If Abortion becomes illegal in the US

[palerider]

If palerider did indeed use these words it suggests a religious argument after all despite his insistence that his argument is solely based on logic and science. Hmmmm. Well, palerider is this true?

Did I use the word spark? Yes. Did I use it in the context that mare suggests, no.

Here is the specific post.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18298&postcount=22

I have never denied that I have religious beliefs. They never enter into my argument, however. If I can prove my point without ever touching on religious belief, then what I believe simply meshes with what is.

If I have a religious belief that chilli peppers are hot, I can argue the fact that chilli peppers are hot without bringing my belief into the argument then what I believe is really not relavent to the fact that chilli peppers are hot.

 

[dahermit]

"spark"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChair General
But the point- and what Im trying to get to, is why is it wrong to kill an unborn?

Personally, I happen to believe in the principles laid out in our founding documents. That we do come into being with certain rights.

If, as you say, it is a game, and all our rights to live and be free are merely figments, I woud prefer to play the game than to live the alternative; the jungle. I have been there and don't care to go back. Today, right now, every unborn lives in the jungle. He or she can be killed anytime, without cause and without legal consequence.

I believe that there is something different in us, some spark if you will, that makes us different from every other species on the face of the earth and that spark, whatever you care to call it (if you care to name it at all) is why we can see that we have options. Eeither play the game as we do, or drop the game and join the animals.

Let me see if I have this right. Humans unlike all other animals have some yet undefined "spark" that allows them to be aware of their choices. This sounds to me to be intelligence. Be that so, if a living entity does not have this intelligence, then it is not human. Therefore, a zygote consisting of only eight or so cells (or more), does not produce brain waves, is not self aware, does not feel pain, is completely unaware of its choices...does not have the "spark" yet... is not human?

 

[9sublime]

Let me see if I have this right. Humans unlike all other animals have some yet undefined "spark" that allows them to be aware of their choices. This sounds to me to be intelligence. Be that so, if a living entity does not have this intelligence, then it is not human. Therefore, a zygote consisting of only eight or so cells (or more), does not produce brain waves, is not self aware, does not feel pain, is completely unaware of its choices...does not have the "spark" yet... is not human?

This is a great point. The human being has the potential to have this 'spark' and be a human, but it clearly does not possess this spark whilst in the womb. Therefore, by terminating it, you are not terminating the spark, but if you feel so strongly about the potential of the zygote, then maybe you shouldn't waste a single sperm that comes out of your body.

 

[dahermit]

A matter of development.

...The human being has the potential to have this 'spark' and be a human, but it clearly does not possess this spark whilst in the womb. Therefore, by terminating it, you are not terminating the spark,...

I do not necessarily agree. A few cell minus brain waves is one thing, a full term unborn is quite another.

 

[palerider]

Let me see if I have this right. Humans unlike all other animals have some yet undefined "spark" that allows them to be aware of their choices. This sounds to me to be intelligence. Be that so, if a living entity does not have this intelligence, then it is not human. Therefore, a zygote consisting of only eight or so cells (or more), does not produce brain waves, is not self aware, does not feel pain, is completely unaware of its choices...does not have the "spark" yet... is not human?

When did I ever say that? Following your logic, infants should not enjoy the protection of the law because they certainly aren't intelligent and won't be for quite some time. In fact, the presence of a brain does not indicate intelligence at all. The bulk of the brain's job is to regulate the body's systems, and interpret input from nerves, not to act as a seat for inteligence.

But if you believe that you have a point, in that without intelligence it is not a human being, I invite you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

To this point, you have seemed quite reasonable but the argument you have just put forward puts that reason into question.

 

[palerider]

This is a great point. The human being has the potential to have this 'spark' and be a human, but it clearly does not possess this spark whilst in the womb.

Newborns are not intelligent and will have no self awareness for at least a year. Should we withdraw the protection of the law from them? If yes, then you are consistent. If no, then clearly intelligence isn't why we offer them the protection of the law.

Therefore, by terminating it, you are not terminating the spark, but if you feel so strongly about the potential of the zygote, then maybe you shouldn't waste a single sperm that comes out of your body.

Sperm and zygotes are different things 9sublime. Sperm alone are of no more consequence than fingernail clippings. Zygotes, on the other hand, are human beings. If you don't understand the biology of human development, don't try and incorporate it into your argument. It just makes you look daft.

 

[9sublime]

If you hit a child round the head, it will cry. If you leave it on its own, it will cry. If you show it something interesting, it will be fascinated with it and laugh.

If you could show an early foetus anything, I can't imagine it doing much.

 

[palerider]

I do not necessarily agree. A few cell minus brain waves is one thing, a full term unborn is quite another.

