Replies

"Because NOBODY owns (knows) the truth about life. Somebody's right." There is a dispute, BECAUSE the lack of knowledge. And there is a dispute, BECAUSE anti-lifers lie.

Now the conversation will fall apart. Instead of thinking, analyzing, you fell back to accusations. I don't like that at all. I don't think anybody lies in this subject. Lying means knowing the truth and telling something else. Why would anyone do that in this particular subject? Let's try to keep the spirit of the conversation as it was before.

We know, more than ever, even at the microscopic level, that people are people from the moment of conception.

No, we don't KNOW more than ever. All we know what we know, which is very little. I already wrote down, in quite a detail, that the conception is a rather artificially defined "start of life". The sperm already a "living thing of some kind" and so is the egg. I understand (and agree) that the unification of the DNA is a defining moment, but it is arbitrary. Arbitrary, because of the example I gave already about the mitosis and the meiosis, which simply got "displaced" on higher level life forms, but conceptually are the same, as those at the single cell creatures. Arbitrary, because the conception is not yet the absolute final moment of one individual human being (see my twinning example). You can't run away from these and suddenly start accusing anti-lifers of lying and that kind of a traditional pro-life mantra. Try to remain with the spirit of the conversation. Otherwise it will become just another pro-life pro-choice crap, which has been played out millions of times, our input is not needed there.

The old pro-abort lie that a fetus is just a blob of protoplasm is dismissed by almost everyone.

Even the best scientists have no clue, and I mean NO CLUE, how that magic zygote turns into a living being. They can see it happening, yet they don't know. What we all know however, that it happens exactly the same way single cell creatures multiply, by the division of the cells. Meiosis, mitosis, presto, two new cells. And so on. Allow me to repeat the identical twinning scenario, because it is never mentioned anywhere else (at least, I have not seen it).If the zygote would be one final individual, it couldn't turn into two final individuals. Therefore, even the zygote must have some "further potential", no fundamentally different from the sperm and the egg. The interesting part that the twinning division can occur up to many stages. That should give at least a pause to all those who insist that the zygote is the first step toward one final individual. The truth is: we don't know.

"what makes something a human being or a person?"

The right DNA.

That leads to the classic "appendix" argument. It also has the "right DNA". As well as the tonsils or any body parts which later gets removed from people. Which of course triggers the "but those are not conscious individuals". Which of course is true, but then, nor is the zygote a "conscious individual". Which leads to the next stage of the argument: does consciousness what defines an individual? Careful, because if you say yes, then pro-choicers are right, because up to a certain stage of development there is no consciousness (definitely not before the brain develops), but if you say no, then there goes the right DNA argument, since the appendix also has the right DNA.

I am not an anti-lifer, only I see the scientific basis for the dispute. If it all would be so obvious as either side states it, there would be no argument and it would be obvious. But it isn't. That's why I suggested the compromise, which kind of "freaked you out" and rushed at me with the classic pro-lifer attack.

Please understand, it is either that (compromise) or 1.5 million abortion a year. The society will never go back to the no artificial birth control, no abortion, stay virgin until you get married, then never cheat on your spouse until you both die scenario. It just not going to happen. That's why I suggested that pro-lifers would have a lot more standing on the abortion issue, if they would openly acknowledge ordinary birth control. This issue will never come down on scientific details whether the zygote is a final human life or not. It will come down over far more practical, societal level issues, like population control (see China). You earlier stated that this is not a religious issue. okay, but please tell me, if it is not, how come the typical pro-lifer also opposes birth control? On top of it, with totally erroneously based arguments, like "birth control pill is abortifacient". It isn't. It prevents ovulation. So are all other hormonal birth control methods. So, what gives?

Gabor

I don't think anybody lies in this subject. Lying means knowing the truth and telling something else

Hadn't you heard? Roe v Wade was based on lies about the circumstances in Roe's life.

The sperm already a "living thing of some kind" and so is the egg.

So are skin cells, or white blood cells.

I am not an anti-lifer, only I see the scientific basis for the dispute

Me, too.

And I realize that it is unscientific to confuse living cells with living beings.

That's why I suggested the compromise,

Compromise?

As in "split the baby in half" -- like King Solomon's (faked) compromise.

As in "decimate" -- like a Roman gerneral ordering the killing of only one out of ten of the troops?

We don't usually make compromises like that in the modern world.

We might do "triage" but we don't deliberately kill.