Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

[goout]

goout:

Wozza:

Keep repeating yourself? That’s not working. At all. So tell me what your Plan B is. We can discuss that.

It’s sad when the basic moral concepts underpinning human dignity have to be repeated an nauseum.
But that’s the call. So the basics will have to be repeated, because moral confusion won’t make for a sane or safe society.

Moral confusion? I thought you were arguing the science.

I was proposing to you that:
if you can’t do moral evaluation with an objective good in view, you could at least latch on to science.

There is plenty of food for thought in science.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

goout:

Wozza:

Keep repeating yourself? That’s not working. At all. So tell me what your Plan B is. We can discuss that.

It’s sad when the basic moral concepts underpinning human dignity have to be repeated an nauseum.
But that’s the call. So the basics will have to be repeated, because moral confusion won’t make for a sane or safe society.

Moral confusion? I thought you were arguing the science.

I was proposing to you that:
if you can’t do moral evaluation with an objective good in view, you could at least latch on to science.

There is plenty of food for thought in science.

And science will tell you what a human is. But it won’t as regards a person. That is for us, individually, to decide.

Your definition as to a person starts at the moment an egg is fertilised. Mine doesn’t. I’ve no idea where you would like to go next.

 

[Jimbo]

(1) Feeling of Pain is necessary for right to life

Bummer for these people:

Symptoms, Causes, and Expectations of CIPA Disease

Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhidrosis (CIPA) is a rare genetic disorder that causes a person to not feel pain or sweat.

www.verywellhealth.com

When people come up with this it’s just another goalpost they can move. And that’s the danger of goalposts and the reason we should protect at least the basic right to exist of all human beings.

Take that goalpost away with CIPA disease (Most pro choicers wouldn’t say a person with this disease isn’t a person with a right to life) and they can just move it back. It’s completely arbitrary.

Most place the right to life at birth because that’s what they can see. But people who are at least logically consistent, like Peter Singer, move it beyond that. And, if you are just setting goalposts, why not?

 

[EricCarl]

The “cells” have completely different DNA than the mother. Therefore they are not “part of the woman’s body.” They are a completely different human being, supported by her body.

 

[edwest211]

That is precisely right. There should be no mystery here. Human development has a starting point: the moment the egg is fertilized, it is a unique human being.

 

[goout]

goout:

Wozza:

goout:

Wozza:

Keep repeating yourself? That’s not working. At all. So tell me what your Plan B is. We can discuss that.

It’s sad when the basic moral concepts underpinning human dignity have to be repeated an nauseum.
But that’s the call. So the basics will have to be repeated, because moral confusion won’t make for a sane or safe society.

Moral confusion? I thought you were arguing the science.

I was proposing to you that:
if you can’t do moral evaluation with an objective good in view, you could at least latch on to science.

There is plenty of food for thought in science.

And science will tell you what a human is. But it won’t as regards a person. That is for us, individually, to decide.

Your definition as to a person starts at the moment an egg is fertilised. Mine doesn’t. I’ve no idea where you would like to go next.

So the 3/5 thing is cool with you then. Since “personhood” is subjective.
Right? Correct me if I’m wrong.

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

 

[Wozza]

So the 3/5 thing is cool with you then. Since “personhood” is subjective.
Right? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

I’m not sure why you keep linking to this. Is it some sort of insinuation that because I state that a fertilized egg is not a person then slaves are…well, I’m not sure what the insinuation is. That they were not persons?

What on earth is the point of that? You cannot have missed an earlier discussion with EZ when I was trying to convince him that we can always agree on what a person IS. But not on what a person is NOT.

Consequently, a new born baby IS a person. We agree. But a fertilised egg is NOT. We do not agree. A slave IS a person. We agree. But a fertilised egg is NOT. We don’t agree. You and EZ are persons. We agree. But a fertilised egg…well, I think you get the idea.

 

[EZweber]

Why shouldn’t a fertilized egg be a person?

 

[Wozza]

Why shouldn’t a fertilized egg be a person?

It can be. If that’s your definition. It’s not mine. Mine includes a new born baby. Is it exactly the same as a fertilised egg? Obviously not. And we have already seen that even embryos are valued less than babies.

But…a fertilised egg will BECOME a person. I can tell you when that has definitely happened. And I can tell you when it has definitely not. But as I said, there is no specific point when it happens.

I’m repeating myself a lot in this thread. Just saying is all.

