I originally put this thread out as an attempt to have a serious debate with any pro-lifer .. unsurprisingly none responded (well someone did, but he really wasn't a adamant pro-lifer), so now I'm going to throw it open to anyone who would like to discuss it. -------- Many pro-lifers adhere to the principle that once the sperm penetrates the ovum there is a person who should receive all the rights associated with that status, the same rights as you, me and every other born person alive today. I will now endeavour to show that the person at conception idea is flawed. Firstly, lets examine the thinking behind the person at conception idea, which I feel can be summed up in a single point. Once the sperm penetrates the ovum there is a person due to the unique DNA that now exists. Person at conception pro-lifers will dismiss any counter argument based on development, attachment to the woman, visual characteristics, and viability because of this uniqueness. For the sake of this debate I will not use any of the listed counter arguments. I bring you now to the crux of my argument against the person at conception idea ... ... Chimera twins. Chimera twins start out as two separate ova fertilized by two separate sperm(1), so in the person at conception idea they are two individual persons, but at the blastocyst or zygote stage these two persons merge by means of blood-vessal anastomoses(2) if BOTH sets of twins continue to develop they will be born as Siamese or co-joined twins, however there are cases where one of the twins does not fully develop and becomes absorbed by the other, but organs, blood and sexual identify (ie sex organs - commonly known as a hermaphrodite.) continue to develop within the dominant twin. There are a number of cases on record of chimera twins, such as a woman with acute renal failure who required a kidney transplant, as per common procedure her nearest kin were tested for compatibility, it was discovered that two of her three sons were in fact not her sons, even though medical records confirmed she had birthed them, further genetic testing revealed that one of her ovaries held different DNA from the rest of her body and that the two sons had been conceived from ovum from that ovary, the conclusion doctors came to was that she was a chimera twin, the ovary was the fully developed ovary from her twin sister, now this is a hidden case, but there are others which are more obvious, such as Deepak Kumar Paswaan(3) who had the legs of his twin growing from his chest. Neither of these cases was life threatening to dominant twin, both were using the resources of the host (just as a fetus does) Now my argument against the person at conception premise is as follows; If the person at conception premise is correct then these chimera twins are in fact two individual people contained in a single body, remember the arguments for development, physical attachment and viability have already been discounted by the person at conception pro-lifers, and as such these organs, limbs etc would have the same rights as any other person based on their individual status at conception and their unique DNA, unless the person at conception pro-lifers are going to place arbitrary conditions in these cases, such as viability. There can be no argument that in the cases of chimera twins you have two separate individual DNAs and as such ANY attempt to rectify the situation would be murder. Sources 1. http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/3/579.long 2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...om/anastomosis 3. http://www.omg-facts.com/Celebs/An-8...in-Growi/24338
Honestly I don't know why pro-lifers base their opinion at conception because generally women don't even find out they are pregnant until they miss their first period and conception is long over. If I was pro-life I would be arguing from the point that she discovers her pregnancy and onward, not from conception, a point in the pregnancy that they cannot even determine yet! For example: http://www.justmommies.com/articles/how-early-can-i-test.shtml
This is a flawed argument. The other person doesn't exist anymore, they've been absorbed into the other twin. There are not two individual humans there, only a single one with some mismatched/extra parts. Also, pro-lifers are really more concerned with the fact that a zygote/fetus is a living thing - it is human. It is just in a very early stage of development. We're not even fully developed when we're born, it takes another two decades. It doesn't matter if you kill a fetus before it's truly conscious or not, it's still human. It is a person - a very, very, undeveloped person, but one that we know will probably turn into another adult human like the ones we see all the time every day. And the thought of killing that person is uncomfortable to some people, understandably - not many people actually enjoy killing other people. I don't actually have a problem with abortion, but I think you really misunderstand where the pro-lifers come from. - - - Updated - - - This is a flawed argument. The other person doesn't exist anymore, they've been absorbed into the other twin. There are not two individual humans there, only a single one with some mismatched/extra parts. Also, pro-lifers are really more concerned with the fact that a zygote/fetus is a living thing - it is human. It is just in a very early stage of development. We're not even fully developed when we're born, it takes another two decades. It doesn't matter if you kill a fetus before it's truly conscious or not, it's still human. It is a person - a very, very, undeveloped person, but one that we know will probably turn into another adult human like the ones we see all the time every day. And the thought of killing that person is uncomfortable to some people, understandably - not many people actually enjoy killing other people. I don't actually have a problem with abortion, but I think you really misunderstand where the pro-lifers come from.
