Souls and the fetus

Hi invictus.

Yes I value human life above that of animals but I would put it out there for discussion. Why do we place more value on our own specie, but many people are not willing to neuter a pet, with the result that offspring of that pet ends up being destroyed. Is the sanctity of life only for humans?. By the way I think that often mankind goes overboard on keeping humans alive.

Is there such a thing as an emotional abortion, by this I mean the damage done to a fetus when the mother carries to term but loathes that life within her?

Regards, John.

Neutering is not abortificant, but contraceptive, so there are no destroyed offspring.

So when do you consider they are offspring?

Hi invictus.

Yes I value human life above that of animals but I would put it out there for discussion. Why do we place more value on our own specie, but many people are not willing to neuter a pet, with the result that offspring of that pet ends up being destroyed. Is the sanctity of life only for humans?. By the way I think that often mankind goes overboard on keeping humans alive.

Is there such a thing as an emotional abortion, by this I mean the damage done to a fetus when the mother carries to term but loathes that life within her?

Regards, John.

Neutering is not abortificant, but contraceptive, so there are no destroyed offspring.

So when do you consider they are offspring?

When they are conceived. Before then, they do not exist. From that point, they do.

So you see a newly fertilized egg as a child?

Well, a newborn isn't technically a child, it's a baby. Then an infant. Then a child.

But certainly from conception it is human life, offspring, a descendant. This seems to be scientifically evident.

Well, a newborn isn't technically a child, it's a baby. Then an infant. Then a child.

But certainly from conception it is human life, offspring, a descendant. This seems to be scientifically evident.

So you oppose termination at any point past conception?

[Scott]

We seem to be going in circles. I thought the idea that a person is the person they supposedly were back when the egg inside their mother was fertilized was agreed on having been proven false by the fact of identical twins who both come from the same fertilized egg, which is not uncommon to split well over a week after fertilization and sometimes even later.

We seem to be going in circles. I thought the idea that a person is the person they supposedly were back when the egg inside their mother was fertilized was agreed on having been proven false by the fact of identical twins who both come from the same fertilized egg, which is not uncommon to split well over a week after fertilization and sometimes even later.

Scott,

Multiples emerging from a single fertilized egg is an anomaly, but evidently meant to be, so would only prove that that particular zygote was designed to be the source of more than one person. It does not prove your premise.

[Scott]

X cannot be identical to Y if Y is not identical to Z. If a fertilized egg is the person who develops from it, then identical twins are the same person. Identical twins are not the same person. Therefore one is not same person as the fertilized egg from which one developed. What "premise" exactly is not proven, and wouldn't it be a conclusion not a premise?

evidently meant to be

What's the evidence that makes this evident?

Well, a newborn isn't technically a child, it's a baby. Then an infant. Then a child.

But certainly from conception it is human life, offspring, a descendant. This seems to be scientifically evident.

So you oppose termination at any point past conception?

Of course. Not with fire and brimsone and general asshattery, but I would say on my reflections that it is very regrettable, yes.

-- Updated Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:57 pm to add the following --

X cannot be identical to Y if Y is not identical to Z. If a fertilized egg is the person who develops from it, then identical twins are the same person. Identical twins are not the same person. Therefore one is not same person as the fertilized egg from which one developed. What "premise" exactly is not proven, and wouldn't it be a conclusion not a premise?

evidently meant to be

What's the evidence that makes this evident?

You're trying to prise open the argument by exploiting the anomaly of twins (though none of us have a medical background sufficient to really be clear on the functions and consequences of that anomaly), however that would only push the salient point back by...what, a week or two, tops?

[Scott]

What salient point? Any argument that would conclude a fertilized egg is -- immediately following conception not two weeks later -- the person who grows from the baby that happened to be born from that woman 9 months later is clearly invalid, otherwise it would not have given such a clearly false conclusion.

X cannot be identical to Y if Y is not identical to Z. If a fertilized egg is the person who develops from it, then identical twins are the same person. Identical twins are not the same person. Therefore one is not same person as the fertilized egg from which one developed. What "premise" exactly is not proven, and wouldn't it be a conclusion not a premise?

evidently meant to be

What's the evidence that makes this evident?

Hello Scott,

The sperm is part of a human and the oocyte (egg) is part of a human each having 23 chromosomes - when they merge they make 46 chromosomes making them a 'whole' human. Multiples are an anomaly but when it happens it has been provided for within the said embryo. If you are not a part of a multiple then the embryo inside your mother produced you - An embryo inside a mother that is to be multiples are individuals.

Please, all who want to discuss when one is human, abortion, etc., please read the website provided below. Please read the whole article. www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

The subject from a certain perspective is beyond moderate understanding. I support abortion, not as a principle, as a necessity but I am willing to adjust my views on the evidence presented. Those who start opposing abortion refering to the physical act in a dramatic and emotional way then go further. It becomes a religiously motivated argument even denying the termination of a 24 hour fertilised egg. They are not motivated by the idea that a foetus could be classified as a child but only god decides what lives and dies. There is no honesty in the debate it is coloured by a faith that actualy can not debate but only insist.

[Scott]

If you are not a part of a multiple then the embryo inside your mother produced you

It is a fallacy to assume that because A produced/became B and/or that because if A had been destroyed B would never have existed that B is A. The example of multiple twins growing from the same embryos simply demonstrates this fallacy leading to false conclusions, but it would be a fallacy even if multiple twins didn't exist.

An embryo inside a mother that is to be multiples are individuals.

The structure of this sentence seems to be off, namely from the plural form of individual. An embryo is individuals? What do you mean?

What about the fact that an embryo can be split in the lab over and over and over -- in a process called embryo splitting -- and then implanted into the woman or for that matter multiple different woman, and lead to many different identical twins/clones? Your argument seems to want to violate causality, making it so that we say a single zygote cell can contain two "souls"/identities even though the factors that cause it to split may not happen until later. How can such an ad hoc, apparently causality violating, rationalization be justified? Perhaps you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

These facts lead to a clear conclusion: a cell with 46 chromosomes of human DNA is not the same as a living person with a mind -- whatever that is -- and an individual identity who develops from that cell -- but who wasn't the only person who could have developed from that cell -- particularly since over the course of cell division the DNA is ever so slightly altered meaning I do not actually have identical DNA to the zygote in my mother 26 or so years ago anymore than an identical twin or clone has identical DNA to their twin. Rather, the cells that make up my body are the children of cells that made up that original zygote which is now dead and the lineage of that now dead zygote could have and may still make up multiple people.

***

Has anyone provided any argument that a fertilized egg (which may split into multiples later spontaneously on its own or can be caused to split later by fertility doctors) has the same "soul" as the person(s) or is the person(s) who develop from that fertilized egg but that a petri dish with a sperm and an egg does not have the same "soul" as the person(s) and is not the person(s)? The destruction argument doesn't work, since it would apply to the petri dish. The genetic argument doesn't work since it would make twins identical as a single person/"soul" not merely as identical in original DNA. So what is the argument that a fertilized egg is the person(s)/"soul(s)" that develop from it? Does anyone have one? Or is this just a case of repeated ipse dixit?

What salient point? Any argument that would conclude a fertilized egg is -- immediately following conception not two weeks later -- the person who grows from the baby that happened to be born from that woman 9 months later is clearly invalid, otherwise it would not have given such a clearly false conclusion.

Ok, not the "salient point", that was bad English.

"The point at which abortion becomes a killing."

Scott,

By your last post it is obvious you did not read the website article provided in post 146.