The Unprogressive Progressive

[Gabriel_Gale]

Why do pro-choicers hold onto such tired arguments re: abortion/ESCR. I was on another board run by a physician. Commenting on a recent NY Times article about the Stem Cell bill, We had this exchange.

Progressive Doc: I have mentioned this before on this blog and on Daily Kos. Stem Cell may or may not provide the promises that we have all heard of. I don’t understand the object that some people have to stem cell research. A cluster of cells is not a human life. A blastocyst is about 100 cells. If you say that 100 cells is a human life then 2 cells would be a human life also. What about 1 cell? Then an egg and a sperm much be a human life also. If you remove an overy are you killing a human life? Finally, if an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway wouldn’t it be better to use the embryo for research?

GG: No one objects to stem cell research. The objection is against stem cell research which destroys embryos. We’ve always had support for stem cell research from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and other sources that don’t involve embryo destruction. Of course a cluster of cells is human life. What are we made of if not clusters of cells? Materially, the embryo, baby and old man are the same. Every human life ( I assume you mean a human organism or being) began at the 1 cell stage. You are confusing the part with the whole. An ovary in an organ while an embryo is an organism.

Progressive Doc: Our disagreement comes from how we answer a very fundamental question. Where does life begin? From your answers, it’s clear that you believe that life begins at conception. I believe that life begins at birth.

I thought that this was an odd response. I tried to clarify the terms of the debate and suggesting that he might be confusing the “when human life begins issue” with human dignity or personhood issues. He held fast to when life begins is a religious issue. Lately, most of the academic abortion supporters have shifted from when life begins agnosticism to personhood. I haven’t noticed a similar shift among politicians.

Do you think that the personhood debate is too new for none academics and politicians? Is conceding the presence of a human being be too much for most people? Can the killing of a “none person” human being only be defended by sophisticates like Peter Singer and the secularists at Reason Magazine.?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The “personhood” debate is like the “rapture” – based on a mis-translation. In the latter case, accidental, in the former case deliberate.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. . . .

The pro-abortion side pretends this amendment defines “personhood.” No one who speaks English as his mother tougue can honestly defend that mis-translation.

The XIV Amendment defines citizen – and uses “person” as the larger category, “citizen” as the smaller, included category.

Clearly, there are many “persons” who are not born or naturalized in the United States!

 

[johnnycatholic]

Well, too, if life begins at birth, why do you have to “kill” the unborn? Does an embryo not “die” when you take it’s stem cells? When you stop a human from developing, you are killing life, whether it’s two cells of life or a trillion billion gajillion (i’m very fat).

 

[Mirdath]

The idea of personhood isn’t too new. I don’t think anything’s really ‘too new’ to be discussed outside ivory towers.

I’ve always found the ‘beginning of life’ to be an already answered question: the cell is the basic unit of life, that’s taught in all biology texts already. A single isolated sperm cell or egg is alive – just as alive as a cell in a leaf torn from a tree. I kill human life all the time when I shave my legs (soap and razors and knees…arg! ).

Debating whether or not a fetus is a human being as we understand it makes much more sense. In my opinion, one of the things that makes one human is the ability to survive outside the womb – and humanity is really a lifelong journey with that merely the starting point. In many cases, one must also take into account the humanity of the mother: is it right to sacrifice her, already known to at least have started that journey, for a being who might be able to start it?

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

The idea of personhood isn’t too new. I don’t think anything’s really ‘too new’ to be discussed outside ivory towers.

I’ve always found the ‘beginning of life’ to be an already answered question: the cell is the basic unit of life, that’s taught in all biology texts already. A single isolated sperm cell or egg is alive – just as alive as a cell in a leaf torn from a tree. I kill human life all the time when I shave my legs (soap and razors and knees…arg! ).

Debating whether or not a fetus is a human being as we understand it makes much more sense. In my opinion, one of the things that makes one human is the ability to survive outside the womb – and humanity is really a lifelong journey with that merely the starting point. In many cases, one must also take into account the humanity of the mother: is it right to sacrifice her, already known to at least have started that journey, for a being who might be able to start it?

