Abortion

[Texan Christian]

Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

IMO:

when a woman says "I should decide what to do with my body" I'm like "well... first of all that baby isn't part of your body, it's someone else's body, so yeah..."

what're yalls views on this topic? post below!

Good day and God Bless

[Clownboat]

Words have meanings though.
You defy embryo and blastocyst by insisting on calling those clumps of cells 'humans'. I have seen many a human in my day, but never one that resembles either of those things.

You appeal again to aesthetics to classify a human. I asked you earlier so I'll ask again. What arbitrary "look" passes the threshold of an embryo being human? Is it when it develops eyeballs? Fingers? Legs? If a baby was born without limbs, is it any less of a human? I mean, it doesn't "look" like a complete human according to your rules. It therefore must be less human.

Judging a human by its looks is the most arbitrary subjective judgment for human life possible.

Your still using the wrong words here jgh. A fetus is not a human being. A blastocyst is not a human being. You're trying to lay your burden on me by asking when an embryo is a human. I'm saying an embryo is an embryo, not that an embryo is a human.

My point is that blastocysts and such are what is actually aborted. You calling a blastocyst a humans is on you.

Not only are they different, but we both agree they don't have the same value either, which makes them even less human.

I literally just explained how a human life is independent of what value we place on it. So I'll reiterate word for word what was in my previous post: If human life depended on how we value it, then human is not even an objective term. It's completely dependent on one's values. If someone didn't value a born baby, then therefore that baby is not human? This is absurd.

Here is your error. Human life is not dependent on what value we place on it. I simply pointed out that we do value humans more than we do blastocysts. My point again being that a blastocyst is not a human because we don't value them like we do humans. If they were humans, shouldn't they have the same value?

You do a disservice to the un-thinkers around IMO by calling these cells that have a 50% chance of being born 'humans'. In there mind they envision near fully formed babies being brutally ripped from the womb as evidence by some of the posts here already.

I don't know what you mean by un-thinker, and I don't know what disservice I do.

The disservice that is: You do a disservice to the un-thinkers around IMO by calling these cells that have a 50% chance of being born 'humans'. Some people don't take the time to learn what actually is getting aborted most of the time.

I have not tried to trick people into imagining what you say they imagine.

Never said you were trying to do this.

None of my arguments appeal to an embryo looking a certain way and therefore being human.

Yet you do call them human...

Arbitrary aesthetics are your shtick not mine. And once again you mention survival chances as being linked to what is human. I demonstrated how this is nonsensical in previous posts. Whats the point anymore if you're just going to ignore it?

Please quote me where you got the idea that survival chances are what makes something human? Are you sure I was not pointing out the fact that we value humans more than blastocysts? If so, this is not my fault.

Jgh7, what harm is done if an unwanted blastocyst is removed from a women that would have been naturally aborted on its own even if the mother wanted it?
What harm is done if an unwanted human is removed from a women that would have been naturally aborted on its own even if the mother wanted it?

I argue zero harm, and it doesn't even matter if you call it what it is or if you call it a human. Therefore to condemn and compare the removal of something that might naturally be removed to an actualized, living, breathing human being seems off to me.

There's no such thing as naturally aborted, so I assume you meant naturally died. So basically your hypothetical is "We somehow know this blastocyst will die in the near future, and we don't want it, so there's no harm in killing it." But the thing is you don't know its definite future. All you have argued previously is that they have roughly a 50% chance of natural survival. So your hypothetical is dishonest to begin with in pretending we actually know the future.

It's a philosophical question that you refuse to address. It's a question to get you to think, not an argument. Care to address it, or would you like to just continue to claim that I ignore your comments?

Remove a human from this world and harm is done. 50% of what you want to call humans will naturally abort, so it could be said that 50% of abortions aren't even harmful, but you would still call those cells human?

You continue to insist that chance of survival has something to do with being human.

Not true! I am addressing you calling a blastocyst a human and providing reasons as to why I don't think you should.

So i'll requote what I said previously that shows the absurdity of this: "I have no issue whatsoever with the high percentage of embryo deaths. What does that have to do at all with distinguishing a human? If we lived in a world where 75% of humans didn't make it to the age of 1, would we therefore say that a true human only occurs after the age of 1?"

