The beginnings of life, embyro = cancer?

[kallipolis]

The issue here is whether this potential life is an argument enough to deny a woman the right over her own body.

That a distinct human life is present in the womb of the pregnant mother does evidence the fact that it is not just the mother's rights that we are concerned with, but also the rights of the unborn baby.

The law of the land - per Roe v Wade, has determined that the mother is legally entitled to abort her child.

 

[bankside]

Then how do you explain all those human persons who have recovered from their comatose state and resume a normal life?

I would explain it by noting that these brains had the potential to resume consciousness.

Does a human brain cease to be human because it is temporarily rendered unconscious?

No; that's why it is irrelevant to a discussion of the beginnings and endings of human life. A brain which is actively conscious is human. A brain with the potential to resume consciousness is human. A brain which cannot sustain consciousness is not. The absence of a brain, due to tumour, hydrocele, etc, denies a prerequisite for human experience.

 

[bankside]

The issue here is whether this potential life is an argument enough to deny a woman the right over her own body.

Yes.

It's an issue of one life or two. The woman, as a responsible parent of a six-month old, will clearly be obliged to use her arms to pick up the child and tend to its needs. She has no choice over the use of her own body. If we establish that there is at some point a human being in utero then there is every reason to oblige her to use her uterus to care for the child just as we would oblige her to use her arms six months later. If she never picked up the child and never fed it because of a sense of personal autonomy and a right to not use her own body, we'd charge her with neglect or murder.

So, the question of when humanity inures in the sperm/ovum/embryo/fœtus/neonate is of critical importance, and the answer has varied from one century to another and one society to another.

I think we can now be guided by what science has revealed about consciousness and the potential for consciousness, so it's not really irrelevant to dwell in this "academic stuff."

 

[kallipolis]

I would explain it by noting that these brains had the potential to resume consciousness.



No; that's why it is irrelevant to a discussion of the beginnings and endings of human life. A brain which is actively conscious is human. A brain with the potential to resume consciousness is human. A brain which cannot sustain consciousness is not. The absence of a brain, due to tumour, hydrocele, etc, denies a prerequisite for human experience.

All comatose persons have the potential to resume consciousness, and most do.

The presence of a tumour in the brain does not evidence lack of a brain.

Many human persons with brain tumours have them surgically removed and after recovery resume a normal life. A few patients die.

 

[Semirhage666]

Were you in a state of unconsciousness (a coma) you would still remain a human person despite being dependent on other human beings to survive. Dependency on other human beings does not diminish your human life.

But the difference is that that unconscious person was undoubtedly a living human at one point, whereas calling something that has NEVER had a heart and NEVER had a brain an actual full human life is arguably erroneous.

If brain death (which is a stage at which one can arguably be considered no longer to be a "human life") is determined by the absence of certain neurological activity, then a logical argument to make is that "life" has not started until such activity is present.

 

[kallipolis]

Y
I think we can now be guided by what science has revealed about consciousness and the potential for consciousness, so it's not really irrelevant to dwell in this "academic stuff."

Do tell. I am an enthusiastic student.

 

[Semirhage666]

I'd really like an answer to my earlier if anyone could be bothered to get out of academic discussions...

You mean this one?

"The issue here is whether this potential life is an argument enough to deny a woman the right over her own body."


Absolutely not. I can kind of see curtailing abortion rights in the 3rd trimester, because at that point the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb, but the right to having an abortion for any reason until at LEAST the end of the 2nd trimester must be protected.

 

[kallipolis]

But the difference is that that unconscious person was undoubtedly a living human at one point, whereas calling something that has NEVER had a heart and NEVER had a brain an actual full human life is arguably erroneous.

If brain death (which is a stage at which one can arguably be considered no longer to be a "human life") is determined by the absence of certain neurological activity, then a logical argument to make is that "life" has not started until such activity is present.

An unconscious person remains a living human being.

That the vertebrae et al has yet to develop is not evidence that human life does not exist even at its most primitive development. There are simple tests that evidence that the mother is pregnant even within days of her conception.

