Thread: "Abortion addiction"

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

The beginning of life is a culturally-defined point in time, not a medical one.

The beginning of life as it's culturally defined is unscientific, arbitrary and useless. The point at which life begins is already defined objectively by biology - life begins when the first cell splits. Cultural opinions are irrelevant and little more than an excuse for relativist stupidity.


That said, I don't have a problem with abortion. It's not something I would choose for myself, but I don't think the government should be making the choice either.

Getting an abortion because the pregnancy was a mistake is one thing, because it shows something more like responsibility to make a decision about the consequences of carrying to term. But getting pregnant just to abort? I think abortion should be legal, but that doesn't mean I think getting an abortion is the same thing as getting a mole removed. It's not, or there wouldn't be such a debate.

Agreed

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Well, we're talking about what defines a person here

He said "The beginning of life" not "beginning of personhood." The former is defined by conception (when growth starts). The latter is arbitrary and has no bearing on the former.

Two cells do not make life

I honestly can't tell if you're being this obtuse or just creating a strawman.

Originally Posted by Syme

He obviously meant the beginning of a human life

Which is precisely what I was referring to. "Human life" and "beginning of life (created through human sexual reproduction)" are two ways of expressing the same exact thing. Human life does not start as part of another species and then magically become a human at some arbitrarily assigned point. Nor do philosophy, ethics or law define what human life is.

from a legal or ethical standpoint, i.e. the beginning of personhood, rather than simply the literal "beginning of life" from a scientific standpoint.

Basing the ethical and legal definition of a human life on anything but biology is patently retarded.


Obviously the question ought to be "When does a human gain human rights?" but that's not what he said. But to be fair, I skimmed the first page so I may have missed some context. He did seem to reinforce a relative view of human life in post 42 though.



To add something beyond the niggling... Gestation (around 8 weeks iirc) is when all the internal organs are in place and limbs and genitalia are nearly fully formed. This is also the point where a we start calling it a fetus rather than embryo. If there is a need for a bright line, it probably ought to be there.

Originally Posted by ephekt

Which is precisely what I was referring to. "Human life" and "beginning of life (created through human sexual reproduction)" are two ways of expressing the same exact thing. Human life does not start as part of another species and then magically become a human at some arbitrarily assigned point.

Wow, thank you for dropping that scientific truth bomb on me, I totally thought we started out as a different species.

The reason I said "a human" life is because legally and ethically, "a human life" not does not necessarily begin at whatever point you are saying that biology tells us it begins at. I would have thought it was obvious that I wasn't trying to suggest that the embryo is actually a part of another species until a certain point. My point was that something which is biologically alive, and a part of the human species, still isn't necessarily legally or ethically a living human being. Which is what atmosfear was pointing out by saying that the "beginning of life" is a culturally-defined point.

Originally Posted by ephekt

Nor do philosophy, ethics or law define what human life is.

Within the contexts of themselves and for their own purposes, yes they do. Whether that definition is 'correct' with respect to biological science is a different question, but legal and ethical systems do generate their own definitions of human life which are what are what will be used (and thus are what matter) with regard to the questions those systems address.

Originally Posted by ephekt

Basing the ethical and legal definition of a human life on anything but biology is patently retarded.

Maybe so; I don't necessarily disagree. Atmosfear's point--that in practice, such definitions are often made on a cultural basis--nevertheless is true.

Originally Posted by ephekt

Obviously the question ought to be "When does a human gain human rights?" but that's not what he said.

He wasn't asking a question, though. He was stating that legal and ethical definitions of personhood are culturally, not medically, set; again, I feel that this should have been obvious even though his language was a bit loose and he said "beginning of life".


EDIT:

To add something beyond the niggling... Gestation (around 8 weeks iirc) is when all the internal organs are in place and limbs and genitalia are nearly fully formed. This is also the point where a we start calling it a fetus rather than embryo. If there is a need for a bright line, it probably ought to be there.

See, this is exactly where the cultural definitions come in. You think that the point of gestation is the obvious point to put a "bright line", but that's merely a personal and arbitrary judgment call on your part. Someone else might just as reasonably think that the obvious place to put the bright line is at birth, or at conception, or at implantation, or at whatever point the fetus can survive outside the womb (26 weeks at the absolute earliest, I think), or any other point really.