conflicted on abortion issue

[MBA2008]

To alex

Why is ridiculous to say that a sperm cell and egg cell united is a human being?

Do you know when life begins? Do scientists? I sure don't know when life begins, and I have yet to hear of anyone who has. I have even yet to see biologists agree on what exactly constitutes life to begin with.

I think it's very arrogant for any of us to presume to know when life begins when biologists cannot even say for sure what life even is.

All of our declarations about when life begins are ultimately arbitrary.

When a fetus has a heartbeat. Does a heartbeat mean that something is "alive"?
When it has brainwaves. What exactly is a brainwave, and does it mean something is "alive?"
When it can survive on it's own outside the womb (viability). Each individual fetus has a different point at which it could "survive" on its own. And what does survive mean? Infants can't survive on their own very long outside the womb without attention.
When it's born. There is no difference between an infant the moment after birth and the moment before, except for geography.

If you don't believe that a fetus before it's born is a human, that's fine. Just understand that your position is just as arbitrary as someone who believes that a fetus is human being before it's born.

Of course, if you don't believe it is alive, then you would be a fool to not support a woman's right to privacy. But if you believe it is alive (a human being, entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else), then that right to privacy is trumped by a right to life, and only the mother's right to life can arguably be said to take precedence, and I emphasize arguably. Of course, there is a case to be made for the 2% of cases where there is lack of consent or incest, but these are up for debate and not settled by any means.

My position is that since all of our attempts to pinpoint when life begins are arbitrary at best, and since we are talking about what may or may not be a human being, I am going to err on the side of life. I'm confident that a human being does not exist before conception. I think every reasonable person who does not take a religious position can agree about that. After conception though, no one can say for sure.

I would sure hope that if someone weren't sure if I were alive or not, erred on the side of me being alive.

 

[MBA2008]

To angel

You are right that women have minds and they do have a choice. But if you are someone who believes that an unborn child is a human being, as many do, then to say that a woman has a choice to abort her pregnancy is no different than saying that a woman who no longer wants to be burdened by her two-year-old can destroy it if that is what she chooses.

I think that reasonable people can disagree about when life begins, and depending on when one thinks life begins, one's opinion on abortion is going to be different as well.

Pro-abortionists argue to anti-abortionists about choice and privacy when to anti-abortionists, those things don't outweigh what they feel to be the right to life.

Anti-abortionists argue to pro-abortionists about life when pro-abortionists don't believe that that fetus is alive.

Both sides begin their argument from an assumption that they accept and feel that everyone else must accept.

The issue isn't really about choice it's about convincing the other side that that thing growing inside a woman is a human being (or not if you're pro-abortion.)

I don't presume to know, so I am going to err in the direction of life. Others disagree and I think in most cases, they can do so reasonably.

For me though, someone is going to have to prove conclusively that a fetus is not alive and not a human being in order for me to be in favor of abortion. I can assure you that if such proof were available, I would not be an opponent of abortion.

 

[literatim]

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down's or Turner's syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their most mature forms — the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes — which will later contain only 23 chromosomes.1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained — otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.

Read more:
http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

 

[BrianH]

I know. Our Iowa Campaign office is sponsoring 100000 pro life slim jims for all churches in Iowa. This issue does not distinguish Ron Paul sufficiently from other candidates and is rather heavy topic. But I know it is very important here so I am on board with it as many need to know where he stands on this issue before they will even listen to him about anything else. And I really admire that he really sticks to his guns on this issue when it is easy to be wobbly like me on this. I am coming around to his view though, but to me this is a side issue - getting less govt is the big one. So we just go along with him - so we may lose a few votes, but at least we know our candidate stands by his convictions and that is a huge relief to me.

 

[AlexK]

Why is ridiculous to say that a sperm cell and egg cell united is a human being?

...It's not hard to distinguish a human from a lump of cells.

When a fetus has a heartbeat. Does a heartbeat mean that something is "alive"?
When it has brainwaves. What exactly is a brainwave, and does it mean something is "alive?"
When it can survive on it's own outside the womb (viability). Each individual fetus has a different point at which it could "survive" on its own. And what does survive mean? Infants can't survive on their own very long outside the womb without attention.
When it's born. There is no difference between an infant the moment after birth and the moment before, except for geography.

Yes, it gets tricky at that point, but I'm talking about before the fetal stage.

 

[SeanEdwards]

...It's not hard to distinguish a human from a lump of cells.

Are you sure?

What's your basis for declaring that the cluster of cells is not a human being? Is it because it doesn't look like humans you see every day? If that is your justification, then do you also view amputees as being less than human? Is it because they don't exhibit brain waves? If that is your justification, then why do you think we keep vegetative people on life support? Is it because they don't have a heart of their own? If that's the case then I guess those people with artifical heart support better watchout if you're around.