No. Now why do you insist on calling a blastocyst a human in an abortion debate? I could continue to provide reasons as to why I don't think you should, but you just turn those reasons into what you think I'm arguing for. Example, value = being human or not. No, that is not true, but we do value humans more than blastocyst and you agree, yet you still want to call them humans. Like I have said before, you are free to do so as I am free to use the accurate words.

I did a lot of reiterating throughout this post of what I previously said in earlier posts. That means I have already posted arguments equating your views to be illogical. And all you have done is ignore these arguments.

Please stop falsely telling me what I am arguing. Again, value doesn't make something human, but pointing out the value difference between an blastocyst and a human to someone that calls a blastocyst a human will not be lost on all the readers here even if it is lost on you.

I'll pose the core of my stance: When a healthy baby is born, we can all agree that it's wrong to kill it. The primary reason I argue that it's wrong is that by killing it, you are destroying its entire future. The exact same holds true for when that baby was in its earlier stages of life as a blastocyst/embryo/fetus. Killing it during those stages would entail destroying the exact same future as that of the baby's. They are not seperate entities. They are the same entity at different stages of their life.

They are the same entity, but killing one of my daughters and killing a blastocyst are worlds apart. It's not descriptive to say we abort humans and you keep insisting that we do. I suspect you may use emotional words for a reason (many do even if not yourself). If not, why not use the more descriptive term for what is being aborted?

[jgh7]

You appeal again to aesthetics to classify a human. I asked you earlier so I'll ask again. What arbitrary "look" passes the threshold of an embryo being human? Is it when it develops eyeballs? Fingers? Legs? If a baby was born without limbs, is it any less of a human? I mean, it doesn't "look" like a complete human according to your rules. It therefore must be less human.

Judging a human by its looks is the most arbitrary subjective judgment for human life possible.

Your still using the wrong words here jgh. A fetus is not a human being. A blastocyst is not a human being. You're trying to lay your burden on me by asking when an embryo is a human. I'm saying an embryo is an embryo, not that an embryo is a human.

My point is that blastocysts and such are what is actually aborted. You calling a blastocyst a humans is on you.

I've explained my stance on why I consider human life occuring at the moment of conception and thus including blastocysts and such. You have not explained any stance for when a human life actually occurs. You have made appeals to aesthetics, survival chances, and subjective human values to insist that I must be wrong. I have shown how these appeals are illogical. Care to actually state your stance on what makes a human a human, and when this occurs?

Here is your error. Human life is not dependent on what value we place on it. I simply pointed out that we do value humans more than we do blastocysts. My point again being that a blastocyst is not a human because we don't value them like we do humans. If they were humans, shouldn't they have the same value?

You are choosing to dinstinguish a human based on the value the majority of people give it. You're making an appeal to popular opinion which we know is a logical fallacy. Popular opinion does not necessitate truth. Your appeal to popular values as being a good method for concluding that embryos are not human is illogical. This coupled with the fact that my argument does not depend on popular value means that my answer is NO. An embryo need not have the same value as a born human to be human.

I don't know what you mean by un-thinker, and I don't know what disservice I do.

The disservice that is: You do a disservice to the un-thinkers around IMO by calling these cells that have a 50% chance of being born 'humans'. Some people don't take the time to learn what actually is getting aborted most of the time.

You're in no place to be labelling people's arguments as a disservice. Quite frankly it's arrogant. This is a debate forum. I argue my side, you argue yours. I'm fine with you offering counter-arguments to mine, but it's rude and arrogant to be calling my debate a disservice.

Arbitrary aesthetics are your shtick not mine. And once again you mention survival chances as being linked to what is human. I demonstrated how this is nonsensical in previous posts. Whats the point anymore if you're just going to ignore it?

Please quote me where you got the idea that survival chances are what makes something human? Are you sure I was not pointing out the fact that we value humans more than blastocysts? If so, this is not my fault.

Fine, post number 23 you write this:

An embryo has a 50% chance to make it to the birthing stage.
Calling it a human while acknowledging this seems to be a stretch IMO.

You suggest that an embryo's 50% survival chance should mean that it is not human. Therefore, you link survival chances to what is human.

It's a philosophical question that you refuse to address. It's a question to get you to think, not an argument. Care to address it, or would you like to just continue to claim that I ignore your comments?

