But a legal ruling is only a legal ruling. Implantation is a major milestone in the development of an embryo; but an actively dividing unimplanted embryo is hardly inert.

Neither is hydrogen... nor a carrot.

Brave and principled move by Ron Paul. His is the only logically coherent anti-abortion position that can be taken.

You get the impression that some of the other Republican candidates might have paid for intern they banged to get an abortion. Or if a black guy ever got their daughter pregnant wouldn't hesitate to do so.

Whole lot of woolly thinking going on here, I'm sorry to say.



A heart outside the body is not a human organism. You are confusing "organism" with "organ". An organism is something with organic function, that is, a genetically distinct identity that carries out life processes and is capable of self-direction. Before we get carried away with that definition, it is perfectly fine for an "organism" to require particular environmental conditions in order to carry out its function. Otherwise a liver fluke wouldn't be an organism, nor would a human in space without a spacesuit. A human heart, on the other hand, is an organ but not an organism.

So, let's consider the foetus: is it alive? Check -- if it wasn't there'd be no abortion, since we wouldn't have to kill it: the purpose of abortion is to kill the foetus; is it genetically distinct? Check -- the foetus has its own complement of DNA, different from any other human individual; is it an organism? Check -- it is alive, genetically distinct, and capable of using resources from its environment for the purposes of self-directed growth; is it human? Check -- it's a living, genetically distinct organism, capable of self-directed growth, with human DNA ... what other species might it be if not human?

If it seems I'm labouring the point, I am only reiterating what the embryology textbooks say: a foetus is a living human organism. By the dictionary definition, that makes it also a human "being" -- a member of the species Homo sapiens.

So much for the science. The ethical argument begins where the pro-lifer will insist that human beings are inalienably possessed of human rights. The pro-choice side has gotten itself all bogged down in trying to come up with that je ne sais quoi, that ineffable something that turns the disposable non-human foetus into something human and non-disposable at a certain stage of development. It's as if we're afraid to say "we're ok with killing human beings".

But human life, as the embryology textbooks also say, is a continuum. That ineffable something is nowhere to be found, nor will it ever be. In fact it's ironic -- the scientific establishment scoffed at Bergson's élan vital as unnecessary to the definition of life, and here are we supposedly rational pro-choicers seemingly trying to bring it back. Why do we need to, if not from a lack of courage? The earlier poster who ridiculed the "pro-life" implication that we pro-choicers are pro-death was more right than they maybe intended. That's exactly what we are, and proud of it.

However, ditchdweller, this is seemingly not what you would conclude. To return to your question: "Is an 8 week old or 12 week old fetus a human being or a fetus which is a distinctly other being?". Let's not leave the question hanging -- what's your answer (and, more importantly, on what specific grounds)?



You'll have to cite particular cases if you want to be believed, but to take the fairly obvious one in the Irish Supreme court (Roche v Roche, 2009) -- the court said nothing remotely like that. To take just two contrary quotes from the ruling (emphases mine): "While this appeal raises very important issues, the resolution of those issues does not involve this court in attempting to answer the question of when life begins". "Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the fertilisation of the ovum brings into existence, outside the womb, the essential unique components of a potential new individual human person." What the court did rule, was that the unimplanted embryo did not constitute the "unborn" for the purposes of the protections under Article 40.3.3 of the constitution.



Sigh. Hydrogen is not an organism. A carrot might be, depending on whether you are talking about the plant or the taproot. Either way it's not a human organism. Feel free to argue for carrot rights though ... I've seen stranger things argued
(One of those stranger things is the latterday argument for chimpanzee rights. We've already concluded that human rights aren't inalienable, otherwise foetuses would have them. So the rights only exist by agreement, as part of the social contract between those who afford the rights to each other ... otherwise we would have mayhem. Chimpanzees, being unable to enter into a social contract with humans, therefore cannot have rights. Unfortunately for them, whatever we decide goes. Simples.)

What of the bag of bones ps, I've raised it several times. It ticks all of your human organism boxes, yet a big part of its humanness is dead.

