Support NeoGAF

[B-B-Bomba!]

This is a stupid law, making a pointless distinction that will probably only really do harm.

However, I am quite proud to have discovered, and be in a position to share the insight, that whether or not a person has a learning disability such as Down's syndrome, is 100% irrelevant to their personhood, and their ability to bring great, great value into your life.

Some of my favourite and most memorable characters I have ever met have Down's syndrome. It is a human condition, like blue eyes, ugly feet or perfect tits.

Raising a child with Down's syndrome does carry a cost. But living at all amongst the cannibalistic social policies of the United States is where the real difficulty lies. Tacit prejudice against people with learning disabilities is shameful.

Edit: ... May be more aggressive than I wanted. I'm hoping to persuade people to actually acknowledge and interrogate their own prejudices, not damn them for having them. Before ever living with people with learning disabilities, I also would have taken every opportunity to avoid them on any level, let alone be tied together for infinity ...

The pressing issue here is a truly idiotic bit of legislation. But please also take it from me: a person is a person, is a person, is a person. Picture the greatest friend you could ever have, and take it from me, there's no reason they shouldn't have Down's syndrome.

 

[Phased]

The pressing issue here is truly idiotic bit of legislation. But please also take it from me: a person is a person, is a person, is a person. Picture the greatest friend you could ever have, and take it from me, there's no reason they shouldn't have Down's syndrome.

I haven't seen anyone here arguing people with down syndrome are less of a person. Not a single one. All anybody here is arguing is whether it's ok for a woman to abort a pregnancy for any reason, including this, and the answer is a resounding yes.

What has been brought up is the considerable effort it takes over a "normal" baby, the strain that can put on the parents, and whether the parents are even willing to take that extra weight on. I think these are all valid things to ask yourself if the tests tell you that your baby will likely have down syndrome.

Whatever the mothers answer is, it's totally fine. If she chooses to keep it, that's fine. If she chooses not to, that's also fine. It is not a condemnation of Down Syndrome individuals if they choose to abort, it's a mature decision based on where you're at in your life and whether you think you are emotionally,financially and physically capable of the extra responsibility.

 

[Not]

I thought you couldn't ban abortions period. For 44 years now.

Fuck off, men

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

Whatever the mothers answer is, it's totally fine. If she chooses to keep it, that's fine. If she chooses not to, that's also fine. It is not a condemnation of Down Syndrome individuals if they choose to abort, it's a mature decision based on where you're at in your life and whether you think you are emotionally,financially and physically capable of the extra responsibility.

The mother's choice is sacrosanct in my view, I agree with that. We should be interested in defending those rights.

I'm just challenging the assumption that terminating a pregnancy for Downs syndrome is a logical, reasonable thing to do.

It's a tricky distinction, that I probably lack the intellect to articulate very well. The reason I'm doing this though, is because I know from my own experience that prejudice against people with learning disabilities is as real and deep seated as it is completely unfounded.

Parenting a child with Downs is hard because society makes it hard. Society is equally capable of removing any extra costs. The point I'm trying to make is that, if we agree the mother has the right to terminate for her own reasons up to a given date, the question of "why Downs" becomes something impersonal that we can address without pressure, and benefit greatly from the investigation. For me that means there's an opportunity to put the legal question aside, and just make the case that people with Downs are proportionally more awesome than people without. If you have the opportunity to get to know someone with Downs, I highly recommend capitalising on this good fortune.

 

[Replicant]

Real life GATTACA is here already? Welcome to your new gorgeous overlords.

 

[flaxknuckles]

Damn why did I just have a conversation with my mother about this? I should know by now not to talk to her about anything that's even slightly a heavy subject. Damn you gaf for posting this thread and damn the liberal in me.

It's annoying to see people who don't have children with down syndrome or only know somebody else with a child like that trying to demonize those who are in favor of abortion in those situations. Those people should be forced to raise one themselves for a year.

 

[PdotMichael]

What??

Oldest? People didn't know what the fuck fertilization was for a while. Most basic? What does that even mean?

A fertilized zygote is a cell. There is nothing magical that gives it any value to anyone other than the person whose body it's in.

The fact that you think the concept of egg fertilization is in any way "old" shows just how little you understand about biology and history.

Is the basic definition of the zero point in most classic biology books - which appears to be quite important because people can't stop talking about "basic biology". There isn't much to discuss about it.

Your definition is just as arbitrary as anyone else's. All that is left to do is to figure out which arbitrary line is the most ideal. Me personally, when the baby is born because that is when sentience begins.

My definition can't be arbitrary because I refuse that concept.

There is the defined zero point aka the beginning of life in biology and anything else is a subjective opnion. There is nothing wrong to be aware of that while using the right of abortion.

 

[Platy]

This is a new page so I can't just recomend Eye for an Eye's incredible informative post last page that basicaly explains that most birth defects can only be known for sure when MOST abortions already happened.

So basicaly they are fighting against less than 1% of the abortions ! And you only put a law against an 1% of something when you want to create a precedent to expand those per cent later....

 

[excelsiorlef]

Is the basic definition of the zero point in most classic biology books - which appears to be quite important because people can't stop talking about "basic biology". There isn't much to discuss about it.



My definition can't be arbitrary because I refuse that concept.

There is the defined zero point aka the beginning of life in biology and anything else is a subjective opnion. There is nothing wrong to be aware of that while using the right of abortion.

The definitive point of life is birth.

Period.

 

[PdotMichael]

The definitive point of life is birth.

Period.

Writing Period doesn't replace any form of arguments.

I just read the quote “I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.” which I think it nails it quite well. But from a sciencetific point your "Period" supported claim is plain wrong.