Fine I'll address it. The hypothetical is that we know 100% that a blastocyst will die in the very near future. Is it wrong then to kill it earlier if we don't want it? My answer is that I don't know if it's wrong. It doesn't seem like a heinous act in my eyes since we know 100% that it will die very soon. There, I have thought about your hypothetical. What would you now like to assert?

Remove a human from this world and harm is done. 50% of what you want to call humans will naturally abort, so it could be said that 50% of abortions aren't even harmful, but you would still call those cells human?

You continue to insist that chance of survival has something to do with being human.

Not true! I am addressing you calling a blastocyst a human and providing reasons as to why I don't think you should.

And the reason in particular here is that it has a 50% survival chance. That means you are insisting that this survival chance has something to do with it being human or not human. Otherwise, why are you repeatedly mentioning survival chance if it has no bearing on distinguishing it as human or not???

So i'll requote what I said previously that shows the absurdity of this: "I have no issue whatsoever with the high percentage of embryo deaths. What does that have to do at all with distinguishing a human? If we lived in a world where 75% of humans didn't make it to the age of 1, would we therefore say that a true human only occurs after the age of 1?"

No. Now why do you insist on calling a blastocyst a human in an abortion debate? I could continue to provide reasons as to why I don't think you should, but you just turn those reasons into what you think I'm arguing for. Example, value = being human or not. No, that is not true, but we do value humans more than blastocyst and you agree, yet you still want to call them humans. Like I have said before, you are free to do so as I am free to use the accurate words.

Look, you give a reason for why a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is not human. (Ex) We don't value embryos like we do babies, therefore embryos are not human.) I then show you how trying to distinguish a human based off value is illogical. You then agree with me in saying that human life being determined based off value is not logical. So basically what you're doing is using an illogical strategy to label an embryo as not human.

I'll pose the core of my stance: When a healthy baby is born, we can all agree that it's wrong to kill it. The primary reason I argue that it's wrong is that by killing it, you are destroying its entire future. The exact same holds true for when that baby was in its earlier stages of life as a blastocyst/embryo/fetus. Killing it during those stages would entail destroying the exact same future as that of the baby's. They are not seperate entities. They are the same entity at different stages of their life.

They are the same entity, but killing one of my daughters and killing a blastocyst are worlds apart. It's not descriptive to say we abort humans and you keep insisting that we do. I suspect you may use emotional words for a reason (many do even if not yourself). If not, why not use the more descriptive term for what is being aborted?

I'm arguing that humans begin at the moment of conception. I have no problem referring to blastocysts/embryos/fetuses by their descriptive terms. I have done so many times in the debate. But my argument is that they are human.

I gave you my argument, you agree that they're the same entity, but your objection is that killing a daughter is worlds apart from killing an embryo. Is this an appeal to emotion, or would you like to explain the logic behind it and how it necessitates that an embryo is not human.

[Bust Nak]

I literally just explained how a human life is independent of what value we place on it.

If you know this, why bother with debating what a human life is at all? Abortion is about values, not definitions. What is being debated here what makes an entity a person as opposed to mere "human."

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 33 by Bust Nak]

How is person different from human? They are synonyms to me.

Value plays as much a part in an abortion debate as logic does. If someone's values are based off illogical distinctions for what is and is not human, then their values are not a reliable moral indicator of the right or wrongness of abortion.

ex) The same applies to slavery. During America's slavery times, people didn't value blacks the same as whites. They used the illogical color distinction as the basis for their values. We can see where leaving things based off illogical popular value has gotten us in the past.

[Clownboat]

You appeal again to aesthetics to classify a human. I asked you earlier so I'll ask again. What arbitrary "look" passes the threshold of an embryo being human? Is it when it develops eyeballs? Fingers? Legs? If a baby was born without limbs, is it any less of a human? I mean, it doesn't "look" like a complete human according to your rules. It therefore must be less human.

Judging a human by its looks is the most arbitrary subjective judgment for human life possible.

Your still using the wrong words here jgh. A fetus is not a human being. A blastocyst is not a human being. You're trying to lay your burden on me by asking when an embryo is a human. I'm saying an embryo is an embryo, not that an embryo is a human.

My point is that blastocysts and such are what is actually aborted. You calling a blastocyst a humans is on you.

I've explained my stance on why I consider human life occuring at the moment of conception and thus including blastocysts and such.