You seem to agree with Paul's continuum, that human life begins at conception and you seem to think that this is scientifically uncontested. And biologically speaking you are right, but you are taking a strictly materialist view of what makes a human being. Most choicers accept that it is not about the fetus, its about the mother and take themselves out of that debate.

I don't think most of them actually think too much about the traps that you've criticized. Most pro choice people I know would be appalled if I described the baby they were carrying in their belly as something other than a human person so when it comes to supporting abortion rights they don't think about that part of it, they see it politically about individual womens sovereignty. Viability etc are academic debates that produce occasional sound bites that penetrate the political debate around abortion rights.

'Woolly thinking' (thats a classic, like people who talk about the 1% are hypocrites because they live in the west) recognizes that the materialist interpretation you share with Paul and religion is a political choice. Take a purely biological line and exclude ethics, human nature, politics, etc. It approaches a political question pretending to be a scientist. Its courageous on your part because you support killing humans, woolly thinkers pretend they aren't human. Sorry if I don't indulge you.

Eh, yeah, woolly thinker, I think you should read what pishwish said and my response to it again.

Not being inert is hardly a basis for a definition of human life.

I know some managers who are not inert, I'd hardly call them human, though.

"Life does begin at conception. That is a matter of a complete no brainer uncontroversial scientific fact. (If in doubt, read the first sentence here) The ethical question at issue is whether, or when, the genetically distinct human is accorded the rights of a person. Paul and his ilk say that it is when that genetically distinct human comes into existence. Others pick an arbitrary date after conception. (The law in the US does not take any position on the question). Yet others pick the point of birth. And others still (like me) see no reason to treat the moment of birth (or any other arbitrary moment) as the defining moment. Like I said, age 16 sounds about right for when the person can legally and practically support themselves and is therefore not a drain on resources which, lets face it, the parents shouldn't be obligated to provide."


PS - I think you might like Philip K Dick's "the Pre-persons" ..... In that story, abortion is legal up until one can do certain algebra....the abortion wagon comes by once a month, collecting kids door to door.....unwanted kids are taken to the pound and put down after 30 days if unclaimed.....nice description of young kids pissing their pants every time the abortion wagon passes by, trying to ignore the sudden disappearance of the playmate next door....extra careful not to annoy Mommy that morning!!!

but seriously PS - if kids could be put down up to age of 16, where would that leave the criminal responsibilty of young yobs - eg a school teacher sexually assaulted by a 15.5 year old who was later aborted (not the death penalty for a rapist as such) was raped by.....what exactly? A man?

Or better yet - what about a 15 year old who gets pregnant and is then aborted by HER parents..while pregnant.....; or what about a 14 year old who is not (yet) aborted who is pregnant...can SHE ask for an abortion without her parents consent? Can the parents abort the 14+9months after the birth, and keep the grandkid? the list is endless! I sense a new series of Picket Fences.....

So the Irish Supreme Court dodges the political hot potato of ruling exactly when life begins but uses the vague language of the Constitution to rule that an unimplanted embryo is not an unborn child.

And so that I can "be believed", Evans v the UK is ECHR case - also ruled against the right to life of an unimplanted embryo.

whoop! Friday debate. Love it.

My 2c before I fuck off home.

1. I agree with ps200306 that life begins at conception. It is life by any definition, and human life at that.
2. I agree with ditch dweller that machine assisted life, with no scientifically accepted hope of self-sustaining life, is life. I agree, however, with sustaining this for as long as loved ones want to kid themselves. People have their own mental health and conscience to worry about.
3. I believe that a dying person, without scientifically accepted hope of living, should be allowed to terminate their own life.

But here's the kicker, while I believe in the life that's in a zygote, I also believe in the right to terminate. Now I 'aint no fancy big city embryologist, I simply don't attach rights to a foetus.

I'm intrigued by the arguments above relating to male christian control of women, but I don't know much about that. Food for thought, though it seems a little chauvinist when many women are anti-abortion. That said, I don't know a single anti-abortion woman. They struggle with the question, certainly, but I've only ever heard a woman say: "I don't know if I could do it", and never "I'd never do that" - I've only heard that from men, thought I accept this is purely anecdotal.