 

[User1608]

I want to throw my opinion out here. For me it's such a difficult subject... I'm Catholic, so it has painted and shaped many of my beliefs. I am pro-choice, because in the end, it's the mother's body, her choice. We all know much of the pro-life crowd doesn't give a fuck about the child once they are born, especially those in positions of power. And this new restriction is dumb. Growing up some of my greatest friends had DS, and they were among the sweetest, most gentle and caring people I knew. I really hope they're doing well, and I have much respect for mothers, parents who choose to give birth and raise children with DS. I also respect if they choose to abort the child. It is never an easy choice, that much is for certain. The subject is just so heavy for me. I love babies and children.

Anyway, stuff like this is anti-woman and will only cause more pain.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

I want to throw my opinion out here. For me it's such a difficult subject... I'm Catholic, so it has painted and shaped many of my beliefs. I am pro-choice, because in the end, it's the mother's body, her choice. We all know much of the pro-life crowd doesn't give a fuck about the child once they are born, especially those in positions of power. And this new restriction is dumb. Growing up some of my greatest friends had DS, and they were among the sweetest, most gentle and caring people I knew. I really hope they're doing well, and I have much respect for mothers, parents who choose to give birth and raise children with DS. I also respect if they choose to abort the child. It is never an easy choice, that much is for certain. The subject is just so heavy for me. I love babies and children.

Anyway, stuff like this is anti-woman and will only cause more pain.

Catholics for Choice -
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/abortion/documents/LisbonSummit-Fisher.pdf

The political context of abortion: ‘You are the person responsible for the loss; abortion suggests the baby is unwanted’ (5) Many women facing a diagnosis of fetal anomaly find that their stance on abortion in the abstract changes in the complex reality of what it means for their prospective child and their own future. We speak regularly to women on our helpline who define themselves as anti-abortion and are anxious to differentiate themselves from those who end pregnancies for non-medical reasons.
The fact that ‘termination’ is the term consistently used in this context illustrates the emphasis on the medical grounds and perhaps an attempt to avoid the stigma associated with ‘abortion’.
Psychologically many women struggle to reconcile their concept of themselves as a mother carrying a desired baby with the decision to terminate:

Final thoughts: Supporting women who terminate a pregnancy for fetal anomaly In the midst of the context outlined above is an individual woman reeling from the intense shock inherent in the news of fetal anomaly. Suddenly her world is shattered as she is no longer expecting the healthy baby around whom she had built her hopes and expectations. In a state of emotional turmoil she has to negotiate a way forward that she knows will be life changing.
Some women take longer than others to come to a decision. It will always be painful; it will often feel almost impossible to envisage two apparently equally onerous potential outcomes. Our work at ARC and published evidence tells us, even in these extreme circumstances, that women are able to make the choices that are right for them and to live with these choices:
This was the most dreadful thing we have ever been through in our lives. The grief, the emotional pain and the shock were overpowering. But even through this truly terrible time we felt a sense of gratitude that we had the choice to end the pregnancy. We felt and still feel that we made the right decision for us, but also, importantly, for her. (7)
Expectant parents are best placed to decide what they can cope with and what they want their child to cope with, and should be able to depend on our unequivocal support and compassion for their choices.

 

[Irminsul]

Parenting a child with Downs is hard because society makes it hard. Society is equally capable of removing any extra costs. The point I'm trying to make is that, if we agree the mother has the right to terminate for her own reasons up to a given date, the question of "why Downs" becomes something impersonal that we can address without pressure, and benefit greatly from the investigation. For me that means there's an opportunity to put the legal question aside, and just make the case that people with Downs are proportionally more awesome than people without. If you have the opportunity to get to know someone with Downs, I highly recommend capitalising on this good fortune.

This paragraph reads as if you think there should be more people with Downs because it's not really a disability, it's something that makes people better. I'm not sure that's something I could agree with.

Also, you honestly think only society is the reason raising children with Downs is hard? What? I'd argue there's quite a lot that's pretty independent of society.

But in the end I'm still not sure why we're even discussing living people with Downs. This topic is about abortion, and there are no implications this discussion should have on how we treat living people. Conversly, how we treat living people should have no implications on how we try to work against illnesses of all kinds. Surely, genetic ones are also part of that.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

I am trying to say something marginally radical, depending on your own point of view, I think.

I'm moving the conversation onto people with Downs because I believe it's more fertile & interesting territory. The legislative argument has no legs because it seems most people agree that it's pretty fucked up.

But there is still a basic assumption - present in your post, too - that Downs is in the category of illnesses, disabilities and impairments; something to be avoided if possible; burdened with if necessary or if one is brave or foolhardy.

My life has been better, and I am a better person, for having lived & worked alongside people with Downs. I do not think it should be cured. The people I lived with could present challenges, but they also presented many unique delights. Hence I said they are better people, because, of those I've met, I'd estimate that a higher proportion of people with Downs, versus us conventional sorts, were superb human beings.

This goes for people with all kinds of learning disability. They don't require martyrdom of sainthood from us; they just require humanity, plus maybe a careful selection of extra resources. In the UK the state is legally bound to provide those extra resources, much like healthcare, because for the time being at least, we live in a right thinking socially progressive democracy.

So my intent is to change the whole tragic angle on Downs syndrome and encourage people to think about how they could make their own lives more inclusive.

My intent is also to get some sleep, but thank you for the opportunity to keep posting.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Yeah....this is bad. It should be a choice and up to the women if she wants to raise a Down Sydrome kid.

Simplified it for you.

The mother's choice is sacrosanct in my view, I agree with that. We should be interested in defending those rights.

