Roe vs Wade - getting overturned?

[Aruntraveller]

Some interesting questions arising from this issue voiced by Carliss Chatman (Law professor):

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?
Is that also when you can’t deport the mother because she’s carrying a US citizen?
Can I insure a 6 week fetus and collect if I miscarry?
Just figuring if we’re going here we should go all in.

[SteveH]

That's a thought: if the yank anti-choice brigade are sincere about life beginning at conception, they should be campaigning for automatic american citizenship to be conferred on people conceived in the US, not merely born there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In some cases but not all. The official RCC line isn't that the zygote has the potential to become a person, it is that the zygote is a person and that all stages of development from the zygote are morally equivalent because all are the same person.”

Granted.
Of the two arguments the potential to become a person is the most difficult to challenge since it comes from a different premise and as far as I can see is watertight as a description.

Have Catholic’s lost the moral argument rather than the biological argument perhaps you could state where in the argument they are defeated

AB is parroting that line.

No evidence, he could have considered and weighed the arguments just like you and I have.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of the two arguments the potential to become a person is the most difficult to challenge since it comes from a different premise and as far as I can see is watertight as a description.

In some respects also the most difficult to justify as it become so nebulous. If the zygote has the potential to become a person, then why not the oocyte and spermatocyte. And given that we shouldn't consider matters in a purely anthropocentric manner, we need to factor in both parthenogenesis (an oocyte has the potential to develop into a new organism) and also cloning (clearly the skin cell that provided the genetic material for Dolly the sheep had the potential to develop into err ... a sheep).

And you also need to be clearer about what you mean by potential - is this the possibility to develop into a person (if all necessary steps happen and all compounding steps don't happen) or probability to develop into a person. The former clearly encompass the oocyte and spermatocyte etc, the latter needs to take account of both developmental steps so far but also intention. So for example an early embryo generated by in vitro fertilisation where there is no intention to transfer into a woman has zero probability of becoming a person. Arguably an early embryo where there is the intention for the mother to have an abortion also has zero probability of becoming a person.

Finally, you need to justify why potential is even relevant as it relies on the valuableness of something that might arise in the future, but doesn't exist now. Would we place reverence on a blank canvass and some paint as they have the potential to become a great work of art?

[ProfessorDavey]

Have Catholic’s lost the moral argument rather than the biological argument perhaps you could state where in the argument they are defeated.

Actually the RCC argument is based on a pretty widely accepted moral premise against killing people. Their argument is about when a person arises and is (in my opinion) based on faulty understanding of biology. This is there actual argument:

"As the life of a fertilised oocyte is neither [genetically] that of the father nor that of the mother it is a new life.
This new life is a human life, for it could not be made human if it were not human already.
This new human life is the life of an individual, for its identity is established from the first instant.
This new human individual,  which comes into existence at the moment of conception, must surely be a person."

This argument is, to my mind both biologically illiterate (e.g. there is no moment of conception, as conception is a process), but also bizarre in ascribing genetic individuality as the key to personhood - identical twins are genetically identical, but are two people. Also, via the process of meiosis the oocyte and spermatocyte cells are also not genetically that of the mother or father. Plus, of course, is is completely blown out the water by the issue of twinning and embryo fusion where two (or more) people may arise from a single zygote or one person may arise from more than one zygote.

[Alan Burns]

I note you have completely side-swiped my point about twinning and fusion.

So which is it AB.

1. The zygote is Bob or
2. The zygote is something that may (or may not) become Bob at some later stage.

You don't seem to want to address this key point, presumably because by answering 1 (the RCC official line) you end up in the untenable situation of having to argue when Jim's life starts (for twins) or what happens to Sarah and Jill, if they are two zygotes that fuse and result in a single person.

The point I was making concerns the beginning of human life  - be it individuals, twins or triplets it is still the beginning of life, and terminating the process will result in extermination of life.

Pregnancy is a naturally occurring process from which all human life originates.
A deliberate act of abortion is an unnatural event which terminates human life.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point I was making concerns the beginning of human life  - be it individuals, twins or triplets it is still the beginning of life, and terminating the process will result in extermination of life.

I know - you keep glibly making the same point without actually explaining or justifying it.

