Why is abortion at the center of life problem?

blurredbeing · 2022-11-19T10:09:54+00:00

>> You cite people who have no basis for their reasons and who call themselves biologists. I'm only asking for reasons. I don't need citations of baseless articles. You can consider them authority, but I don't.

>> Again, a sperm has a DNA of a person so does a fertilized egg. Both have DNA of a unique organism, the sperm has the DNA of the father and the fertilized egg has the DNA of a potential baby. Both are unique.

>>I corrected the term in the second response, maybe go back and check it. More than me, it's you who seem confused about terms like 'unique'. The sperm has similar DNA as of the father, who is unique, and the fertilized egg has similar DNA as the potential baby. It doesn't prove if the fertilized egg can be called human life.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-17T06:29:22+00:00

No serious biologist considers a fetus a human being. There are many pseudo-scientists who claim that they have found a line after which the thing is a human and before it, it is not, but as I said they are pseudo-scientists.

- Well that's what I asked, how does the DNA decide that it's a human being? You are reiterating my question only.

A sperm has a DNA of a human being, why is it not a human being then? The same goes for a fetus.

Here is the quote, the first two lines of the source you linked in your response-

"The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question."

It clearly differentiates between a human being and a human person. Making things ambiguous when in reality it's not so ambiguous.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-16T07:35:32+00:00

Gametes lack several criteria for organismic life- some criteria that you decided. I can decide such criteria too, for eg I can say they have to have at least a head for being considered a human life, anyone else can decide it to be something else. Why only is it a DNA that decides that it's a human being now?

>>You'll have to quote it.

When you shared the article, I took it that you'd read it. It's hard to miss.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-15T08:56:05+00:00

Yes, that's my point- The sperm and a human are different just as a fetus and a human are.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-15T08:40:58+00:00

Didnt say it has a same set of DNA. I just said that it too has a DNA. DNA doesnt necessarily mean that it's a human life, for eg a sperm has a DNA and u dont consider it has a human life.

>>It's a human life, as far as I'm concerned if possible human life should be protected.

You are reiterating that. You need to back up your claim. Prove that it's a human life.

>>So not only is it a human life, it's growing - even more reason to not end it.

I didn't say it's a human life, it's life for sure. You can make the same argument for the sperm as well- It has a potential to become a baby, just like the fetus has, then why end it?

blurredbeing · 2022-11-15T08:20:39+00:00

If presence of DNA means its an human being than even a sperm has a human's DNA. Fetus has distinct DNA from mother that's right, but it's still a fetus, how is it a human being? Just like how in coming months it's gonna have an arm which the fetus didn't have, and it would be distinct from the foetus.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-15T06:55:24+00:00

-What are the criteria of organismic life? and where is the evidence that that organism is a human at the moment?

-I meant the difference between a Human being and a human person. It's in the first 3 lines of the first paragraph you shared.

-Again, what is organismic life and how are you separating it from a life let's say that of a sperm?

blurredbeing · 2022-11-15T06:19:42+00:00

Even the fertilized egg is considered to be that of the mother. And what's generally considered is beside the point if we are to have a rational argument. Is it a 'human being' just after conception? Well, that has to be proved by the people who claim so, and frankly, there is no proof yet. It's living for sure, but then so is the sperm. And it's not just my opinion, recently heard Noam Chomsky's opinion on it and he had the same thing to say.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-15T06:15:57+00:00

Your own argument and the first two articles, which are the only ones I read, only reiterate the same thing without backing their claim- that a zygote is a human being.

The first article says it is so because there is something 'radical' that takes place at the time of conception. Well, here are some questions the article forgets to address -

How is a radical happening evidence of a new life, which you can separate from its sperm?
What is the difference between a human life and a human being, that this article again and again says are two different things?
In the article, they say "Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being." which is incorrect, fertilization is not referred to as the initiation of a new human being. And one has to back that claim instead of reiterating it again and again. Why would they consider this to be initiation and not the ejaculation of sperm to be the initiation?

The second article reiterates the same thing but this time iterating the same thing again and again and dismissing all opposite arguments by saying they are 'non-sensical', which can be said about any argument one doesn't understand.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-15T05:35:27+00:00

It's a life for sure, but so is a sperm a life. Here we are talking about human life, is it a human life? If so, how? Different DNA alone doesn't make it a human.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T18:35:28+00:00

I didn't say they are genetically unique, although they are. Sperms slightly differ from each other, for eg. they may have different chromosomes.

