So, Abortion.

[Individuality-ness]

Sperm and egg cells are independently-living organisms with human genetic material - they are really not very different from zygotes in every way that matters, particularly since eggs can be induced to form a zygote without the intervention of sperm.

I disagree. Sperm and egg cells cannot develop into fully-grown human beings. Zygotes can.

Source for the underlined?

Wait, they didn't go over this in your biology class? That's how we made clones of animals.

[Olthar]

Unless they don't want that responsibility, then they can give them up. No matter the reason for doing so. This isn't answering my question about a mother and her fetus. Are you not seeing how equating a mother to medical supplies is not an oversimplification of your argument?

Actually, they can't. You can't just abandon your child. You have to go through established legal procedures that prioritize the safety of the child. If there is no safe way to transfer custody, then the biological parents must raise the child.

A fetus is a human being. Therefore, these legal obligations should apply during pregnancy as well. Since it is obviously unfeasible to transfer custody during a pregnancy, the mother is obligated to take care of her child. This includes not getting an abortion.

A fetus is not a legal person. A woman has no more obligation to care for a fetus than she does for a clump of cancer.

[Desperate Measures]

Unless they don't want that responsibility, then they can give them up. No matter the reason for doing so. This isn't answering my question about a mother and her fetus. Are you not seeing how equating a mother to medical supplies is not an oversimplification of your argument?

Actually, they can't. You can't just abandon your child. You have to go through established legal procedures that prioritize the safety of the child. If there is no safe way to transfer custody, then the biological parents must raise the child.

A fetus is a human being. Therefore, these legal obligations should apply during pregnancy as well. Since it is obviously unfeasible to transfer custody during a pregnancy, the mother is obligated to take care of her child. This includes not getting an abortion.

No, they have programs where you can leave your infant baby, no questions asked. I'd like to see some sources on biological parents being forced to raise children.

[Planeia]

Irrelevant. A crash doesn't involve the creation of an entirely new entity, pregnancy does.

That's an arbitrary distinction. The point of the analogy is that people should not be forced to suffer consequences from random happenstance.

Hey guys we accidentally killed someone, totally not by negligence, let's not suffer the consequences.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Unless they don't want that responsibility, then they can give them up. No matter the reason for doing so. This isn't answering my question about a mother and her fetus. Are you not seeing how equating a mother to medical supplies is not an oversimplification of your argument?

Actually, they can't. You can't just abandon your child. You have to go through established legal procedures that prioritize the safety of the child. If there is no safe way to transfer custody, then the biological parents must raise the child.

A fetus is a human being. Therefore, these legal obligations should apply during pregnancy as well. Since it is obviously unfeasible to transfer custody during a pregnancy, the mother is obligated to take care of her child. This includes not getting an abortion.

You have been given, by several people, many reasons why the fetus is not a human being (scientifically and legally), and does not, and cannot hold representation in law.

[Zweite Alaje]

Irrelevant. A crash doesn't involve the creation of an entirely new entity, pregnancy does.

That's an arbitrary distinction. The point of the analogy is that people should not be forced to suffer consequences from random happenstance.

If it involves the destruction of another party that was placed in its current situation by their actions, they should be required to provide for that being's welfare.

[Auralia]

1) An entity does not have to be completely independent to be an individual.
2) A mother does not have a right to kill her child.

Good thing she isn't killing anything, huh?

It's really easy to argue in circles, isn't it?

[Auralia]

Actually, they can't. You can't just abandon your child. You have to go through established legal procedures that prioritize the safety of the child. If there is no safe way to transfer custody, then the biological parents must raise the child.

A fetus is a human being. Therefore, these legal obligations should apply during pregnancy as well. Since it is obviously unfeasible to transfer custody during a pregnancy, the mother is obligated to take care of her child. This includes not getting an abortion.

You have been given, by several people, many reasons why the fetus is not a human being (scientifically and legally), and does not, and cannot hold representation in law.

What scientific reasons have I been given?

[Gaelic Celtia]

That's an arbitrary distinction. The point of the analogy is that people should not be forced to suffer consequences from random happenstance.