I believe that people should have the right to make a mistake, and the right to correct that mistake in a manner that is medically safe for both of them. This is the right to determine their own circumstances. I don't know where the arbitrary line is where they should no longer be able to terminate the process, but I'd let the courts decide that.

Rights of the unborn child are trumped by rights of the parent for me. I have no philosophy, religion or science to back up my statements. This is a moral level that I am comfortable with. I am aware of 6 abortions that have happened in my family/social circle*. I don't think 'what if?' about any of these humans. I know people who have lost children. I do think 'what if' in these scenarios. I know of people who have mis-carried, and I have empathy for the people concerned, but I do not think 'what if' - they don't, or it would drive them crazy.

On child selection, I probably wouldn't genetically manipulate (if that's available in future) to get blonde kids or whatever, but I'd strongly defend the right of people to do that. It's up them.

* There are possibly many more, though maybe not, as people seem to have this thing about telling me stuff I don't need to know probably because I'm primarily driven by ration rather than emotion, they certainly don't come for cuddles.

...and this discussion belongs on a property forum because ...?

Moderators - surely belongs on "The Piston Broke" if anywhere?

Cash King, that sci-fi story rings a bell. Sounds about right, except in my view the children wouldn't have to commit a misdemeanour to be aborted.

Yes, of course, your 15.5 yr old rapist is a man. That's what a male human being is. It's refreshingly simple terminology, unlike when we euphemistically pretend that a foetus isn't a human male or female to avoid squeamishness.

No, I don't think the 15 year old girl would have any automatic right to an abortion, or any right to anything for that matter. It's all down to what the parents want (or don't want), just like it is now where abortion is legal. Again it's all very simple and consistent.

Flea - apart from the Evan vs UK ruling itself, have a look at what you even wrote yourself... it supports my point, not yours. If the court rules against the "right to life" of an embryo, it obviously is acknowledging that the embryo is alive so that the question even arises. Otherwise it would make as much sense as considering the right to life of a house brick. All I'm saying is that an embryo (or foetus or zygote) is a living human being, which in the scientific world is the uncontroversial fact of the matter.

Nope - it's not life, it's potential life. It's "right to life" (which was denied) was the right to be transferred to Evans' uterus and be given a chance at implantation and thus a chance at life. A frozen embryo is not alive, it is not going anywhere on its own.

Aha, we swing from woolly thinking to rigid thinking.
I detected a certain irony in the phrase "hardly inert", as in "you can't be serious". I doubt if pishwash was actually suggesting that movement is the sine qua non of life. Rather, I took him/her to mean the point was debatable.

Out of curiosity, PS, where do you stand on an Islamic-nutcase father slitting his (say) u 16 yrs daughter's throat to redeem his "honour" if she is raped? Of course you advocate the rule of law etc, but this is-already-very-nearly-legal-in-nutcase-Islamic countries...(am open to correction). It would be odd to allow "retro abortions" of 15 y olds, but not the right to an honour killling of a 15 yr old? Or would the right to an "abortion" ok as long as its NOT an "honour killing"?

dont think the kids in the PKD story needed to commit a misdemeanour......

A person locked up in a jail cell without food is "not going anywhere on their own". Are they not alive?

A transferred embryo is often at the blastocycst stage. It can be younger, as few as eight cells, but leaving it to the blastocyst stage allows genetic testing to be done. A blastocyst displays various levels of self-organisation -- it has compacted many of its cells into a central mass, and also displays an embryonic epithelium. If you told a scientist that the embryo at blastocyst stage was not alive, they would laugh in your face.

So let me get this straight -- you believe that the patently living embryo, on freezing and rethawing for transfer, goes from being alive to being dead and back again? Or else you believe the frozen embryo has some status which is neither alive nor dead. In which case I wonder would it still be in the same neither-alive-nor-dead status if you stamped on it with a hobnail boot, since presumably it could not "die", not being alive in the first place?

You may or may not have noticed right back at the beginning of this, I asserted that living things may need certain environmental conditions to survive (like the human in space without the space suit). "Not going anywhere on its own" is the opposite assertion -- that something is only alive under certain external conditions. To the best of my knowledge this is quite unscientific.