Yup, and I have explained why I personally find this to be wanting, but you take this as if I'm actually arguing for value determining someone being a human and such, which has never been my point.
JGH - A blastocyst is a human.
Clownboat - I don't agree that they are the same and here are some reason why.
JGH - Now I'm going to turn your reasoning into an argument that you are not making. (Now see your very next line below in italic)

You have not explained any stance for when a human life actually occurs.

Jgh, why am I all of a sudden burdened with needing to explain to you when human life actually occurs? As if that question is even answerable.

What I can do is provide reasoning as to why I disagree with calling a blastocyst a human. Can you try to understand my reasoning without turning my reasoning into a factual position like, 'value determines if you are human'. Something I have never said. I would prefer to argue for position I have, not ones you think I have.

You have made appeals to aesthetics, survival chances, and subjective human values to insist that I must be wrong.

You are referring to reasons as to why I view a blastocyst differently than an actual human being. These are my reasons, so how can they wrong? You already agree with some of my reasons, like the fact we don't value a blastocyst the same as we do a human. You can ignore these things of course or not find them meaningful for yourself, but you cannot control what I find meaningful when comparing the differences between and blastocyst and a human.

I have shown how these appeals are illogical.

They are justifications for why I don't find a blastocyst and a human to be the same thing. How is it illogical that we value blastocysts and humans differently. Please enlighten me.

Care to actually state your stance on what makes a human a human, and when this occurs?

I have my opinion on this, but for now I am addressing the fact that you call a blastocyst a human and I'm providing reasoning as to why I feel you shouldn't. I have not argued for when a fetus etc... should be called a human.

Here is your error. Human life is not dependent on what value we place on it. I simply pointed out that we do value humans more than we do blastocysts. My point again being that a blastocyst is not a human because we don't value them like we do humans. If they were humans, shouldn't they have the same value?

You are choosing to dinstinguish a human based on the value the majority of people give it.

Stop it! Read the above again that you quoted and see that I did not make a qualification for when a thing is a human. I argue for not including a blastocyst as a human. Please acknowledge this.

You're making an appeal to popular opinion which we know is a logical fallacy.

What are you talking about?

Popular opinion does not necessitate truth our appeal to popular values as being a good method for concluding that embryos are not human is illogical.

Popular opinion has not been a reason I have used to explain why I find you calling a blastocyst a human to be in error.
You claim they are the same.
I have provided differences, like how we don't value them the same. Please acknowledge that this does not mean I am making some claim as to when a thing is a human.

This coupled with the fact that my argument does not depend on popular value means that my answer is NO. An embryo need not have the same value as a born human to be human.

And we agree that they don't have the same value, yet you would still call them the same word. This is the part I question.

I don't know what you mean by un-thinker, and I don't know what disservice I do.

The disservice that is: You do a disservice to the un-thinkers around IMO by calling these cells that have a 50% chance of being born 'humans'. Some people don't take the time to learn what actually is getting aborted most of the time.

You're in no place to be labelling people's arguments as a disservice.

I am in a place to have an opinion though. Please acknowledge that what you quoted above includes me saying that it is my opinion. It is my opinion you do a disservice. Convince me otherwise and I will change my opinion. You in fact are not in a position to state my opinions.

Quite frankly it's arrogant. This is a debate forum. I argue my side, you argue yours. I'm fine with you offering counter-arguments to mine, but it's rude and arrogant to be calling my debate a disservice.

Then stop crying and start trying to convince me that my opinion is wrong. I find it telling that you can't and you prefer to make straw-man arguments as to what my point is here.
Example: "So you are saying value determines if someone is human"
All I can do is sit here and slap my forehead.

Arbitrary aesthetics are your shtick not mine. And once again you mention survival chances as being linked to what is human. I demonstrated how this is nonsensical in previous posts. Whats the point anymore if you're just going to ignore it?

Please quote me where you got the idea that survival chances are what makes something human? Are you sure I was not pointing out the fact that we value humans more than blastocysts? If so, this is not my fault.

Fine, post number 23 you write this:

An embryo has a 50% chance to make it to the birthing stage.
Calling it a human while acknowledging this seems to be a stretch IMO.

You suggest that an embryo's 50% survival chance should mean that it is not human. Therefore, you link survival chances to what is human.

