additional materials added gains 'human being' status equivalent to the, again, justification unexplained, status of the fertilized egg? Can you explain, with precision, exactly where that point is and why?

[vodkafan]

I am quite clear about one thing in my mind. A fetus is not a human being. It's a potential human being. The law says it's not a human being until it is viable of living on its own if removed from the mother. But even then, a human baby born so prematurely at say, 24 weeks would have numerous things wrong with him/her. We are developing in the womb pretty much right until we are ready to come out.
So up until that time of viability, the law rightly places the choice of whether to carry on a pregnancy with the woman. Her moral reasons are her own business.

[fr0d0]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The argument here, as far as I can tell, is over the definition of personhood and when it is morally and/or legally allowed to kill a person. It has not been challenged that it is morally and/or legally impermissible to kill a living non-person. There is also confusion between what is a person and what is a 'human being.' I'm going to use these terms interchangeably and reserve the term 'human tissue' for flesh which has a complete human genome but is not a person.
The definition I've seen here used by Arthur123 is incorporated in the claim that the fertilized egg is a human being. Justification for this claim appears to lie in the property of that egg to potentially develop into a person/human being if properly cared for.

Both sperm and egg are not human beings, and neither are isolated human cells. Arthur is defending the rights of human beings.

My contra-example question revolves around whether or not it is permissible to terminate the tissue in, for example, his inner cheek which, if properly cared for, can potentially develop into a person/human through the technical process of cloning. As an 'isolated human cell' it shares the same potential as the fertilized egg and I question why it is not afforded the same legal and/or moral rights.

I hope this clarifies. In return, could you please explain further your claim that

The zygote is a human being according to science.

Your use of the phrase 'according to science,' is pretty vague.
.

I think personhood is a whole other subject. it confuses the issue here. I know the pro life brigade use it to leverage the legal argument.

Legally you can't murder a person. You can kill a human being. Abortion being one example. Arthurs stance is that all human killing is immoral.

There are scientific journals etc that endorse the idea that zygotes are human beings. I've linked them before and have neither time nor inclination right now to dig them out.

I hate the 'human cell is a potential human' argument. Your caveat of living human is good. Zygotes are actual living humans. Human cells are living human tissue. Never, no way, ever ever are human cells human beings. Just like human sperm and human eggs are not living human beings. They may contain the information to create a living human, but there's no 'life' to be taken.

[JuliaL]

Stem cells are constituent cells and have no potential by themselves to ever become a human being.

When you refer to an 'egg' are you perhaps referring to a turtle or crocodile?
A human egg has no more potential by itself than a stem cell to become a human being.

I have to go to my alternate reality now.
Till later...

[Heywood]

Stem cells are constituent cells and have no potential by themselves to ever become a human being. To become a human being a stem cell needs to be fused with an unfertilized egg(which has had it nucleolus removed). A stem cell requires the intervention of an intellect and the addition of outside parts. It isn't any more of a human being than a sperm.

Now if this intervention and addition of new parts occurred, you would have a human being. You would have something that can grow in the proper environment, reproduce, metabolize, maintain homeostasis, etc.

Please explain why the additional care and materials are required for the stem cell to gain protected status and not for the fertilized egg? Are you saying that at some, unexplained and seemingly arbitrary, point, the assemblage of chemicals which is the stem cell and additional materials added gains 'human being' status equivalent to the, again, justification unexplained, status of the fertilized egg? Can you explain, with precision, exactly where that point is and why?

Is the stem cell now a human being because it was fused with an unfertilized egg? Is the unfertilized egg now a human being because it was fused with a stem cell? These are misleading questions. The unfertilized egg and the stem cell are constituent parts.....that's it. Put those constituent parts together and now you have a human being. The stem cell doesn't gain protected status. The stem cell ceases to exist. A human being begins its existence. The product of this process gains "human being status" because the product of this process is a human being.

---

Arthurs stance is that all human killing is immoral.

My position is that killing human beings for convenience is immoral. I am pro-life, anti-capital punishment for this reason.