h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<<"But an early foetus isn't a human life".>>

Now I'm going to take issue with this, not because I disagree with the eventual conclusion, but because this sort of word twisting and definition dodging irritates me at some fundamental level, as well as actually hurting the cause.

The foetus has its own set of human genetic code. Its indisputably human life.

Now I have no problem with saying that sometimes its ok to kill a human. A foetus certainly lacks those traits that I (and I suspect many/most people) care about in humans. And I can't see that redefining a foetus as not human is anything other than an attempt to dodge this loaded language.

By all means say its not a person.

<<"But an early foetus isn't a human life".>>

It's a potential human life . . . I don't think anyone would doubt that a foetus is not a potential human. Nor that it is actually not alive during its various stages of development.

But it is also not a 'baby' or a 'child' or a 'person' until it is born.

Really get annoyed at anti-abortionists using these 'emotive' terms about not yet born possible humans . . . baby, child, etc.

Keep having to remind people that my personal take was that my 10-week-old foetus totally felt like *my baby* to me, my pretty girl that I'd named Sarah. But I also know that that was simply my take on that . . . it was a very emotional thing. For me.

And I had to give her up - it was either me or her. And not a day goes by that I don't feel that loss. So, I do tend to get quite annoyed at anti-abortionists who call themselves 'pro-life' without truly taking into consideration the life of the pregnant woman. And all that she went through to make her decision. To judge her so unfairly . . . that really p*sses me off.

The worst day of my life was the abortion I never wanted to have. And so I take serious umbrage towards those who think they *know* better, or Della who says that there is never any *real* health risk reason for woman choosing this option.

I support choice, for all women. No matter what I feel personally about the subject. Because I cannot pretend to know all women, know what they go through day-by-day, know all their fears and hopes and whatever.

Bit of a rant there, so sue me.


az

Della

That's your opinion, not a fact. You haven't yet managed to convince those who think otherwise to change their minds.

<- in fact, I am opposed to abortion on eugenics grounds period. Who gives you (generic you, BTW, not directed at anyone here) the right to judge which lives are fit to survive?>

Nobody bestows the right, although government establishes the laws which make it permissible. Thus you could say it is the will of the society to give people the choice how to live their lives. It's not necessarily saying a life is not fit to survive, but that the parents feel unable to cope with the life that would ensue.

I think I agree with you in general Bouncy. But whats the difference between saying a foetus is not a human life, and not a person? Did I just screw up the my definitions really badly? Can you clarify for me?

Also when you said "The foetus has its own set of human genetic code. Its indisputably human life."

Every cell in your body has its own set of human genetic code. Is each cell indisputably human life?

<<"Every cell in your body has its own set of human genetic code. Is each cell indisputably human life?".>>

Well I was under the impression these cells had the same code, i.e. it wasn't unique. I admit this definition sort of breaks down with twins and clones.

I would consider 'a human' to mean 'a homo sapien'. Whereas 'a person' is surely a mind-based definition, of intelligence and social interaction. I suppose in my book this means a dead body would be a human but not a person, whereas a neanderthal would be a person but not a human (nor a proto-human, since they went down a different evolutionary path). Some of the more sociable and intelligent mammals might be considered people depending on where you set the boundaries - they're certainly on the way. I certainly couldn't watch the complex interactions of a herd of elephants and say that because they're not human they deserve no better than the wasp I just sprayed.

I thought these definitions were more or less universal, perhaps with a little tweaking? Certainly when I hear all this stuff about is it a human or a potential human or just a ball of cells it makes me cringe. It seems so wrong end of the stick. A sperm is a potential human. A foetus is both a human and a ball of cells.

My concern is that neutral parties, faced with a bad argument, will dismiss the conclusion out of hand.

But perhaps its just my confusion rather than the courage of convictions thing I had thought. I was guessing it had come through pro-choice rhetoric from a previous idea of 'all human life is sacred'. Which as I've said elsewhere I think is an impossible ideal. Every argument about government spending is hypothetically condemning someone somewhere to death for a start.

But yes, the same conclusion. Given a mindless lump of biomatter that could one day think, human or no, my concern is always going to be with those who already do think, their practicalities and their feelings.

<<<> (Della)

Oh, so if it isn't *enforced* then it's okay?>>

No, not really..

<>

Precisely what I would have said! Many here say it is only "potential" but if nothing interrupts its developement, that potential will be realised, no question.

<<And so I take serious umbrage towards those who think they *know* better, or Della who says that there is never any *real* health risk reason for woman choosing this option. >>

Twisting my words *again*, azahar, tut tut silly girl..

<<<> (Della)

Oh, so if it isn't *enforced* then it's okay?>>

No, not really..



The obvious question is, why is it not OK?

<>

Sorry to interrupt, but the above statement is not quite true. If there is no interuption then the potential for a human life MAY be realised. Almost all sexually active women, when regularly tested for pregnancy over the course of a month will get pregnant during that month - when I say most I mean 90% or thereabouts (so quoted to me in a biochemistry lecture). However, most - even without the wonders of modern medicine interfering - will not be full-term, or even another month for this world. However, as these miscarriages occur within the first month most people will not even notice it.

Of those zygotes that make it to become a fetus and get noticed by the mother, another 15% will be lost in miscarriage. Some due to outside interference, but not many. The current thinking reckons that the organisms genetic makeup just has not got what it takes to survive - its own development dooms it. This is mainly down to the chance genetic-magic that occurs at meiosis and again the chance of which particular gametes meet to produce the zygote.

The human organism is incredibly intricate and goes through a whole array of carefully controlled, and massive, changes during its term in the womb. There is an awful lot which can go wrong, and often does. So even if left alone, and not interrupted, that potential may not be realised. Until later...
BCNU - Crescent

<>

Presumably, Della, you mean the words you wrote on a thread about abortion and then later apologised to me for on our chat thread on my PS? Nope, no twisting there.

Also presuming that calling me a 'silly girl' is the same rather sad sniping you use when, for example, you refer to Blatherskite as an 'old man'?

T'was a time when that sort of thing upset me, before I knew you better. Now I just see it as more of the same old Della Technique™. Hit and run. Using insults in an attempt to smokescreen the fact that you are not actually replying to the questions or debate challenges posed to you.

A word of advice - it doesn't work. It just makes you look evasive and petty. But then again, you're not really here to debate, are you?


az

Actually, I think she called me the old man

Crescent - you are correct, but if this is a pro-choice argument, then it is flawed. While it is indeed true that many pregnancies end in death of the embryo/foetus/baby, the issue with abortion is whether or not it is morally justified to deliberately *cause* an embryo/foetus/unborn baby to die.

"Precisely what I would have said! Many here say it is only "potential" but if nothing interrupts its developement, that potential will be realised, no question. "

Things are what they are, and they are not what they are not.

At the time of writing, I'm not dead, but I'm potentially dead. And that potential "will be realised, no question". However, I would feel very put out if someone were to cremate my body and my relatives start squabbling over my stuff until I am actually dead.