Perhaps this is a reading comprehension issue?
See what you quoted above and acknowledge that what I stated addresses that we should not call an embryo a human. It's just another difference I see between humans and blastocysts. One is actualized already, the other only has a 50% chance. This is a difference between them. I question why you want to use the same word when speaking about these different things. Can you address that without making a straw-man?

It's a philosophical question that you refuse to address. It's a question to get you to think, not an argument. Care to address it, or would you like to just continue to claim that I ignore your comments?

Fine I'll address it. The hypothetical is that we know 100% that a blastocyst will die in the very near future. Is it wrong then to kill it earlier if we don't want it? My answer is that I don't know if it's wrong. It doesn't seem like a heinous act in my eyes since we know 100% that it will die very soon. There, I have thought about your hypothetical. What would you now like to assert?

Now contrast this with actual human beings. We both know they will all die at some point, but there IS harm done if you removed it from this planet before said time has come.
1) Not philosophically heinous to kill a blastocyst that we know will naturally abort.
2) Yet it would be heinous to kill a born human being anytime during its life prior to when it would pass.
See a difference? Is it still better to call a blastocyst a human?
THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR WHEN A HUMAN LIFE BEGINS.

Remove a human from this world and harm is done. 50% of what you want to call humans will naturally abort, so it could be said that 50% of abortions aren't even harmful, but you would still call those cells human?

You continue to insist that chance of survival has something to do with being human.

Not true! I am addressing you calling a blastocyst a human and providing reasons as to why I don't think you should.

And the reason in particular here is that it has a 50% survival chance. That means you are insisting that this survival chance has something to do with it being human or not human. Otherwise, why are you repeatedly mentioning survival chance if it has no bearing on distinguishing it as human or not???

Hold my hand and see if you can grasp my actual argument. Humans, have already been born/actualized. Blastocysts are not humans because they have not been actualized and may not ever be actualized. See how one is actualized and the other only has a 50% chance. Should we really call blastocysts humans? I argue that a blastocyst has a 50% chance of becoming an actualized human and to call it a human is premature. We don't even value them the same as we do humans and you agree with this.

So i'll requote what I said previously that shows the absurdity of this: "I have no issue whatsoever with the high percentage of embryo deaths. What does that have to do at all with distinguishing a human? If we lived in a world where 75% of humans didn't make it to the age of 1, would we therefore say that a true human only occurs after the age of 1?"

No. Now why do you insist on calling a blastocyst a human in an abortion debate? I could continue to provide reasons as to why I don't think you should, but you just turn those reasons into what you think I'm arguing for. Example, value = being human or not. No, that is not true, but we do value humans more than blastocyst and you agree, yet you still want to call them humans. Like I have said before, you are free to do so as I am free to use the accurate words.

Look, you give a reason for why a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is not human.

Wrong (well technically, that could be a reason for a person to not consider a blastocyst a human, but that is not what I'm doing here). I argue for using the more descriptive term.

(Ex) We don't value embryos like we do babies, therefore embryos are not human.

Wrong. Try this:
'Therefore, since we acknowledge this difference (and others) it would be better to call a blastocyst (for ex) a blastocyst and not a human. Not that it isn't human.

I then show you how trying to distinguish a human based off value is illogical.

Straw-man, I have not made this argument. I do notice the difference between these two things that you would prefer to use the same word to describe for both though. Why not use the more descriptive term?

You then agree with me in saying that human life being determined based off value is not logical.

You acknowledge this while still trying to claim that I am making this argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So basically what you're doing is using an illogical strategy to label an embryo as not human.

I believe you are confused about what I am doing.

I'll pose the core of my stance: When a healthy baby is born, we can all agree that it's wrong to kill it. The primary reason I argue that it's wrong is that by killing it, you are destroying its entire future. The exact same holds true for when that baby was in its earlier stages of life as a blastocyst/embryo/fetus. Killing it during those stages would entail destroying the exact same future as that of the baby's. They are not seperate entities. They are the same entity at different stages of their life.

They are the same entity, but killing one of my daughters and killing a blastocyst are worlds apart. It's not descriptive to say we abort humans and you keep insisting that we do. I suspect you may use emotional words for a reason (many do even if not yourself). If not, why not use the more descriptive term for what is being aborted?

I'm arguing that humans begin at the moment of conception. I have no problem referring to blastocysts/embryos/fetuses by their descriptive terms. I have done so many times in the debate. But my argument is that they are human.