Amazing how folks glom onto one word and build a whole imaginary position out of it. In order to deny unborns the protection of the law based on your "spark" argument, you would have to deny that protection to newborns as the only difference between them and unborns is geographical location and age.

 

[9sublime]

Sperm and zygotes are different things 9sublime. Sperm alone are of no more consequence than fingernail clippings. Zygotes, on the other hand, are human beings. If you don't understand the biology of human development, don't try and incorporate it into your argument. It just makes you look daft.

Zygotes are not human beings, they are not persons though. A person is defined as an indivudal, and a zygote is not an individual as it has no personality and cannot survive outside of the womb. A sperm has the potential to be a person, as does a zygote. However, they are not yet persons, they are developing human beings in a physical sense though.

 

[ilikeboobs]

Any society that kills its unborn isn't long for this world. That's just my religious belief.

If a woman wants to abort a part of her body, I'm all for it. But killing an unborn baby is not aborting a part of her body - it's killing a separate, living entity. Think I'm kidding?

When you look at a surgical table after a boy has been torn apart from it's mother, and you look down and see a penis, do you ask yourself whose penis that is? It's the mother's penis, right?

Don't be stupid.

Go ahead, women, abort your ears or your limbs or your mammaries...but leave the babies alone.

To the question of the thread, though - if abortion becomes illegal in the US, it will be a great day.

 

[palerider]

Zygotes are not human beings, they are not persons though. A person is defined as an indivudal, and a zygote is not an individual as it has no personality and cannot survive outside of the womb. A sperm has the potential to be a person, as does a zygote. However, they are not yet persons, they are developing human beings in a physical sense though.

Refer to any legal dictionary 9sublime. The definition of person is "a human being" or certain sorts of corporate entities but I don't believe anyone is suggesting that unborns are corporations.

Your definition of "person" simply isn't recognized in a court of law and my argument is based in the law.

Sperm and eggs represent the potential to create new life but alone, they will never be anything but what they are. Once they get together, however, and fertilization is complete, the potential of both sperm and egg are realized and you do indeed have a new human being.

I will gladly consider any credible science that you can provide that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. And feel free to refer to the legal dictionary for the definition of person. Since unborns are undeniably human beings, and in the eyes of the law, one only need be a human being in order to be a person. Well, you can do the math.

 

[palerider]

To the question of the thread, though - if abortion becomes illegal in the US, it will be a great day.

I like your sig line.

 

[top gun]

palerider;18548]

Quote:
Originally Posted by top gun
Therefore, by terminating it, you are not terminating the spark, but if you feel so strongly about the potential of the zygote, then maybe you shouldn't waste a single sperm that comes out of your body.

Sperm and zygotes are different things 9sublime. Sperm alone are of no more consequence than fingernail clippings. Zygotes, on the other hand, are human beings. If you don't understand the biology of human development, don't try and incorporate it into your argument. It just makes you look daft.

Obviously you've mixed something up again Pale. This was not my post and you're obviously answering to somebody else.

 

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by dahermit
Let me see if I have this right. Humans unlike all other animals have some yet undefined "spark" that allows them to be aware of their choices...

When did I ever say that?

Right here: https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/sho...8&postcount=22

Originally Posted by dahermit
This sounds to me to be intelligence. Be that so, if a living entity does not have this intelligence, then it is not human. Therefore, a zygote consisting of only eight or so cells (or more), does not produce brain waves, is not self aware, does not feel pain, is completely unaware of its choices...does not have the "spark" yet... is not human?

Following your logic, infants should not enjoy the protection of the law because they certainly aren't intelligent and won't be for quite some time. In fact, the presence of a brain does not indicate intelligence at all. The bulk of the brain's job is to regulate the body's systems, and interpret input from nerves, not to act as a seat for intelligence.
But if you believe that you have a point, in that without intelligence it is not a human being, I invite you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

I was just paraphrasing what you wrote in the cited post and then followed it with a question. I assumed that you intended the "spark" to be human intelligence. If that is not what you meant, I invite you to provide some credible science that states that some "spark" that only exists in a human zygote. (God help us...have we gotten to the point where we will suggest that that "spark" is a "soul" and this is a religious based discussion after all?)

Following your logic, infants should not enjoy the protection of the law...

That does not follow...I never mentioned law, I was discussing the scientific characteristics of a zygote.

To this point, you have seemed quite reasonable but the argument you have just put forward puts that reason into question.

I have not put forward an argument, I have been asking questions and asking for clarification. I am disappointed that you are choosing to respond in an emotional manner.

 

[palerider]

Obviously you've mixed something up again Pale. This was not my post and you're obviously answering to somebody else.

My error. That response was directed to 9sublime.

Of course your attempts at using wrong biology to support your position makes you look daft as well.