Then with respect I would suggest you read some of the comments left by pro-lifers on this site, where they are adamant that there is a "person at conception" and as such should be entitled to the same rights as everyone. A chimera twin is two separate "persons" at conception and thus, under pro-life reasoning, they are both entitled to rights. In many debates pro-lifers have insisted that viability, development, what it looks like, and its attachment to the woman are not relevant in their view, thus one has to conclude that even though the submissive twin may only be certain organs etc that it has the same rights as its dominant twin, due to it's unique DNA and the rights bestowed upon it at conception. Remember rights can only be removed or changed through due process, therefore in these cases it would need a court to decide whether the submissive twin was in some way not at the same level of rights as the dominant .. given that in most cases there is no threat to life of the dominant twin under what reasoning would the submissive twin lose its rights? Someone, somewhere would have to make a decision, which is no different to what is and has been done concerning abortion anyway, and even if that decision is made in favor of removing the submissive twin then that is an arbitrary decision, no different to how it is now. So is the submissive twin, it meets all the criteria that pro-lifers use. 1. It is the result of a two single sperm fertilizing two seperate ovum 2. Upon fertilization there is unique DNA 3. For the first stages of it's life it is a separate entity from the other twin. 4. Development stages are not relevant, it is a human being from conception 5. Reliance on the life support of another body is irrelevant. If the argument is used that the submissive twin did not become fully developed, then the same argument can be used by pro-choicers as it is a scientific fact that at the embryo or zygote stage it is unknown whether it will become fully developed and even further into the pregnancy there is still the chance it will not become fully developed due to abnormalities, yet even if abnormalities incompatible with life are discovered pro-lifers still want the woman to give birth and allow the fetus/newborn to die naturally .. statements on these very pages confirm that. I agree most people do feel uncomfortably with abortion, but yet again we have pro-lifers who will insist that the pro-choice position is one about "loving abortion and killing children", they cannot seem to comprehend that most pro-choicers would like to see an end to abortion, but not at the cost of turning women into chattel.
What is your obsession with the subject of abortion? Why do you feel the need to champion the position that human life is disposable at the whim of the host? I cruise this board by looking at "new posts" so I chime in whenever I find a subject worthy of my two cents and my interests lie across the spectrum. I have never seen your name appear anywhere but in pro abortion threads. I find the unceasing need on your part to argue that killing innocent life is fine to be disturbing, and no attempts to belittle the life of a human being is worthy of engaging in debate. I'd like to know why some people are willing to diminish human life simply because they see it as some kind of feminist liberation. I'd like to know how that justification is materialized in the mind. I understand the reasoning, "it's not a human life" yet. I understand that line of tactic and I imagine that after a while you can even convince yourself that it is justified. OJ Simpson I believe had also justified his actions. People can conjure amazing rationalities given enough obsessive thought, reinforcing their position again and again, while pretending that little thing growing inside is just a mass of cells parasitically feeding off a victim.
Supporting abortion rights is not based on the "disposableness" of human life. Trusting women requires that we respect their decisions and realize that most abortions will not be undertaken on a "whim." It is recognizing that "human life" is no more valuable a few minutes after conception than that same egg and sperm were before conception, and it doesn't make sense to say that it is. We each have our own preferences on discussion, and while you may prefer to engage in discussion casually, others prefer to discuss matters they have researched and therefore are knowledgeable on that subject. Recognizing the cost to women of pregnancy/childbirth doesn't diminish "human life", instead it acknowledges the sacrifice that women make to give birth. It values women's contribution rather than treating women like walking incubators. You're quite right about rationalizing, the entire pro-life contingent rationalizes that a one cell being is instantly "A human being" or "A person" without giving one thought to what characteristics are necessary to qualify as "A human being" or "A person."