See post 26:
I just wish people would have a deep respect for the life of unborn humans. Maybe not as deep as that of born humans, but still deep enough to accept that abortion does constitute as killing a human.
You do in fact seem to have a problem referring to blastocysts/embryos/fetuses by their descriptive terms.

I gave you my argument, you agree that they're the same entity, but your objection is that killing a daughter is worlds apart from killing an embryo. Is this an appeal to emotion, or would you like to explain the logic behind it and how it necessitates that an embryo is not human.

Pointing out how losing a daughter and losing an embryo are worlds apart is another aspect of my argument as to why we should call them by their descriptive words. Yet you seem to prefer to call them human no matter the stage as evidenced above.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 33 by Bust Nak]

How is person different from human? They are synonyms to me.

When I scratch my butt, those cells are human, but they are not a person.

[jgh7]

I don't think you understand what your opinions logically mean. I'll go over what you say to illustrate this.

I did not make a qualification for when a thing is a human. I argue for not including a blastocyst as a human. Please acknowledge this.

Here is the error. You actually did make a qualification for when a thing is a human. If you argue that a blastocyst is not a human because of so and so reasons, then it means that a human would not have violated so and so reasons. Therefore you are making qualifications for when a thing is a human.

I have provided differences, like how we don't value them the same. Please acknowledge that this does not mean I am making some claim as to when a thing is a human.

But you ARE making a claim as to when a thing is human. By pointing out differences, you are attempting to distinguish a human from not a human.

Perhaps this is a reading comprehension issue?
See what you quoted above and acknowledge that what I stated addresses that we should not call an embryo a human. It's just another difference I see between humans and blastocysts. One is actualized already, the other only has a 50% chance. This is a difference between them. I question why you want to use the same word when speaking about these different things. Can you address that without making a straw-man?

What do you mean by actualized? Do you mean born? That's how you originally referred to it. So basically are you saying that a human is only a human after it is born? So 1 minute before it's born it is not a human?

Hold my hand and see if you can grasp my actual argument. Humans, have already been born/actualized. Blastocysts are not humans because they have not been actualized and may not ever be actualized. See how one is actualized and the other only has a 50% chance. Should we really call blastocysts humans? I argue that a blastocyst has a 50% chance of becoming an actualized human and to call it a human is premature. We don't even value them the same as we do humans and you agree with this.

There see? You state a blastocyst is not a human because it has not been actualized. You have a criteria by which you distinguish what is a human and what is not a human.


Now lets look at this quote since it's the crux of our disagreement:

(Ex) We don't value embryos like we do babies, therefore embryos are not human.

Wrong. Try this:
'Therefore, since we acknowledge this difference (and others) it would be better to call a blastocyst (for ex) a blastocyst and not a human. Not that it isn't human.

You yourself said that you acknowledge that there is a difference in value between a baby and a blastocyst. Because of that difference, you label a blastocyst as not a human. But here you insisted that my quote was wrong. But it literally says the exact same thing as your quote!

I believe you are confused about what I am doing.

I'm definitely confused about what you're doing. I think you should be confused about what you're doing as well.

[Clownboat]

Here is the error. You actually did make a qualification for when a thing is a human.

I Clownboat officially do not make a qualification for when a thing is a human. I recognize that blastocysts are made up of human cells, but I do not find it accurate and I find it to be a dis-service to many people to label these human cells as humans.

If you argue that a blastocyst is not a human

I have stated that they are 'human in origin' and I have given reasons why I don't think you should call a blastocyst a human.

I am not interested in discussing when a bunch of human cells become a human being here with you. I am interested in finding out why people purposefully use emotionally charged terms that are less descriptive then the actual term they should be using.
Ex. Blastocyst = a human.

But you ARE making a claim as to when a thing is human.

No, I argue that to call a blastocyst a human is not as descriptive and that it confuses many people that believe what they believe about abortion due to emotional reasoning.

By pointing out differences, you are attempting to distinguish a human from not a human.

I am? Interesting. What did I arrive at? At what point did I argue for when a human being is actualized?

Perhaps this is a reading comprehension issue?
See what you quoted above and acknowledge that what I stated addresses that we should not call an embryo a human. It's just another difference I see between humans and blastocysts. One is actualized already, the other only has a 50% chance. This is a difference between them. I question why you want to use the same word when speaking about these different things. Can you address that without making a straw-man?