What it really is, is a very very small largely undeveloped baby. Doctors can perform surgery on that tiny blastocyst when it is as few as 8 cells, remove one cell and perform testing on that cell to determine genetic characteristics that the child will have when grown. That single-cell embryo is already a boy or a girl before developing a single organ. As well as having a host of other genetic characteristics that we associate with the human species. Basically, it's just microscopic, helpless, has no face, and can't cry out when it is killed.

BTW- you might be surprised to learn that I'm an atheist. My entire objection to abortion arises from my understanding of human reproductive biology, and has nothing to do with spirituality. Also, while I understand the hardship women have to go through with pregnancy, I don't see that hardship as justification for murder. It's basically a bum deal for women that nature stuck them with this role, but surely the fetus is blameless for this state of affairs. And in the final analysis, the vast majority of time women do have a choice. They can choose not to engage in the act of procreation or at least get their sexual gratification in ways that do not involve sperm. There's of course exceptions from rape, etc.. but I'd be willing to bet big bucks that those cases represent a statistically insignificant proportion of abortion cases.

However, I will admit that even with all that said, I can see justification for abortion in the case of the child having some horrible life-destroying disability such as tay-sachs disease, etc. But I'm consistent in that case because I'm also in favor of legalizing suicide.

 

[prolifer4paul]

Ron Paul is for letting states decide how to deal with abortion, the same way each state deals with plain murder. But Ron Paul is a true pro-lifer who believes that the unborn is a person. He doesn't believe that a constitutional amendment is necessary because personhood can be defined by a simple act of Congress. Hence, his Sanctity of Life Bill. Once personhood is defined, either by constitutional amendment or by an act of Congress, the states would *have* to deal with abortion. Some might just slap wrists, just like Vermont likes to slap the wrists of pedophiles.

You can avoid Roe v. Wade being invoked by either overturning it (wait for justices), or limiting jurisdiction (Paul's approach).

Until this is all made clear, Ron Paul will lose the vast majority of social conservatives to Huckabee.

 

[MBA2008]

To alex

When it gets down to it, you and I are simply a collection of cells. To go even further were just collections of molecules, atoms, quarks.

If we had the technology to keep my brain alive without any other tissue or organs, and were able to hook my brain up to a computer so that you could communicate with me, would I still be human? What if I lost all of my body from the neck down? We certainly don't consider someone who is incomplete from the waist down to not be human. The same questions applies to the beginning. Just what exactly means that you're a human? You don't have an answer, and neither do I. I'm inclined to agree with literatim, and for practical purposes, I do; but I accept that that may not be the end of the story.

Please remember that ridiculous is a big word. Make your point, but be careful to to be precise and accurate, lest you undermine your own credibility with misplaced exaggeration.

You say, "...it gets tricky at that point, but I'm talking about before the fetal stage.." I don't know if you're referring to a specific item in my post or to all of them in general. You may be interested to know that a fetus has a heartbeat at 8 weeks. If it's "tricky at that point" as you say, then surely you would have to at least agree that maybe it's not so ridiculous for someone to think that what exists even a short time after conception might just be a human being and deserving of the same rights guaranteed to any other person.

 

[nickcoons]

Do you know when life begins? Do scientists? I sure don't know when life begins, and I have yet to hear of anyone who has.

In the Iowa straw poll, Ron Paul stated (paraphrased) "As a physician, I can tell you that life begins at conception." I'm not saying that I agree, or know what his basis is. Just saying that he's made that claim.

His speech from that event can be found on YouTube.

 

[Cigaboo]

Okay guys, enough with the abortion debate. This thread was just intended to discuss what a person should do if they don't agree with Ron Paul on all issues. We are united by our desire to get Ron Paul elected, right?

In any case, here is my current argument to people who are "pro-abortion/pro-choice" in regard to supporting Ron Paul:

“Yes, I can see how abortion is an issue of freedom to somebody who is pro-choice. However, if we continue voting for other candidates interested only in controlling and profiting from the American public, we will see a gradual or swift removal of all freedoms, including your 'right to choose' . Ron Paul may be your last chance to prevent the total annihilation of freedom. He can keep the door open for you to vote for candidates in the future that better reflect your position on the abortion issue.”

 

[user]

Okay guys, enough with the abortion debate. This thread was just intended to discuss what a person should do if they don't agree with Ron Paul on all issues. We are united by our desire to get Ron Paul elected, right?