So is a human zygote genetically human - sure it is. Is it alive - yup, so it is without doubt human life.

But the oocyte is also genetically human and alive - so is also human life.

If I go and give a blood sample the cells in that sample are genetically human and alive, so they are also human life.

So you need to explain why the zygote is distinct from, as an example the oocyte and spermatocyte that fused to create it - all three cells are undoubtedly human life but for some reason, that you have failed to explain and justify the former somehow must be protected at all costs, while the latter are expendible.

Now for the RCC the explanation is that the zygote is Bob, not just may develop into Bob - I think that claim crumbles to dust when challenged, but at least it is an explanation, albeit a faulty one. What is your explanation AB - and don't just come back with more "human life begins at conception" guff - explain and justify you claim.

And while you are at it please answer my question - is the zygote Bob?

[ProfessorDavey]

A deliberate act of abortion is an unnatural event which terminates human life.

I suspect there are far, far more natural abortions (miscarriage) than there are artificial ones. It is estimated that one in eight pregnancies result in miscarriage and that is likely to be a major underestimate as there will be plenty of women who miscarry before they have recognised they are actually pregnant.

[Spud]

I suspect there are far, far more natural abortions (miscarriage) than there are artificial ones. It is estimated that one in eight pregnancies result in miscarriage and that is likely to be a major underestimate as there will be plenty of women who miscarry before they have recognised they are actually pregnant.

This doesn't justify killing a foetus or embryo, though. People die of natural causes at all ages.

[ProfessorDavey]

This doesn't justify killing a foetus or embryo, though. People die of natural causes at all ages.

My point was to counter AB's absurd assertion that pregnancy is natural and abortion isn't. Most abortions, i.e. miscarriages, are exactly that - natural.

And if you are that way inclined (which I think both you and AB are) then what is the difference between your god terminating pregnancies via miscarriage (presumably an omnipotent god could prevent that) and a human terminating a pregnancy via abortion.

[Spud]

How you get from "no abortion if it's the wrong sex" (with which I agree) to "only if the mother's life is endangered" is a mystery.

The first shows that a woman's right to an abortion is not absolute, as I think Roe v Wade acknowledged.
The second follows because any abortion that isn't done to protect the mother falls into the category of 'inconvenient pregnancy' - to some extent.
To back this up, Exodus 20 says we shall not kill. Exodus 21:22-25 confirms that an unborn child has the same right to justice as anyone else.

[Spud]

My point was to counter AB's absurd assertion that pregnancy is natural and abortion isn't. Most abortions, i.e. miscarriages, are exactly that - natural.

And if you are that way inclined (which I think both you and AB are) then what is the difference between your god terminating pregnancies via miscarriage (presumably an omnipotent god could prevent that) and a human terminating a pregnancy via abortion.

The same as the difference between a person dying naturally and being killed.

[ProfessorDavey]

The same as the difference between a person dying naturally and being killed.

A better analogy is killing or letting die.

If your god is able to intervene to prevent the miscarriage but choses not to that god is just as complicit if he/she/it had actively intervened. But moreover, I thought these sorts of things are often passed off as 'god's will' which implies rather more than a passive failure to act, but an active imposition of god's will.

[ProfessorDavey]

Exodus 21:22-25 confirms that an unborn child has the same right to justice as anyone else.

Exodus was written about 2,500 years ago when people hadn't the faintest idea how human embryological development occurred. In the absence of any understanding of the process itself anything written in Exodus is completely irrelevant.

By the way Spud - perhaps you can answer my question, which both you and AB seem to keep wanting to side-swipe:

Is the zygote Bob?

Given your unshakable assertions on this matter, surely this should be a really easy question for you. I await your response.

[Alan Burns]

A better analogy is killing or letting die.

If your god is able to intervene to prevent the miscarriage but choses not to that god is just as complicit if he/she/it had actively intervened. But moreover, I thought these sorts of things are often passed off as 'god's will' which implies rather more than a passive failure to act, but an active imposition of god's will.

There is abundant evidence that God allows natural events to occur, just as He allows human beings to implement acts of will which are not God's will.  He does not deliberately kill the unborn - which is what occurs with abortions.