I'm just challenging the assumption that terminating a pregnancy for Downs syndrome is a logical, reasonable thing to do.

What about terminating a pregnancy because "well, I don't want kids now"? Is that OK?

Answer: yes, yes it is. Sooooo....

 

[manueldelalas]

First of all, you're gonna need to back up this assertion with evidence. The CIA world factbook and World Bank Data disagree with you. Now I did find this one source from 2012 (not as recent as World Bank) corroborating your claim, however, even that one source clearly shows that Canada is well above Chile (which is barely 2 points above the USA, btw), and Canada has full legal access to abortion.

So, even if your dubiously-substantiated claim is true, it doesn't prove anything.


Pretty ironic statement right there.

Well yeah, when you take sources that are based on models and extrapolation, you get those results. When you do an actual study, you get the true results.

But the fact is that it doesn't matter. Chile has proven that access to abortion is not a huge factor when trying to get down your MMR.

Even if you disregard the study I showed you, I have to remind you that Chile is a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, inequality here is WORSE than in the USA, our GDP per capita is 2/5ths or 1/3rd that of the USA or Canada, our poor people is more in percentage and poorer than your poor people; and our centralized health system is a lot worse, yet we get comparable MMR with the USA, and are on our way to reach that of fully developed countries.

Returning to my original line of thought though, I really think visibility is what is needed in this cases. Abortion? that certainly plays against visibility.

What makes a 9 month old fetus "abortable" and a newborn sacred (in this very thread)? Visibility; they are virtually the same human being, there is nothing fundamentally chganged; one is more visible.

What makes a 2 month and 29 days fetus abortable and a 3 months and 1 day fetus non abortable in many countries? Again, visibility; the change from 2 months and 29 days, and 3 months and 1 day is basically zero, it's the same human being, but the average 0-3 months fetus is much less visible than your 3-6 month fetus, or your 6-9 month old fetus.

What makes having a Down syndrome kids in countries with few of them being an unbearable choice, while having a Down kid in countries with a ton of them a hard but manageable thing? Visibility; when people learn that people with disabilities or different conditions are the same as you and have the same rights, people begin to take action. If you have one kid with a disability in your neighborhood, natural response is "why didn't you abort, or take action before"; if there are 10 in the same neighborhood, the response is another "we have to take action, it could happen to me".

I have no doubt in my mind that in the future abortion will be banned in the world and will be seen as a relic of the past, just like war slaves or slavery in general, legal infanticide. The world rate of abortions has dropped dramatically since the 90s, and abortion laws everywhere are getting more and more restrictive, and yes, the strategy of pro lifers is to make it an impossible choice to make, and I personally agree with that strategy; closing abortion hospitals, and banning abortions because of reasons like this, or because the fetus is the wrong sex, etc, is a much better strategy than trying to ban abortion as a whole.

I would also like to add that the discussion if a fetus or baby is a person or not is very interesting to me, but has been taken by pro life and pro choice arguments (person is, IMO, a mental invention of pro choice people to support their arbitrary date of abortion, which can vary according to their convenience, place they live, etc).

If we completely separate the discussions, and want to understand what makes us human special, what is the point when we are definitely separated from the rest of the animals, what makes us unique; I would say a person starts at about 4 years old (may vary per individual); when you can attribute false believes to others (i.e. Sally-Anne test, something no animal in the world can ever understand).

FTR, that doesn't mean I support killing child less than 4 years; I don't support killing of human beings, and human beings, scientifically speaking, start at conception.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

Bomba,
You seem to be from the UK, which overall has much better resources to those living there no matter the income level.

The financial stuggles, the healthcare struggles, the limited resources are very much a real thing here in America. I grew up on the poor end of things. I saw how it was for my brother receiving medicaid care. Sure his early years were painted with this bright, happy brush that his life could be better. But the older he got, the more he stayed the same, the less resources were available to him. And overall the less people treated him as a person. I didn't grow up seeing my brother as some amazing, kind person. We were siblings, we got in fights, we had our moments, but I also learned the worst in society. The stares, the snide remarks, the disgust, and the abuse from those that were supposed to help.

Abortions are not going to eradicate disabilities. It will not eradicate Down's. It allows women the choice of how they want to grow their families. There will always be people who choose to terminate and those who choose to continue the pregnancy. It's a personal choice.

And just a few decades ago before prenatal testing could detect these things, many of these children wound up institutionalized and and in massive group homes where their needs were not met. And these places still exist.

 

[FyreWulff]

What makes a 9 month old fetus "abortable" and a newborn sacred (in this very thread)?

I don't think I've seen anyone talk about abortions at 9 months. Partly because it'd be super fucking stupid to do so since all potential damage to the body has already happened at that point.

FTR, that doesn't mean I support killing child less than 4 years; I don't support killing of human beings, and human beings, scientifically speaking, start at conception.

Scientifically, half of our starter genes already existed for 20-40 years, the other half existed for about a week.

Scientifically, the damage and risk an early fetus causes is much less. In fact, nature aborts 70% of all pregnancies at the conception stage or later, humans add a whole 1% to that.

You also have to also accept that pregnancy isn't free. Pregnancy can result in death for the woman, or permanent disability. Some women's hips aren't wide or big enough to safely birth a child, and C sections aren't without their risks since they're literally slicing through your abdomen and muscle to get at the baby.

I have no doubt in my mind that in the future abortion will be banned in the world and will be seen as a relic of the past, just like war slaves or slavery in general, legal infanticide. The world rate of abortions has dropped dramatically since the 90s, and abortion laws everywhere are getting more and more restrictive, and yes, the strategy of pro lifers is to make it an impossible choice to make, and I personally agree with that strategy; closing abortion hospitals, and banning abortions because of reasons like this, or because the fetus is the wrong sex, etc, is a much better strategy than trying to ban abortion as a whole.