What do you mean by actualized? Do you mean born? That's how you originally referred to it. So basically are you saying that a human is only a human after it is born? So 1 minute before it's born it is not a human?

You need to stop telling me what you think I am saying. Stop avoiding my questions.
So again (copied from directly above):
See what you quoted above and acknowledge that what I stated addresses that we should not call an embryo a human. It's just another difference I see between humans and blastocysts. One is actualized already, the other only has a 50% chance. This is a difference between them. I question why you want to use the same word when speaking about these different things. Can you address that without making a straw-man?

Hold my hand and see if you can grasp my actual argument. Humans, have already been born/actualized. Blastocysts are not humans because they have not been actualized and may not ever be actualized. See how one is actualized and the other only has a 50% chance. Should we really call blastocysts humans? I argue that a blastocyst has a 50% chance of becoming an actualized human and to call it a human is premature. We don't even value them the same as we do humans and you agree with this.

There see? You state a blastocyst is not a human because it has not been actualized. You have a criteria by which you distinguish what is a human and what is not a human.

I think you just ended this discussion for us. Thank you for this great example! (Above in bold and italic).
If you really had a point, you would have said: "You state a 'human' is not a 'human' because it has not been actualized".
Notice how you had to call it a blastocyst? The word I argue that you should be using.
You HAD to use blastocyst because to do what you have been doing would not have formed a coherent sentence.
Perhaps for coherency sake, you should continue to use descriptive words?

I believe you are confused about what I am doing.

I'm definitely confused about what you're doing. I think you should be confused about what you're doing as well.

What is confusing about me arguing that you (and others like you) should use descriptive terms? Again, just above you HAD to use the term blastocyst like I am arguing for because to refer to it as a human would have made for a non coherent sentence.

Therefore, to say that humans are aborted is just an emotionally charged inaccurate statement about what really is removed. Many adults know better and understand when abortions typically take place, but there are too many naive adults IMO and we should seek to not encourage their inaccurate thinking.

Feel free to start a thread on when we should call it 'human' or to argue for term limits on abortion if you would like.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 38 by Clownboat]

I'll fully address your question. I said previously I have no problem referring to a blastocyst as a blastocyst, a fetus as a fetus, and so on. However, I purposely referred to a blastocyst as an unborn human in what you quoted because I was stressing my belief that they are a human being and killing them is equivalent to killing a human being in the moral sense. I definitely meant it to appeal to people's emotions if that was your sneaking suspicion. In any case, I will explain why I have this belief. It's easiest to explain if I use myself as an example:

When I looked like a blastocyst at one point in my new life, and then 9 months later I looked like a baby, I was still one and the same life. By this I mean that killing me as a blastocyst or as a baby would have ended the exact same life that I of currently 29 years of age have lived so far on this planet.

Now, when I reflect on this while applying it to other people's lives, I have found out that I have a gigantic respect for everyone elses life on the planet during those early stages whether it be blastocyst, embryo, fetus, or baby. And my morals that arise from this lead me to believe abortion is wrong in most cases.

That's it. That's my stance in a nutshell.

[Bust Nak]

How is person different from human? They are synonyms to me.

The former is about value, the latter biology. That they seem synonymous to you is problematic. In the most trivial of sense, my hair is human, yet I don't give them a second thought when I cut them off.

More seriously, lets say we discover an intelligent life form every bit as sentient as us, are we justified in exploiting them because they aren't human? Or flip it around, what if we are discovered by aliens far smarter than we are, are they justified in exploiting us because we are different species?

Value plays as much a part in an abortion debate as logic does. If someone's values are based off illogical distinctions for what is and is not human, then their values are not a reliable moral indicator of the right or wrongness of abortion.

That was what prompted my question to begin with. Why make such a fuss over the distinctions for what is and is not human, when you think value placed over distinctions for what is and is not human is not reliable?

ex) The same applies to slavery. During America's slavery times, people didn't value blacks the same as whites. They used the illogical color distinction as the basis for their values. We can see where leaving things based off illogical popular value has gotten us in the past.

You say that like there is a logical way of assigning value. Does the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" mean anything to you? How about "there is no accounting for taste?"

"All men are created equal" is merely the contemporary illogical popular value.