That medical science cannot measure brain activity in a newly fertilised embryo is not evidence that human life is not present at its most primitive development.

That the fertilised egg develops into a recognisable human person informs us that at the earliest development of that human person's development there was present the necessary DNA for it to develop into its next stage of development.

 

[Semirhage666]

Yes.

It's an issue of one life or two. The woman, as a responsible parent of a six-month old, will clearly be obliged to use her arms to pick up the child and tend to its needs. She has no choice over the use of her own body. If we establish that there is at some point a human being in utero then there is every reason to oblige her to use her uterus to care for the child just as we would oblige her to use her arms six months later. If she never picked up the child and never fed it because of a sense of personal autonomy and a right to not use her own body, we'd charge her with neglect or murder.

But if she never wanted to be pregnant in the first place, I'd say that it's more immoral to encroach upon her right to autonomy than it is to allow her to abort, especially early on in the pregnancy. And parents who don't want to take care of their children are always free to give them up for adoption. Attempting to force children upon someone who doesn't want them does no one any good.

 

[bankside]

All comatose persons have the potential to resume consciousness, and most do.

The presence of a tumour in the brain does not evidence lack of a brain.

Many human persons with brain tumours have them surgically removed and after recovery resume a normal life. A few patients die.

As usual you are arguing against the things you would have found it convenient for me to have said.

 

[kallipolis]

But if she never wanted to be pregnant in the first place, I'd say that it's more immoral to encroach upon her right to autonomy than it is to allow her to abort, especially early on in the pregnancy. And parents who don't want to take care of their children are always free to give them up for adoption. Attempting to force children upon someone who doesn't want them does no one any good.

I'd say that destroying human life is immoral whereas, the convenience of the mother not to give birth to her baby is rather secondary.

 

[kallipolis]

As usual you are arguing against the things you would have found it convenient for me to have said.

You wrote them. Take responsibility for your words. I merely respond to your words.

 

[bankside]

You mean this one?

"The issue here is whether this potential life is an argument enough to deny a woman the right over her own body."


Absolutely not. I can kind of see curtailing abortion rights in the 3rd trimester, because at that point the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb, but the right to having an abortion for any reason until at LEAST the end of the 2nd trimester must be protected.

You can't say "absolutely not" and then agree to conditions where it would be appropriate to ban elective abortion. I'll take your answer as a "yes, we can ban it, in some circumstances."

So what would those circumstances be?

Okay, how about viability? If the baby is viable on its own, she has waited too long to enjoy the right to an abortion. Third trimester? Sure; lets begin there. Any exceptions or an outright ban? I think if they figure out the baby is anencephalic, then abortion should be legal up until the day before the due date.

 

[Semirhage666]

An unconscious person remains a living human being.

That the vertebrae et al has yet to develop is not evidence that human life does not exist even at its most primitive development. There are simple tests that evidence that the mother is pregnant even within days of her conception.

That medical science cannot measure brain activity in a newly fertilised embryo is not evidence that human life is not present at its most primitive development.

You argue that there's no evidence to prove it's not a human life, I argue that there's no evidence to prove it IS a human life. It's an extremely debatable subject.

What is NOT debatable is that the pregnant woman IS a person with rights, therefore, the law must err on the side of the woman until such a time in the pregnancy as most people can agree that the fetus deserves rights.

That the fertilised egg develops into a recognisable human person informs us that at the earliest development of that human person's development there was present the necessary DNA for it to develop into its next stage of development.

Yes, an individual and unique DNA pattern is there, however, there's no guarantee that that will result in a birth. There are many genetic disorders that will cause an automatic miscarriage. For instance, if a 3rd copy of any chromosome except 21 and two others is present, a miscarriage is guaranteed to occur, and a 3rd copy of those other two will result in a baby that will live no more than a year. Only a 3rd 21st chromosome will result in a person that will live, albeit with Downs.

So just because a unique DNA pattern is present does not mean a viable birth is present, and I would hardly say that a 3rd month miscarriage equals a human life having been in existence. If that was the case, women would have miscarriage funerals.