All banning abortion does or making it difficult to get does is push abortions back to alleyways and apartments. Out of sight and out of mind. Know what's a lot more effective at dropping the amount of abortions? Complete low cost or free access to contraceptives, education programs, and the improvement and extension of women's rights. Plus 100% paid and guaranteed prenatal care and postnatal childcare, food support, and so on. But most anti-abortionists are also anti-women and don't want women even having access to goddamn condoms. They want sex to be needlessly and pointlessly dangerous to women so that they "know their place" as broodmares for their husband. You'll keep wanting to ban abortion while it's already proven that just adding free condoms to an area drops the abortion rate substantially. if you want to get rid of abortion you must start by caring about children once they leave the vagina.

It's absolutely sickening that people think they should make a decision for a woman about her own body. They literally must put everything on the line to even complete a pregnancy. It's not my choice to make as a man; this is one of those things in life where the genders are absolutely not of equal standing in their stakes in the matter.

 

[J Range]

Why anybody thinks they have any right to cast their opinions as law on other peoples lives is beyond me. If you feel like that, dont choose to abort your autistic baby. To most people, having an autistic baby will absolutely ruin their lives. So they NEED to have every right to protect their happiness and financial stability.

I would up and move out of Indiana over night.

 

[boiled goose]

Is the basic definition of the zero point in most classic biology books - which appears to be quite important because people can't stop talking about "basic biology". There isn't much to discuss about it.

My definition can't be arbitrary because I refuse that concept.

There is the defined zero point aka the beginning of life in biology and anything else is a subjective opnion. There is nothing wrong to be aware of that while using the right of abortion.

It is simply not that clear cut. "the beginning of life" is not simple.
Was a sperm and an egg cell "dead" before the sperm fertilized the egg? Nope.

As someone who does research in biology I can guarantee you that most biologists are heavily pro choice. We can look up the stats if you want. Why is it that the people who understand biology the best disagree with your conclusion?
Hint: because you don't understand things as well as you think.

Well yeah, when you take sources that are based on models and extrapolation, you get those results. When you do an actual study, you get the true results.

But the fact is that it doesn't matter. Chile has proven that access to abortion is not a huge factor when trying to get down your MMR.

Even if you disregard the study I showed you, I have to remind you that Chile is a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, inequality here is WORSE than in the USA, our GDP per capita is 2/5ths or 1/3rd that of the USA or Canada, our poor people is more in percentage and poorer than your poor people; and our centralized health system is a lot worse, yet we get comparable MMR with the USA, and are on our way to reach that of fully developed countries.

Returning to my original line of thought though, I really think visibility is what is needed in this cases. Abortion? that certainly plays against visibility.

What makes a 9 month old fetus "abortable" and a newborn sacred (in this very thread)? Visibility; they are virtually the same human being, there is nothing fundamentally chganged; one is more visible.

What makes a 2 month and 29 days fetus abortable and a 3 months and 1 day fetus non abortable in many countries? Again, visibility; the change from 2 months and 29 days, and 3 months and 1 day is basically zero, it's the same human being, but the average 0-3 months fetus is much less visible than your 3-6 month fetus, or your 6-9 month old fetus.

What makes having a Down syndrome kids in countries with few of them being an unbearable choice, while having a Down kid in countries with a ton of them a hard but manageable thing? Visibility; when people learn that people with disabilities or different conditions are the same as you and have the same rights, people begin to take action. If you have one kid with a disability in your neighborhood, natural response is "why didn't you abort, or take action before"; if there are 10 in the same neighborhood, the response is another "we have to take action, it could happen to me".

I have no doubt in my mind that in the future abortion will be banned in the world and will be seen as a relic of the past, just like war slaves or slavery in general, legal infanticide. The world rate of abortions has dropped dramatically since the 90s, and abortion laws everywhere are getting more and more restrictive, and yes, the strategy of pro lifers is to make it an impossible choice to make, and I personally agree with that strategy; closing abortion hospitals, and banning abortions because of reasons like this, or because the fetus is the wrong sex, etc, is a much better strategy than trying to ban abortion as a whole.

I would also like to add that the discussion if a fetus or baby is a person or not is very interesting to me, but has been taken by pro life and pro choice arguments (person is, IMO, a mental invention of pro choice people to support their arbitrary date of abortion, which can vary according to their convenience, place they live, etc).

If we completely separate the discussions, and want to understand what makes us human special, what is the point when we are definitely separated from the rest of the animals, what makes us unique; I would say a person starts at about 4 years old (may vary per individual); when you can attribute false believes to others (i.e. Sally-Anne test, something no animal in the world can ever understand).

FTR, that doesn't mean I support killing child less than 4 years; I don't support killing of human beings, and human beings, scientifically speaking, start at conception.

This has a fucking mess of arguments.

There are two separate discussions to be had between a 9 month old fetus and a zygote or early embryo.

To me, the abortion of zygotes or early embryos is trivial. Who cares? It is a freaking lump of cells. It only has value to the woman who is carrying the embryo. There is NO RATIONAL BASIS for preventing abortions of zygotes and early embryos that don't have a single brain cell. No brain, no thoughts, no feelings, no value, when it comes to making moral judgements as part of our social contract.

No, late stage fetus are a different discussion.A baby that is born vs a fetus that is not born is a very easy distinction. Society has decided that babies will be taken care of by society after they are born. There is no reason for the parents or anyone to kill that baby. It is affecting no one other than itself. That is easy.