 

[edwest211]

That is wishful thinking.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

[Wozza]

That is wishful thinking.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

Why have you linked to that Ed? Are you not following the discussion? Nobody has denied or has tried to deny anything on that web page.

 

[goout]

goout:

So the 3/5 thing is cool with you then. Since “personhood” is subjective.
Right? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

I’m not sure why you keep linking to this. Is it some sort of insinuation that because I state that a fertilized egg is not a person then slaves are…well, I’m not sure what the insinuation is. That they were not persons?

What on earth is the point of that? You cannot have missed an earlier discussion with EZ when I was trying to convince him that we can always agree on what a person IS. But not on what a person is NOT.

Consequently, a new born baby IS a person. We agree. But a fertilised egg is NOT. We do not agree. A slave IS a person. We agree. But a fertilised egg is NOT. We don’t agree. You and EZ are persons. We agree. But a fertilised egg…well, I think you get the idea.

Right, so by political machination, we can determine what a person is.

So you are 3/5er then.
Right? Any of your statements easily apply to the 3/5 compromise, which asserts a political personhood definition. We can’t agree, right? We just can’t do it.

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

is that you?

 

[goout]

I’m repeating myself a lot in this thread. Just saying is all.

Yes. Self awareness goes a long way.l

 

[EZweber]

It can be. If that’s your definition. It’s not mine. Mine includes a new born baby.

What precisely makes a fertilized egg not a person? I want more detail than just it doesn’t fit your definition. Show me where it fails to fit it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

goout:

So the 3/5 thing is cool with you then. Since “personhood” is subjective.
Right? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

I’m not sure why you keep linking to this. Is it some sort of insinuation that because I state that a fertilized egg is not a person then slaves are…well, I’m not sure what the insinuation is. That they were not persons?

What on earth is the point of that? You cannot have missed an earlier discussion with EZ when I was trying to convince him that we can always agree on what a person IS. But not on what a person is NOT.

Consequently, a new born baby IS a person. We agree. But a fertilised egg is NOT. We do not agree. A slave IS a person. We agree. But a fertilised egg is NOT. We don’t agree. You and EZ are persons. We agree. But a fertilised egg…well, I think you get the idea.

Right, so by political machination, we can determine what a person is.

So you are 3/5er then.
Right? Any of your statements easily apply to the 3/5 compromise, which asserts a political personhood definition. We can’t agree, right? We just can’t do it.

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

is that you?

This will be interesting. OK - let’s say that because someone denies that a fertilised egg is not a person then that someone doesn’t consider a slave to be a person.

Off you go. Where to, I don’t know. But make a start.

 

[edwest211]

Isn’t it obvious? Human development has a beginning. Once that egg is fertilized, it is a human being. There is no doubt about it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It can be. If that’s your definition. It’s not mine. Mine includes a new born baby.

What precisely makes a fertilized egg not a person? I want more detail than just it doesn’t fit your definition. Show me where it fails to fit it.

It’s because it is just a fertilised egg. A ferilised egg doesn’t fit any definition of person that you will find anywhere. Other than personal opinion. Yours for example.

You may have noticed - or perhaps not, that I haven’t asked you what makes it a person. The only possible answer is going to be ‘because it’s human’. And that’s the argument in a nutshell. You and goout would prefer this discussion to be based on a scientific defi ition of ‘human’. And it’s not.

 

[goout]

This will be interesting. OK - let’s say that because someone denies that a fertilised egg is not a person then that someone doesn’t consider a slave to be a person.

Off you go. Where to, I don’t know. But make a start.

Do you know what subjectivity is?
Humanity should not be subject to opinion, like you are proposing. The value of a distinct and unique human life should have an objective value.
When humanity is subject to opinion, the result is things like the 3/5 rule, and the holocaust, where you have people parsing what it means to be human, and denying humanity to a class of people (like the unborn), and using power to subject them to oppression.

So to be consistent in your opinion, you ought not have a problem with the 3/5 rule.
Why can’t you own your own position?

 

[Wozza]

Isn’t it obvious? Human development has a beginning. Once that egg is fertilized, it is a human being. There is no doubt about it.

Off you go then, Ed. And find me a definition of human being that includes ‘fertilized egg’. To save yourself some time, you can say ‘Oops, sorry. I meant to say human, not human being.’

 

[EZweber]

It’s because it is just a fertilised egg. A ferilised egg doesn’t fit any definition of person that you will find anywhere. Other than personal opinion. Yours for example.

I could use that exact same argument to refute your position by switching a few words. My question is in what way does a fertilized egg fail to fit the definition of person?