Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)

When the fertilization process begins (unification of ovum and spermatozoa). It starts at a finite moment in time. Yes, except if we all agreed we wouldn't be having this conversation. So I guess we're hashing out the gritty details here and now. If left to nature, a fetus with all the DNA signatures of a human will, if allowed, continue to be human and nothing else. It won't be a chimpanzee, it won't be cancer cells, it won't be a cat. When left to nature the result is human. My opinion is that a blastocyst, foetus, newborn, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, or geriatric adult are just terms of gestation and/or life-cycles that everyone, if left without intervention, would follow quite naturally. At no point were they not human.This isn't weird science. If a dog is pregnant, at no point will she give birth to an alligator. Everyone knows that. There is a puppy inside an adult dog.When a woman is pregnant, the first thing that happens is the humanization process. They ask, boy or girl? What is his/her name? This is because every single person you have ever layed eyes on or conversed with over the internet have ALL passed through this cycle of gestation. We all are the product of that and we ALL are human.So for some reason to deny that when it is convenient, seems nothing more than wishful thinking and playing pretend; pretending this is not human so as to alleviate those nagging bouts of guilt or to offer solace and absolution.The law also recognizes that if a pregnant is murdered, the offender could receive 2 charges of homicide. Why, if murder can only happen to a human being.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

As I understand it this is not the case. As I understand it the moment of conception is fraught with gradualistic realities. Firstly sometimes more than one sperm penetrates the egg and it takes time for the egg to eject those extra chromosones. And even once we are down to a single sperm it can be over a day before the genes of the sperm and egg combine. And then another day for the new genome to control the cell. So the "moment" of conception is more like a 48 hour period. And then approx 70% of those eggs that are fertilised never implant in the uterus and are sponataneously naturally aborted. So when is this "moment" of conception?And if you really want to save "lives" should you not be advocating that we try and save the 70% that get naturally aborted rather than worry about the tiny percentage that get intentionally aborted? If you think they are all human beings from the "moment" of conception? Left to nature most fertilised eggs are naturally aborted. Are you advocating that we should try and save all those lost "human beings"?When exactly does a bunch of mindless cells become a human being? And are you going to apply your definition consistently regardless of whether the abortion is natural or otherwise?Dude - By your criteria human beings are being unknowing flushed down the toilet all the time. 70% of humanity lost. Surely we must take action against this tragic loss? Or is maybe your criteria for a "human being" somewhat impractical?

I agree to some extent with both of your comments.It seems to me that there is one clear biological "point" that stands out way above all others. And that is the moment of fertilisation. Going back to Dawkins argument about the trillions and trillions of potential humans who have never been born, and the extraordinary odds against any of us being born, surely the moment of fertilization is a dramatic cut-off point where you are no longer talking about extreme odds. At that moment, you actually have a new and unique human with it's own DNA "under construction".Although not yet "known", that individual has a relatively very high chance of being born. Yes, at that moment it doesn't have a nervous system, but a nervous system needs a basic "framework" on which to operate, and that framework is being developed.Anyway, having said that, I do agree to some extent with Onifre's view: "who cares?" At an individual level, nobody but the parents really care about their child (real or potential). The rest of us are only concerned with the type of society we live in, we are not truly concerned with the welfare of anything but a handful of individuals. It's a different matter with being concerned about murders, etc, where being concerned about the fate of a murderer is relevant to us, as we don't want murderers running loose. But the decision of parents as to whether or not they bear a child has no direct relevance on the rest of us.So, although I haven't quite settled my mind on this issue, my view is leaning towards allowing abortion before a nervous system is developed. If you're going to make a cut-off point for allowing abortion, that would seem like the most significant and least controversial point.

The title of this post is partially for effect and parially to try to take this debate in a particular direction.As youself these questions.1. How sure are you that a fully grown adult woman is a person?
2. Should fully grown adults have certain fundamental human rights?
3. Are soverenty of your own body, the ability to make your own medical and family decisions, and right to privacy considered fundamental human rights?
4. How sure are you that a fetus is a person?
5. How many of the rights of a fully grown adult woman are you willing to abridge, in law, to satisfy your certainty of your answer to number 4?My answers are:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. I don't know
5. On the basis of my answer to #4, I am unwilling to support any law to abridge any of the rights I listed.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

I suppose this is a lot like the difference between dying and the moment one is actually dead. If someone has a terminal disease, their body may be going through physical changes leading up to death. But there is a moment in time where the individual is actually dead by all medical accounts.Well, sperm flowing through the birth canal on a long journey is leading up to the creation of a brand new life, but it is not the same thing as a created life just as dying isn't actually dead, regardless of how graduated it appears. It seems rather obvious that when the fertilization process begins, a new life distinct from its mother and father, is procreated. There is and has been improvement in medicine for centuries for the increased birth rate. There is nothing anyone can do to save a spontaneously aborted fetus besides good prenatal and preventative medicine. The glaring difference between the two is one is intentionally induced by the hand of a doctor with the intent to destroy, the other is the intent to save a life.It kind of falls in line nicely with that whole hippocratic oath dictum "Do no harm" I don't know what a mindless cell is, can you explain in more detail? How exactly have you quantified that 70% of humans are flushed down a toilet in the first place to even begin to entertain the notion of answering it seriously?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Do you honestly think it would be best for the human race to give birth to every single conceived fetus?Don't you think that natural abortions help control our numbers that are ever increasing?Are you simply stating that if it happens naturally it's cool, but if someone makes the decision to end it on their own terms it's not cool? What is the point of that?- Oni

Well that'd be one distinction between it being immoral or amoral... ya know?