So now we get to the more difficult cases. Late stage abortion. Most countries have some restrictions and that is fine. By that point the procedure becomes risky for the mother. I am personally ok with abortion in all cases. Why? I value individual body autonomy. I find it disgusting the idea that the government or you can force a fully grown thinking woman to remain pregnant against her consent. That is not valuing life, that is giving extra rights to fetuses. Do adults have the right to latch on to a woman's uterus and stay there sucking out resources and endangering her health against her consent? Nope. What is the RATIONAL BASIS to give this extra right to effectively non thinking fetuses over fully thinking adult humans with lives, goals, values? There is no rational basis.

If the fetus is late enough to be viable outside the womb and can be safely removed? That is a question for society, doctors, and the women carrying the child to sort out. Me personally? I will side with the will of thinking adults over fetuses any day. Morally, there is no basis for the other side. Fetuses are not moral agents that are part of our social contract.

I'm not really sure how to get away from the law books when the thing we are discussing is law and policy.

The only case I can make is theoretical. If every woman decided tomorrow that they were not willing to carry female children to term the human race would cease to exist. That is an apocalyptic nightmare scenario and not reality, though there are areas of the world where male infants far outnumber girls for non-natural reasons. The only reason I bring it up is to indicate that there are actual moral and practical issues involved which at some point can coalesce enough to trump bodily autonomy in this limited regard.

And that's it. I agree that this law is misguided at best and impossible to enforce even if it weren't. The only point I have been trying to make is that an absolutist perspective on this issue that just "whatevers" these questions away doesn't help anybody.

You know what is a nightmare scenario? The imaginary scenario where all women decide that they don't want to get pregnant anymore and people like you would then want to force them to get pregnant. Yeah, that's called rape. Individual liberties exist for a reason. I humanity ceases to exist who cares? There would be no brains caring. Morality exists as a social contract between thinking agents. No thinking agents, no morality.

 

[PdotMichael]

It is simply not that clear cut. "the beginning of life" is not simple.
Was a sperm and an egg cell "dead" before the sperm fertilized the egg? Nope.

As someone who does research in biology I can guarantee you that most biologists are heavily pro choice. We can look up the stats if you want. Why is it that the people who understand biology the best disagree with your conclusion?
Hint: because you don't understand things as well as you think.

Did I claim anything else?

And as someone who does research in biology you should know that sperm and egg are alive in the same sense as our cells are alive. They aren't fullfilling the necessary criteria for life. So either I'm missing your higher point or we both are pretty close at not understanding things.
Everyone who knows a little bit of biology knows that the question about pro-life or pro-choice isn't a biological one.

 

[Neo C.]

if anyone gives a shit about a woman's right to choose then they better not vote a republican into office come november. This shit is only going to get worse if that happens

And don't forget to vote for midterms too, because the reason you got fucked now was made years ago.

 

[boiled goose]

Did I claim anything else?

And as someone who does research in biology you should know that sperm and egg are alive in the same sense as our cells are alive. They aren't fullfilling the necessary criteria for life. So either I'm missing your higher point or we both are pretty close at not understanding things.
Everyone who knows a little bit of biology knows that the question about pro-life or pro-choice isn't a biological one.

Now you basically backed up yourself into a wall.
Does a zygote satisfy the necessary criteria for life more than a sperm (or you want to nitpick a stem cell) does?

Bam.

A zygote is just as "alive" as any other cell. It is not more alive haha.

 

[PdotMichael]

Now you basically backed up yourself into a wall.
Does a zygote satisfy the necessary criteria for life more than a sperm does?

Bam.

A zygote is, biologically speaking, a human being in an early stage of development.

That many countries allowing zygotes to be used for research isn't a biological question but a result of ethical, legal and if you want religious discussions.

 

[boiled goose]

A zygote is, biologically speaking, a human being in an early stage of development.

That many countries allowing zygotes to be used for research isn't a biological question but a result of ethical, legal and if you want religious discussions.

Now you are changing the argument I see.
Explain to me how, under the criteria for "living" a zygote is more alive than a stem cell?

You second point is a strange argument from authority logical fallacy. What the laws are is irrelevant to the question of whether a zygote is more alive than a stem cell.

Religious discussion? Let's stick to the facts. You are arguing science. Let's keep it that way.

 

[PdotMichael]

Now you are changing the argument I see.
Explain to me how, under the criteria for "living" a zygote is more alive than a stem cell?

You second point is a strange argument from authority logical fallacy. What the laws are is irrelevant to the question of whether a zygote is more alive than a stem cell.

Religious discussion? Let's stick to the facts. You are arguing science. Let's keep it that way.

I'm not changing my arguments. There is also no reason for ad hominem.

And as someone who does research in biology we don't need the "discussion" why stem cells aren't life and why biology alone can't answer the question if and until what point abortion is acceptable that isn't its field.

 

[boiled goose]

I'm not changing my arguments. There is also no reason for ad hominem.

And as someone who does research in biology we don't need the "discussion" why stem cells aren't life and why biology alone can't answer the question if and until what point abortion is acceptable that isn't its field.

Where is the ad hominem??
What?? Your argument was that biology said that conception was the start of life. You need to demonstrate how biology says that a zygote is alive when a stem cell isnt.

That was your argument!!

If we are moving away from biology then concede on the biology and we can Move onto ethics and morality.

 

[PdotMichael]

Where is the ad hominem??
What?? Your argument was that biology said that conception was the start of life. You need to demonstrate how biology says that a zygote is alive when a stem cell isnt.

That was your argument!!

If we are moving away from biology then concede on the biology and we can Move onto ethics and morality.