Do you consider any difference between an human organism and human being?

Do you consider any difference between an organism and an organ?

Do you consider premature babies (26-32 weeks) human?

Sounds like vaibility isn’t your only requirement for “humaneness”, what else do you have on your list?

 

[Mirdath]

Do you consider any difference between an human organism and human being?

Yes.

Do you consider any difference between an organism and an organ?

Of course. An organ is not a self-sufficient system.

Do you consider premature babies (26-32 weeks) human?

At the very least they’ve started on that path They’re out of the womb and no longer directly dependent on their mothers for absolutely everything, even if they have other health issues that require assistance.

Sounds like vaibility isn’t your only requirement for “humaneness”, what else do you have on your list?

That’s pretty much the absolute base. At infancy, going much further would be getting into eugenics – and while I’d love to see genetic errors being fixed during gestation, it does crack open some doors better left shut. Later on the question becomes more one of ethics. I wouldn’t say a sociopath is fully human – and in some cases, he is not human at all but a monster.

 

[Riley259]

The idea of personhood isn’t too new. I don’t think anything’s really ‘too new’ to be discussed outside ivory towers.

I’ve always found the ‘beginning of life’ to be an already answered question: the cell is the basic unit of life, that’s taught in all biology texts already. A single isolated sperm cell or egg is alive – just as alive as a cell in a leaf torn from a tree. I kill human life all the time when I shave my legs (soap and razors and knees…arg! ).

Debating whether or not a fetus is a human being as we understand it makes much more sense. In my opinion, one of the things that makes one human is the ability to survive outside the womb – and humanity is really a lifelong journey with that merely the starting point. In many cases, one must also take into account the humanity of the mother: is it right to sacrifice her, already known to at least have started that journey, for a being who might be able to start it?

Only when a sperm fertilizes an egg does a separate human being come into existence (23 chromosomes from each gender) and his or her only difference from a human being after birth is that he or she is at a different stage of development. I challenge you to take a look at some of these very young aborted people at this link: priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm and still say that they are not human beings.

 

[Mirdath]

Only when a sperm fertilizes an egg does a separate human being come into existence (23 chromosomes from each gender) and his or her only difference from a human being after birth is that he or she is at a different stage of development. I challenge you to take a look at some of these very young aborted people at this link: priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm and still say that they are not human beings.

I’ve seen pictures like that before. Thanks for trying to prove your point by grossing me out – fortunately I have a very strong stomach. That doesn’t make me interested in seeing it though; keep your gore-pornography to yourself, please.

Fetuses are in the species homo sapiens sapiens; however, they are not human beings as I use the term. They are incapable of independence from the mother, and indeed leech nutriment from her. They are just as much human as are teratomata until viability outside the womb is possible.

Were gestation accomplished in artificial wombs, things might be different (and I’d have a lot to reconsider); but it is not, it still requires the use of a fully-grown human woman, often at great risk to her health and life.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Fetuses are in the species homo sapiens sapiens; however, they are not human beings as I use the term.

I don’t think you are using the term correctly. Not all fetuses are in the species homo sapiens. The term “fetus” can apply for other animals such as dogs and monkeys before their birth too. If a fetus is from a human mother, the fetus is a human fetus.

 

[Mirdath]

I don’t think you are using the term correctly. Not all fetuses are in the species homo sapiens. The term “fetus” can apply for other animals such as dogs and monkeys before their birth too. If a fetus is from a human mother, the fetus is a human fetus.

Oops, you’re right I should have specified – sorry!

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

"GG:

Do you consider any difference between an human organism and human being?

Do you consider any difference between an organism and an organ?

Of course. An organ is not a self-sufficient system.

So what’s the difference between a human being and a human organism?
GG:

Do you consider premature babies (26-32 weeks) human?

Mirdath:

At the very least they’ve started on that path They’re out of the womb and no longer directly dependent on their mothers for absolutely everything, even if they have other health issues that require assistance.