In any case, here is my current argument to people who are "pro-abortion/pro-choice" in regard to supporting Ron Paul:

“Yes, I can see how abortion is an issue of freedom to somebody who is pro-choice. However, if we continue voting for other candidates interested only in controlling and profiting from the American public, we will see a gradual or swift removal of all freedoms, including your 'right to choose' . Ron Paul may be your last chance to prevent the total annihilation of freedom. He can keep the door open for you to vote for candidates in the future that better reflect your position on the abortion issue.”

Maybe you could also say Ron Paul defends allowing states to decide this even in front of very "pro-life" crowds.

 

[AlexK]

What's your basis for declaring that the cluster of cells is not a human being? Is it because it doesn't look like humans you see every day? If that is your justification, then do you also view amputees as being less than human? Is it because they don't exhibit brain waves? If that is your justification, then why do you think we keep vegetative people on life support? Is it because they don't have a heart of their own? If that's the case then I guess those people with artifical heart support better watchout if you're around.

Your argument is pretty out there. How far are you willing to stretch it? Why not replace "a cluster of cells" with "grass" while you're at it?

"Is it because grass don't exhibit brain waves? If that is your justification, then why do you think we keep vegetative people on life support?"

"Is it because they don't have a heart of their own? If that's the case then I guess those people with artifical heart support better watchout if you're around."

Conclusion: killing grass is murder. ....Right?


And, by the way, you don't have to keep vegetative people on life support. It's up to their families to decide.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Your argument is pretty out there. How far are you willing to stretch it? Why not replace "a cluster of cells" with "grass" while you're at it?

Grass does not contain human DNA, and the structure of grass cells is different from that of human cells.

A grass seed will never grow into a fully formed homo sapiens.

 

[AlexK]

When it gets down to it, you and I are simply a collection of cells. To go even further were just collections of molecules, atoms, quarks.

Yes, but we're a complex enough combination of atoms to be called humans. A zygote is not.

And, to be clear, I'm not saying potential life should be completely dismissed. I'm saying that at the very early stage of development, the rights of that "lump of cells" should not be more important than the right of a woman to have a choice and privacy. I understand if you don't agree with me.

 

[Corydoras]

Just how old is a "lump of cells"? I mean in weeks after conception. Real numbers, now.

Ron Paul would not outlaw the morning-after pill ("Plan B"), which does affect newly conceived people who ARE only clumps of cells. As he very sensibly points out, you can't prove that an embryo died at such an early stage.

But the human body takes shape earlier than would allow for almost any abortions.

 

[weatherbill]

the way I see it is, if Ron Paul can return this right to the States, then it will be better for freedom all around, since a big element of freedom is to have choice and returning this right to decide to the State level, will creat a choice maong states, some outlawing it, some not.
So if an american who has certain views, well they have a choice of what state they want to live in and beleive what those in that state beleive.....for instance, MA, NV, CA, OR, WA, PA, VT, FL, may choose to keep abortion legal, where as TN, MT, ID, ND, SD, KS and TX maight choose to outlaw it, so there's real choice in the matter, instead of a one size fits all conflict, whetehr for or agaisnt it.

 

[RoyalShock]

While ulitmately my basis for believing life begins prior to physical birth is biblical, I have a different basis from a logical standpoint.

Will sperm, or an egg, or even grass, if left alone in its natural state, produce a human being? No.

Once conception occurs, if left alone and allowed to follow its natural course without intervention produce a human being? Yes.

I would think this to be the most agreeable approach since it's the closest thing to scientific you're going to get. If you depart from using conception as the "turning point" then the point becomes debatable and subjective.

 

[MBA2008]

To alex

With apologies to the original poster.

Please answer the following questions with something more than its ridiculous to this or anyone can see that.

1) What is a human? Think about my bodiless brain.

2) When, other than some arbitrarily designated point such as birth, does a so-called clump of cells or whatever, commence or even cease being the above defined human?

 

[MBA2008]

To all

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="When+does+human+life+begin?"&btnG=Google+Search

 

[Kade]

All this nonsense about a concept, a term.

Ask yourselves this, if there were no soul, what is of inherent value to human existence? Are humans the only creatures you feel this way towards?

The irony is that so many pro-lifers see value only in human existence, where this model one day will be applied to the callous nature of dealings with life that may equal our intellectual and empathetic conditions... artificial life, life outside this world...

Do you really believe pro-choice people are misinformed, about as something as important as human existence, human value? Are we really that cold, that heartless, that was refuse to heed to the possibility of human value, human experience starting at conception?

Keep in mind that these people are usually the same people who think greater primates should have some expanded "human" rights.

These are the same people most of you would call "tree huggers"

Are these people what you think they are? Who is misinformed, and in what way?

The value of a woman's way of life, is greater than the value of an unborn fetus.

Think about that.


"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). "

-Ayn Rand