Your claim was that zygote is the same like a bunch of random cells, sperm etc.. It would be nice if you can provide some arguments for your claim before expecting it from other people.

And the limits of natural science is well known. You can get out of biology that zygote is the first step for life but you can't get arguments when your artifical and highly subjective definition when being human begins out of biology - several cultures had all kinds of different definitions for it from quickening to some time after birth.
That's a question for other disciplines.

 

[psynergylover]

Human life is precious. As long as it's American. Middle Eastern kids killed by drones? Shit happens. Deporting children from Central America back to their country to face certain death? Oh well, we've gotta protect our borders. Mother needs financial help because she can't really get a job while caring for a child as a single woman? Too bad, should have thought about that before sex. No food stamps or welfare for you. Syrian children fleeing the rubble caused by our destabilization of the region? Sorry, we don't want you here.

Dropping dem truth bombs

 

[boiled goose]

Your claim was that zygote is the same like a bunch of random cells, sperm etc.. It would be nice if you can provide some arguments for your claim before expecting it from other people.

And the limits of natural science is well known. You can get out of biology that zygote is the first step for life but you can't get arguments when your artifical and highly subjective definition when being human begins out of biology - several cultures had all kinds of different definitions for it from quickening to some time after birth.
That's a question for other disciplines.

What are you even talking about?

You said that biology said life started at conception. It's clear you failed there and are no moving to other arguments.

We're done here son. Folks reading our discussion can clearly see how it went down.

 

[PdotMichael]

What are you even talking about?

You said that biology said life started at conception. It's clear you failed there and are no moving to other arguments.

We're done here son. Folks reading our discussion can clearly see how it went down.

Nice job... I guess.

And also I didn't say that life started at conception but that's what you can read in basically every biology textbook.
But nice to know that they are all wrong.

 

[boiled goose]

Nice job... I guess.

And also I didn't say that life started at conception but that's what you can read in basically every biology textbook.
But nice to know that they are all wrong.

Religious biology textbooks?
If textbooks actually said that then yeah, they are wrong.

Find me one college level textbook that actually says that and Ill be shocked.

 

[Necromanti]

And as someone who does research in biology we don't need the "discussion" why stem cells aren't life and why biology alone can't answer the question if and until what point abortion is acceptable that isn't its field.

What do you mean? Or rather, what is your definition of "life"?

 

[PdotMichael]

Religious biology textbooks?
If textbooks actually said that then yeah, they are wrong.

Find me one college level textbook that actually says that and Ill be shocked.

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

And my German biology university textbook says

"Mit der Befruchtung der Eizelle beginnt die Entwicklung."

"Biologie für Einsteiger - Prinzipien des Lebens verstehen, 2nd edition. Olaf Fritsche"

Which is maybe quite interesting because a German textbook shouldn't be stuck between the pro-life & pro-choice discussion.

What do you mean? Or rather, what is your definition of "life"?

They are alive like all the cells in our body but don't fulfil the criteria for life.

 

[Necromanti]

They are alive like all the cells in our body but don't fulfil the criteria for life.

Which (subjective) criterion in particular do they not meet?

Also, your quotes above mention the beginning of human development as occurring post-fertilization, which kind of goes without saying.

 

[PdotMichael]

Which (subjective) criterion in particular do they not meet?

Also, your quotes above mention the beginning of human development as occurring post-fertilization, which kind of goes without saying.

Stuff like metabolism, reproduction, genetic variation.

And that's also the point of the discussion the developement of life begins with fertizilation. You don't think a text book that compares any stage post-zygote with a tumor like it happened in this thread.

 

[Necromanti]

Stuff like metabolism, reproduction, genetic variation.

And that's also the point of the discussion the developement of life begins with fertizilation. You don't think a text book that compares any stage post-zygote with a tumor like it happened in this thread.

If stem cells didn't metabolize nutrients, they'd die, and there are species that propagate via asexual reproduction (at the expense of genetic variation). And though stem cells can't "reproduce", they can certainly self-renew. It's not so binary, either.

My issue with it was that, "When does life begin?" tends to be more of a philosophical and/or religious question than a biological one, albeit being slightly informed by the latter. Otherwise, the answer would be

Spoiler

at some point billion of years ago

.

 

[PdotMichael]

If stem cells didn't metabolize nutrients, they'd die, and there are species that propagate via asexual reproduction (at the expense of genetic variation). And though stem cells can't "reproduce", they can certainly self-renew. It's not so binary, either.

My issue with it was that, "When does life begin?" tends to be more of a philosophical and/or religious question than a biological one, albeit being slightly informed by the latter. Otherwise, the answer would be

Spoiler

at some point billion of years ago

.

The question when human personhood begins is inded a philosophical question. Biology and the other natural sciences can't answer that but can at best only provides facts to help to form an opinion.

Saying that abortion until week xx is okay because the embryo can't do this and that is arbitrary. People need to be aware of that and that any arguments based on "basic biology" is flawed.

 

[boiled goose]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

And my German biology university textbook says

"Mit der Befruchtung der Eizelle beginnt die Entwicklung."

"Biologie für Einsteiger - Prinzipien des Lebens verstehen, 2nd edition. Olaf Fritsche"

Which is maybe quite interesting because a German textbook shouldn't be stuck between the pro-life & pro-choice discussion.



They are alive like all the cells in our body but don't fulfil the criteria for life.

None of those say that fertilization is the beginning of life...

Under the strict definitions of life a zygote and a stem cell are equally "living".

Now you are right biology doesn't tell us what laws to make.

When should personhood be granted?
Granting personhood to a zygote is pretty silly. What's the rational basis for giving rights to a single cell?