[Nearly Sane]

There is abundant evidence that God allows natural events to occur, just as He allows human beings to implement acts of will which are not God's will.  He does not deliberately kill the unborn - which is what occurs with abortions.

If I could stop a rape I would, your god in your perverted little world chooses not to. Your god is guilty of rape and murder. And you worship that happening.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is abundant evidence that God allows natural events to occur, just as He allows human beings to implement acts of will which are not God's will.  He does not deliberately kill the unborn - which is what occurs with abortions.

AB - there isn't abundant evidence of anything of the sort - for the simple reason that there is no credible evidence that god even exists.

But of course if you do believe (unevidenced) that god exists and believe that god has the ability to intervene then you cannot so easily side-swipe the question as to why god allows millions of the unborn to die due to miscarriage when he/she/it could intervene to prevent those deaths.

Also - still waiting for an answer - is the zygote Bob?

[Alan Burns]

Also - still waiting for an answer - is the zygote Bob?

It is the first stage of human life.
You and I were once labelled as zygote.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is the first stage of human life.
You and I were once labelled as zygote.

You still don't seem to be answering my question.

Is the zygote Bob?

Was the zygote that developed into you, actually you at that single cell stage?
Was the zygote that developed into me, actually me at that single cell stage?

Surely given your unshakable certainty that "life begins at conception" this should be a really simple question.

[Dicky Underpants]

There is abundant evidence that God allows natural events to occur, just as He allows human beings to implement acts of will which are not God's will.  He does not deliberately kill the unborn - which is what occurs with abortions.

With reference to NS's and the Prof's apposite answers, it is significant that in Christianity there are two types of sins - the sins of commission, and the sins of omission. Jesus epitomizes these in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. He also seems to suggest that the sins of omission are the WORST.
In the present context it is ironic that he did not seem to realise that his God (and yours) is perennially guilty of the latter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

With reference to NS's and the Prof's apposite answers, it is significant that in Christianity there are two types of sins - the sins of commission, and the sins of omission. Jesus epitomizes these in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. He also seems to suggest that the sins of omission are the WORST.
In the present context it is ironic that he did not seem to realise that his God (and yours) is perennially guilty of the latter.

Please demonstrate your last point by example. What perfect moral authority is God sinning against? And having established that authority, please state where it is lodged........Thank you.

[Dicky Underpants]

Please demonstrate your last point by example. What perfect moral authority is God sinning against? And having established that authority, please state where it is lodged........Thank you.

You believe in him - you tell us.

[Alan Burns]

With reference to NS's and the Prof's apposite answers, it is significant that in Christianity there are two types of sins - the sins of commission, and the sins of omission. Jesus epitomizes these in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. He also seems to suggest that the sins of omission are the WORST.
In the present context it is ironic that he did not seem to realise that his God (and yours) is perennially guilty of the latter.

It is relatively easy for us to use our God given freedom to think up ways of how God could do things better (if He exists), and to use this as evidence that God does not exist.
My own thoughts on this are that we are not yet in heaven.  We live in a world where there is good and bad, suffering and joy, war and peace ....  A world  full of opposites which allows us to recognise that there could be a better place where all the negative aspects of our existence are taken away.  Without these negatives we may not recognise or appreciate the good things.  It is often said that mankind invented the utopia of heaven as wishful thinking, but I believe our ability to imagine a life after death with no suffering is no accident of nature - it is a God given glimpse of the destiny we can achieve using our unique gift of free will.

[SteveH]

This doesn't justify killing a foetus or embryo, though. People die of natural causes at all ages.

No, but it does suggest that God places less value on the foetus or embryo than his noisiest supporters do.

[ProfessorDavey]

... and to use this as evidence that God does not exist.

I don't think atheists use this argument as evidence that god doesn't exist - I certainly don't. The point is that to indicate that if god does exist he/she/it doesn't seem very benevolent. It sets out the lie at the heart of the claim that god is both all powerful (and can therefore make things happen or prevent things from happening) and also all loving. An all loving god wouldn't allow a parent desperately wanting a child to suffer a heart breaking miscarriage if he/she/it could prevent it. So this god (if he/she/it exists) is either unable to act and therefore not all powerful, or is able to act and choses not to do so, in which case this god as pretty callous.