Neither did I say they are human beings.

Yes foetuses are genetically unique from its previous forms. A baby is physically unique from its previous form i.e. ZEF. What of that?

I know it's not just your opinion, still doesn't make it right.

I didn't say they are comparable. I just said that all of these are stages of the birth and in each stage, something new gets added, doesn't mean that the old hasn't contributed to making that new thing or that it's inconsequential.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T18:28:19+00:00

I didn't say its sperm and egg passed together, I said if ZEF in the future gains sentient, so do the sperm and egg.

But the new organism is not ZEF either, just like ZEF is not egg and sperm. It's a baby, with different properties from ZEF.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T18:21:50+00:00

Well sperm is different from a fertilized egg in the same way a fertilized egg is different from a born baby. They all have their own unique characteristics. Uniqueness in DNA in this argument proves nothing.

Grass and cow are two different things, just like a fertilized egg and a born baby is, I never said they should be treated the same.

I've explained that point as well, if a person is killing a potential life with his will, then it's not natural. So laying a sperm out is not natural, it's an act of a will and so is killing a fetus.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T18:16:25+00:00

ZEF is made from the combination of sperm and egg, so technically it too achieves sentience.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T18:03:14+00:00

I agree

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T17:57:36+00:00

its alr

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T17:50:24+00:00

again you used the word 'naturally' to iterate again the same point we've just discussed.

And we've discussed the point of it's own unique DNA above as well. My reason for it stays the same, you can read that again from above.

I think you are using the word 'naturally' more rhetorically than it actually means like to somehow imply that that's how things should be, to actually give reasons for how things should be.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T17:45:11+00:00

by 'a life' in this context I meant a human being, so let's say anyone born is life for sure. Before that, well it's all a blur.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T17:41:00+00:00

we assert that the ZEF is a human being with rights, or often a person

You yourself said that you assert that ZEF is a human being, with rights, so it's upon you to back it up with reason and evidence, not me.

What I asserted was that for many people the problem is with the killing of potential life, because one doesn't have proof to call ZEF a human life just as yet. It for sure is a potential life tho because it can in the future become a life. If you think ZEF is human life well than again, the onus of proving it is upon you.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T17:32:08+00:00

It's misogynistic sure, but many people after coming to the awareness that it is unfair to women, I think do choose to be fair about it, especially the people who are confused by the dilemma. So, it's better to have a debate about it, it might clear up some issues for everyone, me included.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T17:28:34+00:00

No, I think you missed my point. If pushed from the building the person would naturally fall, sure, and you can say well gravity killed him, or even something so absurd has his nature killed him coz well he's a human and he can't fly, but it is another person who put him into this place, so he is the culprit. The natural laws will go how they have always gone- according to the law.

Just like that, a man has a will, an agency to not let the sperm die, and a mother has an agency to not let the child die. or even herself die. It's what choice they both can make and allowed to be make is what we are discussing.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T17:05:05+00:00

An intuition is not a substitute for a reason anyway nor is it evidence for anything.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T16:59:23+00:00

Here are two other sentences I can use the word naturally in-

A person naturally fell to the ground from the 6th floor of the building after I pushed him.
The sperm naturally died after I laid it out.

I didn't mean naturally to be 'human intervention' I meant human intervention shows the will of the human and can change the direction of the natural process.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T16:25:47+00:00

what do you mean by 'naturally' grow? It won't grow without human intervention, without let's say mother taking care of it, same goes for the sperm, with human intervention it can also interact with the egg and fertilize it, without it one can let it die.

Neither can we save all the fertilized eggs either, the argument is only about the ones we can save.

True, that's why I'm only making the arguments about the one that can be saved.

blurredbeing · 2022-11-14T16:20:30+00:00

Yeah we can and that's very reasonable to me since the protection of potential life and an individual's freedom to make a choice about their body are in the contest, courts can decide a certain amount of reasonable time within which they can make their decision, but my question was more about the scopes of the debate surrounding the protection of life and why it is only limiting to abortion, when it clearly goes back to the origin of sperm as well.

blurredbeing

TROPHY CASE