We grant personhood to moral agents. Aka thinking beings. Brain required.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

But the fact is that it doesn't matter. Chile has proven that access to abortion is not a huge factor when trying to get down your MMR.

You're the one who repeatedly brought up MMR as if it meant anything.

Even if you disregard the study I showed you, I have to remind you that Chile is a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, inequality here is WORSE than in the USA, our GDP per capita is 2/5ths or 1/3rd that of the USA or Canada, our poor people is more in percentage and poorer than your poor people; and our centralized health system is a lot worse, yet we get comparable MMR with the USA, and are on our way to reach that of fully developed countries.

Good for you. I'd still rather live in a country with full access to abortion than Chile because I value my rights as a woman.

I have no doubt in my mind that in the future abortion will be banned in the world and will be seen as a relic of the past, just like war slaves or slavery in general, legal infanticide.

....Wow.
Comparing abortion to slavery and infanticide. Amazing. That's gotta be the craziest, most offensive thing I've read today.
And uh, I'd suggest you start having doubts because progress in a country means access to abortion. You're pretty delusional.

The world rate of abortions has dropped dramatically since the 90s,

And that's not because abortions are getting more restric --

and abortion laws everywhere are getting more and more restrictive,

Ugh, no. That's actually just in the USA and it's counter-productive.

Better education and better healthcare and contraceptive options for women is what reduces abortion rates, not more restrictions. This has been shown time and time again.

 

[boiled goose]

You're the one who repeatedly brought up MMR as if it meant anything.


Good for you. I'd still rather live in a country with full access to abortion than Chile because I value my rights as a woman.


....Wow.
Comparing abortion to slavery and infanticide. Amazing. That's gotta be the craziest, most offensive thing I've read today.
And uh, I'd suggest you start having doubts because progress in a country means access to abortion. You're pretty delusional.


And that's not because abortions are getting more restric --

Ugh, no. That's actually just in the USA and it's counter-productive.

Better education and better healthcare and contraceptive options for women is what reduces abortion rates, not more restrictions. This has been shown time and time again.

Yeah that was quite a joke. The progressive position is banning abortions?? Talk about looney delusion. Wow.

Progressive counties allow abortion. Regressive religious countries ban it. Talk about myopic.

This guy is not worth talking to anymore. He is delusional.

 

[BlastProcessing]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

And my German biology university textbook says

"Mit der Befruchtung der Eizelle beginnt die Entwicklung."

"Biologie für Einsteiger - Prinzipien des Lebens verstehen, 2nd edition. Olaf Fritsche"

Which is maybe quite interesting because a German textbook shouldn't be stuck between the pro-life & pro-choice discussion.



They are alive like all the cells in our body but don't fulfil the criteria for life.

Wait, do you really not understand what your textbook actually says?

I am constantly shocked by people's capacity for self deception.

There is a reason that the specific word "development" is used.

 

[PdotMichael]

Wait, do you really not understand what your textbook actually says?

I am constantly shocked by people's capacity for self deception.

There is a reason that the specific word "development" is used.

You are free to provide some arguments.

"Human development is the process of growing to maturity. In biological terms, this entails growth from a one-celled zygote to an adult human being." - wikipedia

The question if it already life is already answered because the human fulfils all criteria of life.

 

[ElTorro]

A cucumber is alive too. Being alive is not the aspect that guides an ethical evaluation of this issue. The important aspect is personhood, which, according to a massive body of scientific evidence, is connected to the existence of a sufficiently complex nervous system (or probably many other kinds of complex information processing).

It is unclear what "sufficiently complex" means in relation to fetal development. However, it is clear that the nervous system does not even begin to develop in the early months. To point out that "life" begins at conception is irrelevant to the ethical question. "Personhood begins at week X" would be the relevant fact to reach consensus on.

 

[PdotMichael]

A cucumber is alive too. Being alive is not the aspect that guides an ethical evaluation of this issue. The important aspect is personhood, which, according to a massive body of scientific evidence, is connected to the existence of a sufficiently complex nervous system (or probably many other kinds of complex information processing).

It is unclear what "sufficiently complex" means in relation to fetal development. However, it is clear that the nervous system does not even begin to develop in the early months. To point out that "life" begins at conception is irrelevant to the ethical question. "Personhood begins at week X" would be the relevant fact to reach consensus on.

The argument for using brain function is that we are general using the end brain functions to define the end of life. At this point it would be logical to also use the start of brain functions to define the start of human personhood.
Though the biology knows many possible start points of personhood and it also leads to to the problem we can measure brain waves already at week 8, which is earlier than the legal limit in most countries.

 

[ElTorro]

Though the biology knows many possible start points of personhood and it also leads to to the problem we can measure brain waves already at week 8, which is earlier than the legal limit in most countries.

Which is why I personally see a legitimate debate here about the possibility to lower the limit using such arguments. Of course, these arguments would have to be balanced with the fact that many people don't discover a pregnancy that early. And an ethical discussion about abortion needs to incorporate the implications for the mother. Of course, the start of brain development only constitutes the most safe lower bound for the relevant time frame, and you can argue on the basis of biology with more nuance for a later date. Personally, I think that 8-12 weeks are a reasonable time frame for the standard case that does not involve extraordinary circumstances like severe defects, rape, etc. However, I am always surprised how casual the issue of early brain development is dismissed. To me this is the core factor. I've even read arguments that claim that a fetus does not have a claim to personhood before the actual birth, since it is not capable of existing on its own before birth.