Sounds like your answer is “no.” “On the way” means “not.”

*So do you consider human fetuses with-in the womb at 26 weeks on that path? *
GG:

Sounds like vaibility isn’t your only requirement for “humaneness”, what else do you have on your list?

Mirdath:

That’s pretty much the absolute base. At infancy, going much further would be getting into eugenics – and while I’d love to see genetic errors being fixed during gestation, it does crack open some doors better left shut. Later on the question becomes more one of ethics. I wouldn’t say a sociopath is fully human – and in some cases, he is not human at all but a monster.

*Infancy is defined as the period of 30 days after birth-1 year. *
Would you say that none premie newborns aren’t fully human until the end of infancy?

Mirdath:

At infancy, going much further would be getting into eugenics – and while I’d love to see genetic errors being fixed during gestation, it does crack open some doors better left shut.

Many with Trisomy 21 are already aborted. Is eugenics any different whether practiced before or soon after birth?

 

[Mirdath]

So what’s the difference between a human being and a human organism?

The most critical difference is that a human being can live without being physically attached to the mother. The only other one that comes to mind right now is the presence of a conscience.

Sounds like your answer is “no.” “On the way” means “not.”

No, ‘on the way’ means ‘on the way’ – no more, no less. They’re physically independent of the mother’s body. That’s good enough for me to be against infanticide.

So do you consider human fetuses with-in the womb at 26 weeks on that path?

They’re not outside the mother’s body, so no, they aren’t yet. They have the capability to become so, but up until that happens the mother is more valuable; given the choice to act so as to save the mother but not the child or to save the child but not the mother I would choose the former option.

Infancy is defined as the period of 30 days after birth-1 year. Would you say that none premie newborns aren’t fully human until the end of infancy?

No. With qualifiers, of course – it’s impossible to tell at that age if they have a conscience – but they are just as human as a child born on or after due date is at that age.

Many with Trisomy 21 are already aborted. Is eugenics any different whether practiced before or soon after birth?

Yes. It looks like we’re working with slightly different definitions though – my slippery slope leads to designer babies, yours to mass termination of all ‘imperfect’ pregnancies. Should we call mine ‘eugenics’ and yours ‘dysgenics’ for clarity?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Society and governments exist to protect the weak. It is our bounden duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. One who seeks to justify taking a human life must meet the highest possible standard of justification – and that standard is not altered by the victim’s age or state of development.

Which of us claims the right to put an old woman with alzheimer’s to death or to kill a crippled child? Who can say that he has the moral authority to deny the humanity of any of us – regardless of the individual’s physical status?

 

[hoosiertoo]

Legally, one may define a person any way that is politically palatable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Legally, one may define a person any way that is politically palatable.

As the Nazis demonstrated when they defined the Jews as “untermenschen” (sub-human.)

 

[hoosiertoo]

As the Nazis demonstrated when they defined the Jews as “untermenschen” (sub-human.)

Or as Americans demonstrated when they defined Negro slaves as 3/5 of a person and denied them their God-given rights.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Or as Americans demonstrated when they defined Negro slaves as 3/5 of a person and denied them their God-given rights.

“Other persons not taxed” (which included slaves) were defined as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning Representatives to Congress, not for the purpose of putting Blacks in gas chambers or aborting them.

But if your point that defining people down is a crucial step to denying their rights, I agree.

 

[hoosiertoo]

"… if your point that defining people down is a crucial step to denying their rights, I agree.

Indeed.

And we’ve destroyed more Blacks in abortion mills than Hitler ever did Jews and other undesirables in his ovens.

 

[Mirdath]

So, uh, you two done yet? Can we get back to the thread?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Indeed.

And we’ve destroyed more Blacks in abortion mills than Hitler ever did Jews and other undesirables in his ovens.

Mamy of those who would “justify” abortion point out that “poor Blacks” have more abortions per capita than more affluent people.

Yet, oddly enough, those poor Blacks remain poor.