 

[Rolyo85]

I cannot agree with that stance, bankside. Until the baby is born, or at least at the first stages of development of the embryo, it is much more a part of the mother than a separate being. And I firmly believe at that stage it should be up to the woman to decide what she wants and what her conscience dictates. If a baby will completely ruin her life, who are we to say she HAS to carry it? Or even worse - what happens when the pregnancy is the result of rape? Are you seriously saying she should be forced to devote a year of her life carrying it? And then what? This is mental abuse. The psychological damage many women go through because of rape isn't something one needs to be reminded of by having the result of it grow inside you.

 

[Semirhage666]

You can't say "absolutely not" and then agree to conditions where it would be appropriate to ban elective abortion. I'll take your answer as a "yes, we can ban it, in some circumstances."

So what would those circumstances be?

Okay, how about viability? If the baby is viable on its own, she has waited too long to enjoy the right to an abortion. Third trimester? Sure; lets begin there. Any exceptions or an outright ban? I think if they figure out the baby is anencephalic, then abortion should be legal up until the day before the due date.

Well, honestly, in my personal opinion, I wouldn't really even have much of a problem with women aborting "just for funsies" after viability, but I know that such a position is not likely to be shared by many, so I was basically stating what I thought were the maximum possible restrictions. I would agree to "only if it presents a health risk to the mother to give birth or if the fetus has a serious defect like Downs." Any restrictions upon the 1st or 2nd trimester are just flat out unaceptable, and anything that forces a woman to give birth at a risk to her wellbeing or give birth to a child with a serious defect is also unacceptable.

 

[kallipolis]

You argue that there's no evidence to prove it's not a human life, I argue that there's no evidence to prove it IS a human life. It's an extremely debatable subject.

What is NOT debatable is that the pregnant woman IS a person with rights, therefore, the law must err on the side of the woman until such a time in the pregnancy as most people can agree that the fetus deserves rights.



Yes, an individual and unique DNA pattern is there, however, there's no guarantee that that will result in a birth. There are many genetic disorders that will cause an automatic miscarriage. For instance, if a 3rd copy of any chromosome except 21 and two others is present, a miscarriage is guaranteed to occur, and a 3rd copy of those other two will result in a baby that will live no more than a year. Only a 3rd 21st chromosome will result in a person that will live, albeit with Downs.

So just because a unique DNA pattern is present does not mean a viable birth is present, and I would hardly say that a 3rd month miscarriage equals a human life having been in existence. If that was the case, women would have miscarriage funerals.

The evidence that a newly fertilised egg develops into human life is your self, and all the other human beings who develop in the same manner. This is overwhelming evidence that cannot be discarded.

I am not discussing the nuances of the law of the land as it relates to abortion.

I am not discussing term limits on abortion.

I am not discussing deaths of babies in the their mothers' wombs as a result of factors unrelated to abortion.

All human life can terminate at any time in its journey through life. There is no set down period that human life abides by. Even three score, and ten is a broad estimate. People die at one year, twenty years, and one hundred years. And people die when they are in their mother's womb.

 

[kallipolis]

Until the baby is born, or at least at the first stages of development of the embryo, it is much more a part of the mother than a separate being. .

The baby has a distinct DNA different from its mother, and its father evidencing its status as an individual human person.

The baby after its birth still remains dependent upon its parents for all its needs to survive.

 

[Semirhage666]

The evidence that a newly fertilised egg develops into human life is your self, and all the other human beings who develop in the same manner. This is overwhelming evidence that cannot be discarded.

You said it right there. "Develops into." Not "Is."

Yes, a fertilized egg develops into human life. This is inarguable.

No, a fertilized egg is not automatically IN AND OF ITSELF a human life YET.

 

[kallipolis]

You said it right there. "Develops into." Not "Is."

Yes, a fertilized egg develops into human life. This is inarguable.

No, a fertilized egg is not automatically IN AND OF ITSELF a human life YET.

Human life is process of development physically, and mentally.

The person I was at my conception is not the person I became at my birth, or became during my teens, or have become during my middle age.

A fertilised egg is human life and you are an outcome of that fact of life.

At the beginning of your life's journey you also were a newly fertilised egg.