 

[boiled goose]

Which is why I personally see a legitimate debate here about the possibility to lower the limit using such arguments. Of course, these arguments would have to be balanced with the fact that many people don't discover a pregnancy that early. And an ethical discussion about abortion needs to incorporate the implications for the mother. Of course, the start of brain development only constitutes the most safe lower bound for the relevant time frame, and you can argue on the basis of biology with more nuance for a later date. Personally, I think that 8-12 weeks are a reasonable time frame for the standard case that does not involve extraordinary circumstances like severe defects, rape, etc. However, I am always surprised how casual the issue of early brain development is dismissed. To me this is the core factor. I've even read arguments that claim that a fetus does not have a claim to personhood before the actual birth, since it is not capable of existing on its own before birth.

To me personhood question is ultimately irrelevant because of body autonomy. No human has the right to latch on to a uterus and suck up nutrients without consent.

Sucks for the fetus it doesn't have another choice, but such is the reality of placental mammals.

 

[Airola]

Abortion debates are way too much clinging into semantics.

When "pro-lifers" say all human life is sacred, they mean something else with "human life" than what the "pro-choicers" seem to mean. I guess the word "human" is used to have an emotional impact in the opposing group. However, that doesn't work, as the opposing group doesn't think it is yet human life, when it's acceptable to make an abortion.

I've seen lots of pro-choicers in other debates on this subject say something like "it's just a blob" or "it's just a parasite", apparently trying to "dehumanise" the zygote in pro-lifers minds. But that doesn't work either.

The reason to that is that pro-lifers actually mean that the blob is sacred, or the parasite is sacred. Calling them blobs or parasites, or non-humans is just semantics, because the "parasitic blob non-human" to them is valuable, important and sacred in and of itself.
And the reason is that it's past the line of just a sperm and just an egg, and now a concrete thing, the defining symbiosis for new life. No amount of "they have nerves only after x weeks" talk means anything to them when the real issue is completely different, and that issue gets drowned in semantics by both sides.


One huge example of this battle with semantics is when people are saying "but human development doesn't mean life."


Abortion is super hard issue as one side is thinking it as a womens right issue, and if one doesn't think correctly about it, one is a misogynist. Then the other side is thinking that it's an overall issue of life and death, where the one who doesn't think correctly doesn't value life and at worst is even a murderer.
And both sides think it's _obviously_ what they think. It's not as if people are debating whether rape is wrong, but both of the reasonings have deeply ethical roots where the opposing side is seen as deeply immoral by the other side.

Have you ever talked to the women who have chosen to terminate for medical reasons?
Have you ever received a poor prenatal diagnosis?
Have you raised a disabled child into adulthood?

Yes.
No.
No.

None of those are requirements for taking a side in this subject, whatever the side may be. None of them can't be used to dismiss any arguments. If experience is a requirement to be for or against something, people couldn't form an opinion in a lot of things.

When it is YOU sitting in that chair across from a genetic counselor telling YOU that there is something wrong YOUR baby, then YOU can choose what you feel is best for you and your family.

Sure. Of course.
Whether or not that choice is morally ok, is another question.

And I fully admit that I wouldn't know what I would do in such a situation. I wouldn't perhaps think I'd be doing a morally right thing if I'd choose an abortion, but knowing myself, it wouldn't be the first time I would act against my morals.

Actually, you don't understand.

And the fact that you think you do is offensive to a reprehensible degree.

Did it ever cross your sheltered little mind that some people are so disabled they can't understand the English language? Or for that matter any language at all? That the concept of death is something that's beyond their mental capacity?

So I'm offending people to a reprehensible degree and I have sheltered little mind.
Ok. Maybe.
I guess there was some reason you brought those up.


First of all, this topic has "down sydrome" mentioned in the title. It's specifically mentioned there. It implies down syndrome is one of the defects that somehow makes abortion more ok. That's one of the reasons I have mostly mentioned it here.

And yes, I know there are people in truly hard conditions. When I mentioned that people should talk with the disabled people, of course I meant those who can understand the language. Just because there are people in way worse conditions doesn't make discussions about people in "less bad" conditions any less important.

And again, there are people with way more severe conditions, yes. Some can't do more than move their heads a bit. But do you know what goes in their heads? They might not understand the concept of death, or concepts about nearly anything, but those little potential sparks of near "infant-level" thoughts have value too, to them. Sure, raising a person such as that is very hard. It's also very hard to take care of a 90-year old who might have several years to live but is almost a vegetable. But the hardness for the care takers isn't an argument when you are talking about their value.

 

[partyphone]

zygotes are alive. as are the sperm and eggs that create them.

none of them should have full human rights.

i'd be a mass murderer. D:

 

[PdotMichael]

Which is why I personally see a legitimate debate here about the possibility to lower the limit using such arguments. Of course, these arguments would have to be balanced with the fact that many people don't discover a pregnancy that early. And an ethical discussion about abortion needs to incorporate the implications for the mother. Of course, the start of brain development only constitutes the most safe lower bound for the relevant time frame, and you can argue on the basis of biology with more nuance for a later date. Personally, I think that 8-12 weeks are a reasonable time frame for the standard case that does not involve extraordinary circumstances like severe defects, rape, etc. However, I am always surprised how casual the issue of early brain development is dismissed. To me this is the core factor. I've even read arguments that claim that a fetus does not have a claim to personhood before the actual birth, since it is not capable of existing on its own before birth.

I'm general supporter of full autonomy of the own body, so I wouldn't support any proposal that would limit the time frame. It should be the right of the woman and also the moral responsibility to choice if and the right point of abortion.
Though I also come from a socialist hell and would also etablish and support a strong welfare system so that stuff like danger of poverty because of pregnancy and all the other stuff wouldn't exist.