No obsession, what is yours? Because human life is disposable and you support that as much as anyone, unless you campaign against the death penalty and war .. do you? The fact that you think it is a "whim" speaks volumes about your opinion of women .. what is it you want, bare foot and pregnant? Then you need to "cruise" a little more, you will find comments from me in various forums here. If you actually bothered to read the OP then you would see that it is not belittling human life, so do you have any dispute to the points put across are are you content to just post crap. I'd like to know the same as well, when pro-lifers hurl things like "she should keep her legs closed" or "pro-choicers love abortion", they obviously don't think they are diminishing another human life, nor do they feel that when they support the death penalty and war, I'm sure after a while you can even convince yourself that it is justified. Scott Roeder I believe had also justified his actions. People can conjure amazing rationalities given enough obsessive thought, reinforcing their position again and again purely based on some ancient fairy tale and the obsession to control others.
My own objection to "person at conception" is two fold. Firstly there can be no "person" without nurture of the fertilised egg and that requires implantation. A fertilised egg that is never implanted can never become a person. My second objection comes from a legal standpoint. Should we issue "potential birth certificates" to all fertilised eggs as proof of citizenship/personhood in legislation?
I agree, but the purpose of this topic is to debate on the item based on "person at conception" idea from pro-lifers where legality or natural losses are not paramount. The fact that not one of them has entered into the debate only shows me that they are clutching at straws on the 2person at conception" fallacy.
Or maybe your entire attempt to start a debate is too lame to merit much attention. - - - Updated - - - Maybe the same reason that pro aborts fixate on whether or not a zygote is a person. Nobody ever aborts a zygote, yet they persist.
Whaler, I don't usually agree with you and the next time it happens may be a long while from now or never again, but sir, I agree with you. Nobody aborts a zygote, so why must we argue from that point? It seems so absurd to me.
Says the person who won't even provide the slightest bit of evidence to support "It is obviously a smal[sic] step to go from killing a child in utero below the threshold to killing one over the threshold."
I am surprised that you would agree with whaler, considering his "contribution" has nothing to do with the actual topic and is just the usual thing he does when he doesn't have any answers .. derail and obscure, that is the method.
Look up the word "obvious" little Johnny. - - - Updated - - - RRRIIIIGHT, Its everyone else who has the problem, not you.
What about 'person' in American jail, or 'person' on death row, or even 'person' on benefits? Reactionary hypocricy really is sick, isn't it?
Says the person who won't even provide the slightest bit of evidence to support "It is obviously a smal[sic] step to go from killing a child in utero below the threshold to killing one over the threshold."
I mean that if you are determined to make people be born, you have a duty to treat them decently and not bring them up to go to jail or be executed.
Says the person who won't even provide the slightest bit of evidence to support "It is obviously a smal[sic] step to go from killing a child in utero below the threshold to killing one over the threshold." - - - Updated - - - I agree, that is why "person at conception" is just plain stupidity.
I agree that people on both sides of the fence arguing that we shouldn't abort a zygote or shouldn't care if people abort a zygote is just stupid because nobody even aborts zygotes, nobody even knows they are pregnant until implantation and the hCG hormones are released and can be tested in urine. It's already an embryo at that point, it is no longer a single celled blastocyst and so on and so forth. Most abortions occur in the 6th-9th weeks of pregnancy. If people want to claim they are zygotes at that point they need to crack open a Biology book and look again. So I understand destroying the premise of "it's a person at conception!", but honestly if pro-lifers just stopped trying to argue from that point rather than I dunno, implantation when pregnancy is discovered then we wouldn't have all these arguments floating around about worrying whether zygotes are people or not. Doesn't seem to matter since the zygote stage is long over once they are even aware of the pregnancy.
Or course it does: you bully women to have children they can't afford and don't want, then discriminate against them in education and every other way, so the only thing worth having is drugs, for which you send them to jail. Very Christian!