According to who? What purpose would your opinion on morality serve in someone elses life?- Oni

I don't place too much stock in to the Malthusian theories. I think what would help is for people that don't want to get pregnant to not get pregnant in the first place. I'm saying that if someone dies as the result of an accident or medical reasons is vastly different than someone dying as the result of intentional and premeditated killings.That's like asking if I think it's cool if someone dies from cancer. No I don't, but some things are either unavoidable or unintended. Jamming a vacuum with blades in to someone's crotch with then intent of killing what's inside the womb, however, is a little easier to prevent.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Right, but the point to consider is, how is it relevant what you think concerning someone elses body?I can understand if you personally would not have an abortion (or you and your partner). But why should that also be how everyone else should decide? Choice words...Anyway, to a lesser dramatic affect. Abortions occur naturally, or, in small cases woman make a decision to abort - is it seriously an issue that people should concern themselves with when they have nothing to do with the pregnancy? Why don't you just post a picture of a dead fetus for the full affect? The vacuum isn't "jammed". It doesn't just go into the "crotch". The intent is to "remove" what's inside, not kill. Or are you now judging the intent of people you don't even know? I recall you taking a different position in the "hate crime" thread.You could have said it a lot easier, but you went the route of a fundamentalist christian teenage girl screaming outside of an abortion clinic using hyperbole. Until she gets pregnant and...well...has an abortion.People choose to remove a growth in their womb. I could care less. Why do you care so much? It seems like fake sincerity to my, Hyro.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Because it directly affects someone else's body, Oni. The only issue is that it is directly affecting someone else who has no choice, otherwise no one would care. It's kind of like this for me: If a woman wanted to drive 150 on a race track, I don't care. Have all the fun you want. But if that same parent now has their own child in the backseat, that kind of changes things dramatically.It all has to be looked at in context. Let me ask you something. I think I recall you saying something about having a child, a daughter if I'm not mistaken. What kind of reaction do you think your daughter would give seeing images of what would have been her brother or sister mutilated? Do you think there wouldn't be a visceral reaction? And then ask yourself why she might act that way if she was horrified. Answer honestly, please. LOL! If you go to an abortion clinic to get an abortion, that completely summarizes the intent! I could be extremely graphic and provide all sorts of imagery and I could say that God is going to kill all Pro-Choicers while regurgitating various scriptures. That would be akin to what you're talking about. Me describing a process is me describing a process that most people want to pretend doesn't really happen. It seems fake probably because you're the only one inside your head and since you don't feel anything about it, conceptualizing what other people feel is next to impossible for you.If you're as indifferent to it as you claim, why do you care so much what I think? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Correcting typos

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This seemed apposite;Mutate and Survive

I agree with all your answers except number 4; having thought it through even more, I would say "a foetus is not a person", at least until a nervous system has developed.Straggler was right (at least from the moment of fertilization) there is no clear point at which you can say a foetus is a person. I made the point earlier that during the first few weeks, even though a foetus does not have a nervous system, it is developing the "framework" on which the nervous system will operate. Initially, I thought that gave some credibility to the argument against abortion at that point. But now I consider it is not a person.To use some crude analogies, you can have a blueprint for a house, and even build the foundations, but you don't yet have a house. Similarly, you can have a blueprint for a car, and even build the chassis, but you don't yet have a car. At what later point during the building process you can definitely say you have a house or a car is arguable, but you need to have certain fundamental features in place. You don't yet have such critical features in place in a foetus only a few weeks old.Damn and blast it, I have to agree with Dawkins again.

I'm surprised you don't know - the reason such a crime is on the books is because of a sneaky lobbyist group of interested people who would like to see abortion made illegal!Tired of going against Roe vs Wade directly, they have tried to sneak in the back.First they make it a crime against the fetus for somebody who attacks a woman and harms the fetus.Then they change tack - why, they say, if it's a crime to harm a fetus, are we allowing abortion?many people, whilst agreeing with the sentiment, disagree very vehemently with those sort of laws because of who wants them on the books and what the final result is - nothing about justice and everything to do with denying women rights.

People who think artificial abortions are immoral... The same purpose that everyone else's serves on everybody. That's how cultures determine moralities. Am I missing something?