edededed wrote:Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:The opinion that a human is formed upon conception is very contentious and I have yet to see any evidence that this line of thinking stems from any other source than Church dogma. ... At any rate, the idea that conception=human is not even facile. There isn't even a seemingly good argument hiding the truth of it. Two-thirds of fertilized embryos aren't even viable. Certainly one could say that a couple of cells has the potential to become a human, but that's about it.
I did not know that "human from conception" was contentious at all. Biology, medicine, etc. seem to agree with this concept (e.g. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html). I don't think it has to do with religion at all (at least for me it never did).
Certainly many embryos do not survive, resulting in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). They were humans that unfortunately died very early on, before leaving the placenta, and hopefully before consciousness and the ability to feel pain. On the other hand, even infants are said to have no self-awareness.
that only women can legislate abortion (reality check: do we agree that is the point of argumentation?)
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Ed, I'm sorry. I meant to say person, not human. I agree that there is not really any argument that the beginning of human life would have to be at conception. But, doctors, religious leaders, voters, and even scientists often draw a distinction between person and human, humanity, and species. This is where the contention I mentioned comes in.
As for this distinction, I can't imagine that social conditioning of many sorts can be avoided when formulating an opinion either way.
Steve James wrote:that only women can legislate abortion (reality check: do we agree that is the point of argumentation?)
Actually, that's your straw man. No one has suggested that on this thread.
edededed wrote:Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Ed, I'm sorry. I meant to say person, not human. I agree that there is not really any argument that the beginning of human life would have to be at conception. But, doctors, religious leaders, voters, and even scientists often draw a distinction between person and human, humanity, and species. This is where the contention I mentioned comes in.
As for this distinction, I can't imagine that social conditioning of many sorts can be avoided when formulating an opinion either way.
Ah - thanks for the clarification. I agree that social conditioning (social bias) will be have a strong influence on one's opinion of course.
My fear is that people try to argue about the beginning of "person" for convenience's sake. Is person defined by consciousness, or the ability to feel fear/pain, or the ability to move, or....? What if an adult human being is unconscious, unable to feel pain, and unable to move? (That sounds a bit like sleep, and actually, apparently embryos/fetuses are in a similar state, sedated by the placenta, environment, etc.)
Michael wrote:I was confirming with Finny. I already knew you were onto a different perspective.
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:I think these are important and challenging questions. I haven't come to a conclusion on them as of yet. I'm reading lots of philosophy these days, but I am not sure if it helps me to come to conclusions about deep questions or to just spend more time pondering them.
As for the state of embryos: I really doubt that there is much similarity to sleep in the early stages especially when one reads about sleep and some of the potential reasons we partake in the activity. I think it has a lot to do with sorting information, forming memory, etc...Not things a few hundred cells would do. As for convenience, I think I understand what you are getting at, but I would again posit that I don't think anyone plans or wants to get an abortion (okay, there are always some strange people out there, but in general). And, I don't think it is always a matter of personal convenience, either. In some extreme examples, it could have to do with personal safety (not even talking about medical issues). There are some messed up laws in some states and the rapist can claim parental rights and be a constant presence in their victim's lives. To be sure, it's a complex issue.
As I have stated, why doesn't everyone work to make them less common? Why are conservatives the biggest hurdle here? I think it's because they are not being honest about why they have a problem with it.
oragami_itto wrote:I'll just say that unequivocally it is a decision to be made by the woman herself and that abortion needs to remain a safe and accessible option for any woman that feels it is the right decision for her at that time. Why it's even still a subject for debate astounds me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests