Texas bans abortion.

[Warbler]

So you agree that something is not a 'baby' until it develops into one. So...at what point does that happen?

The really question is when does it get to the point where it should gain rights, like the right to live. I wish I could give a good answer as to when that is, maybe at the end of the first trimester?

 

[acbytesla]

The really question is when does it get to the point where it should gain rights, like the right to live. I wish I could give a good answer as to when that is, maybe at the end of the first trimester?

Roe v Wade doesn't officially give the fetus rights at any time. It does say the state has an interest in the life of the fetus at the beginning of the third trimester. The life of the mother is always a greater concern.

BTW, 90 percent of all abortions have been performed by the end of the 13th week. So one week into the second trimester.

 

[Warbler]

Which is what I had said, actually. The mostly was more acknowledging that humans in general share more than 99% of our DNA and for a transplant to be successful, it's probably going to be distinctly more than baseline sharing.

Okay.

We can agree with all of this except for the separate lifeform part. It's not meaningfully a separate lifeform in that condition. An embryo may have the potential to become a separate lifeform, but that potential has not been realized at that point.

It may not yet be person, but it is alive. Science says even a single cell is alive. The DNA shows it is separate from the mother, so, separate lifeform.

The reason for it ending up tested is entirely irrelevant to the example. What matters is that DNA from the transplanted part is what ends up being tested, rather than the original DNA of the host.

Yes, if you didn't test both, it could lead to confusion.

I'm not assuming that you are intentionally doing so, at least. No more than I assume that investigators who received a DNA result that indicated the kidney donor rather than the transplanted kidney's new host would be intentionally making mistakes on what's going on.

Okay.

*sigh*

Sorry.

First, when you directly and repeatedly say person in your responses to me/what I respond to and try to defend your position with arguments that would require that we assume that it's a separate individual person from the start, am I supposed to magically reinterpret that person to mean something different?

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Second, alright, let's just a deal with that alternate version of what you said. That can only really stand in a way that doesn't actually conflict with the statement that a zygote is part of the mother, which would render that debate pretty well moot. Fine by me, if so.

perhaps.

 

[Warbler]

Roe v Wade doesn't officially give the fetus rights at any time.

Yes I know. I was saying when I thought maybe it should gain rights. I realize the law disagrees.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes I know. I was saying when I thought maybe it should gain rights. I realize the law disagrees.

The problem with giving it rights is that at the same time you are taking away the rights of the woman carrying it. I don't see how that can ever be justified.

 

[Warbler]

The problem with giving it rights is that at the same time you are taking away the rights of the woman carrying it. I don't see how that can ever be justified.

No, I am saying that it's right to live exceeds the right of the mother to end pregnancy that won't kill her.

and lets say it is taking away the rights of the mother, if you gave the fetus rights anytime before birth, including the third trimester(at which time the law already says the state has an interest in the life of the fetus).

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
So you agree that something is not a 'baby' until it develops into one. So...at what point does that happen?

The really question is when does it get to the point where it should gain rights, like the right to live. I wish I could give a good answer as to when that is, maybe at the end of the first trimester?

Would you agree that a non-sentient 'being" has less rights that a sentient one? In other words, a 'living being' that is not able to perceive or feel things has less rights than one that does.

 

[Aridas]

It may not yet be person, but it is alive. Science says even a single cell is alive.

We can treat that as another point of agreement.

The DNA shows it is separate from the mother, so, separate lifeform.

And here's the one major point of contention that I have with your statements in this post. DNA simply doesn't actually show that in a meaningful way. It does provide a point of distinction, yes, but not of the sort that properly indicates or requires separation. What it looks like to me is that you were casting about trying to find a pretext to argue against something that you felt undermined your position and latched onto DNA. Given the specific case of a zygote or embryo is fundamentally that of a potential individual in development, that looks like what you actually want to highlight more. As for DNA, as I've poked at multiple times now, biology is messy. Having different DNA does not automatically mean that something can reasonably be considered separate from an organism. Mitochondria makes for a rather common example of that, before getting to things like obligate symbiotic relationships.

 

[acbytesla]

No, I am saying that it's right to live exceeds the right of the mother to end pregnancy that won't kill her.

You are taking away the woman's bodily autonomy and ruling she doesn't matter.

That a fetus the size of my index finger without a fully developed brain and no reason to believe it has any capacity to think or feel anything has preemptive rights over a woman's body. I don't see how that makes sense.

 

[psionl0]

Why is a unique DNA so important when the part that makes us different from another person is so small?

DNA is the genetic blueprint of the person. It is the reason why identical twins are - identical. They have the same genetic blueprint.

I agree, with the proviso that the fetus is not necessarily granted personhood because of its DNA is different from the mother.

Why didn't you lead with this instead of suggesting that the existence of identical twins means that we can throw everything we know about DNA out the window? And the idea that conjoined twins (even if they are just joined at the pinkie) are just one individual is semantics at its worst.

 

[Warbler]

Would you agree that a non-sentient 'being" has less rights that a sentient one? In other words, a 'living being' that is not able to perceive or feel things has less rights than one that does.

I would agree a cat or dog has less rights than a human. I agree that living things that aren't sentient will never be sentient have less rights than a sentient being. But a fetus is slow developing into a sentient being.

And here's the one major point of contention that I have with your statements in this post. DNA simply doesn't actually show that in a meaningful way. It does provide a point of distinction, yes, but not of the sort that properly indicates or requires separation. What it looks like to me is that you were casting about trying to find a pretext to argue against something that you felt undermined your position and latched onto DNA. Given the specific case of a zygote or embryo is fundamentally that of a potential individual in development, that looks like what you actually want to highlight more. As for DNA, as I've poked at multiple times now, biology is messy. Having different DNA does not automatically mean that something can reasonably be considered separate from an organism. Mitochondria makes for a rather common example of that, before getting to things like obligate symbiotic relationships.

I would still say an embryo is separate from the mother. The embryo and mother are not the same lifeforms.

You are taking away the woman's bodily autonomy and ruling she doesn't matter.

That is not what I am doing. I've tried to explain this to you six ways from Sunday. I will try one last time. Most of the time a pregnancy won't kill the mother, abortion will kill the fetus 100% of the time. I had to choose between the life of fetus or the life of a mother, I would choose to save the mother(unless she would rather let the fetus live). But in normal pregnancies, it is not a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. It is a choice between the life of fetus and the right of the mother to get an abortion. I am not saying the life of the fetus has more value than the life of the mother.

 

[psionl0]

The zygote is entirely and completely dependent on and connected to the mother body and also causes physiological changes in the mother. It becomes a part of her in pretty much every meaningful sense of the word.

The mother provides the environment and nourishment necessary for the zygote/embryo/foetus to survive.

That doesn't make it part of her body. If somebody was to give me a direct blood transfusion (connected together by a tube) that wouldn't make me a part of the donor.

 

[Stacyhs]

I would agree a cat or dog has less rights than a human. I agree that living things that aren't sentient will never be sentient have less rights than a sentient being. But a fetus is slow developing into a sentient being.

You're moving the goalposts. That a cat or dog has less rights than a sentient being was not the question.
Nor did I ask you about "living things that aren't sentient (and) will never be sentient". I asked you if a sentient being has less rights than a sentient being.

You're resorting to "but, but , but..." yet still agreeing that a fetus, before a point of development, is not a sentient being. So...does that fetus that has not developed into a sentient being, have as many rights as an already sentient being?

 

[Aridas]

I would still say an embryo is separate from the mother. The embryo and mother are not the same lifeforms.

To poke at the bigger picture, the relationship is more complicated than simply being able to say that they're either the same or not the same without distinct qualifiers. As I keep repeating, biology is messy, with reproduction being of particular note there. With that said, though, as long as you aren't intending to push that DNA argument attempt, I'm not going to push further there.

The mother provides the environment and nourishment necessary for the zygote/embryo/foetus to survive.

That doesn't make it part of her body. If somebody was to give me a direct blood transfusion (connected together by a tube) that wouldn't make me a part of the donor.

Equivocation. It 1) starts as a part of her body, 2) attempts to reattach to her body if fertilized, 3) lives off her body and causes changes to her body like an organ as it develops before hopefully eventually separating properly. There's really not such a clear distinction as you seem to wish. It's a part of her for all reasonable purposes until birth, even though one can validly point out that that's not the whole picture. Your attempted example doesn't even come remotely close to being reasonably comparable.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If you want to use DNA as a marker for personhood...
then epigenetic markers such as DNA methylations, could quantity how far developed an embryo is.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

If somebody was to give me a direct blood transfusion (connected together by a tube) that wouldn't make me a part of the donor.

That's an interesting analogy, in that afaik the donor would be within their rights to terminate the transfusion even if doing so would result in your death, and no question that you're a human being.

If women can be forced to carry a parasitic fetus for nine months in the off chance lord jebus done smiled upon little zygote and gifted it with a soul, why aren't people with rare blood types forced to donate blood? We can all agree that doing so in those cases would save actual human lives.

 

[psionl0]

Equivocation. It 1) starts as a part of her body, 2) attempts to reattach to her body if fertilized, 3) lives off her body and causes changes to her body like an organ as it develops before hopefully eventually separating properly. There's really not such a clear distinction as you seem to wish. It's a part of her for all reasonable purposes until birth, even though one can validly point out that that's not the whole picture. Your attempted example doesn't even come remotely close to being reasonably comparable.

So is your argument that it is a part of her body right up until the umbilical cord is cut? Maybe the baby becomes part of the mother's body again during breast feeding.

 

[psionl0]

That's an interesting analogy, in that afaik the donor would be within their rights to terminate the transfusion even if doing so would result in your death, and no question that you're a human being.

Agreed.

I have never said otherwise (although in an ideal world . . .). I just don't see the need to denigrate the living thing and stir up negative emotion against it to justify abortion.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Agreed.

I have never said otherwise (although in an ideal world . . .). I just don't see the need to denigrate the living thing and stir up negative emotion against it to justify abortion.

It's to counter denigrating the mother and stirring up positive emotions about the fetus to justify banning abortion. But you surely understand that already, so I think you do see the need.

 

[psionl0]

It's to counter denigrating the mother and stirring up positive emotions about the fetus to justify banning abortion.

Then it is a poor tactic which (as you have seen) leads to endless semantic arguments about what exactly is growing inside of the woman.