Hey guys we accidentally killed someone, totally not by negligence, let's not suffer the consequences.

So now you are arguing that the mother should keep the baby as punishment, rather than keep it because you think it is alive.

[Auralia]

Actually, they can't. You can't just abandon your child. You have to go through established legal procedures that prioritize the safety of the child. If there is no safe way to transfer custody, then the biological parents must raise the child.

A fetus is a human being. Therefore, these legal obligations should apply during pregnancy as well. Since it is obviously unfeasible to transfer custody during a pregnancy, the mother is obligated to take care of her child. This includes not getting an abortion.

No, they have programs where you can leave your infant baby, no questions asked. I'd like to see some sources on biological parents being forced to raise children.

What if such programs did not exist, as I'm sure is the case in less developed parts of the world? Would abandonment be justifiable?

If your answer to that question is yes, then there is no point in continuing this debate.

[Gaelic Celtia]

You have been given, by several people, many reasons why the fetus is not a human being (scientifically and legally), and does not, and cannot hold representation in law.

What scientific reasons have I been given?

It does not have conscious thought, it cannot reason, it does not have individual personality, it cannot reproduce, it cannot live on its own, it is not aware of its actions, nor can it hold account for them. It is not an individual human being.

[Condunum]

Good thing she isn't killing anything, huh?

It's really easy to argue in circles, isn't it?

Hey, it's your mulberry bush, I'm just standing on the side as you pass by.

[Galloism]

I can take an egg cell, remove the DNA, inject DNA from a skin cell of mine and its a zygote. Now, as it sits in my Petri dish, is the zygote a person?

I'm not sure what you've described is possible. Mind giving me a source?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

[Atollus]

Unless they don't want that responsibility, then they can give them up. No matter the reason for doing so. This isn't answering my question about a mother and her fetus. Are you not seeing how equating a mother to medical supplies is not an oversimplification of your argument?

Actually, they can't. You can't just abandon your child. You have to go through established legal procedures that prioritize the safety of the child. If there is no safe way to transfer custody, then the biological parents must raise the child.

3 words: Safe haven laws.

A fetus is a human being. Therefore, these legal obligations should apply during pregnancy as well. Since it is obviously unfeasible to transfer custody during a pregnancy, the mother is obligated to take care of her child. This includes not getting an abortion.

I don't care if the pregnancy is divine in origin and fully sapient on conception. To deny a woman the right to use her own body as she wishes, is to deny a woman the very thing that makes her human. The right to self-determination. The moment we deny them this, is the moment we declare women less than human.

[Condunum]

I'm not sure what you've described is possible. Mind giving me a source?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

psssst, use URL tags for urls that end in parentheses.

[Olthar]

That's an arbitrary distinction. The point of the analogy is that people should not be forced to suffer consequences from random happenstance.

If it involves the destruction of another party that was placed in its current situation by their actions, they should be required to provide for that being's welfare.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Are you under any obligation to continue supporting him? Should you be legally forced to continue supporting him?

[Auralia]

What scientific reasons have I been given?

It does not have conscious thought, it cannot reason, it does not have individual personality, it cannot reproduce, it cannot lice on its own, it is not aware of its actions. It is not an individual human being.

An infant, a person in a coma or in a persistent vegetative state, and a person who has suffered clinical death but not whole brain death all do not have conscious thought, cannot reason, do not have individual personality, cannot reproduce, cannot live(?) on their own, and are unaware of their actions. They are still considered human beings, because they have the inherent capacity for all those things, even though it is not currently present.

[Auralia]

If it involves the destruction of another party that was placed in its current situation by their actions, they should be required to provide for that being's welfare.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Are you under any obligation to continue supporting him? Should you be legally forced to continue supporting him?

Yes, if I was his mother and he was inside my womb.

[Olthar]

Are you under any obligation to continue supporting him? Should you be legally forced to continue supporting him?

Yes, if I was his mother and he was inside my womb.

Arbitrary distinction. Answer the question as presented.

[Galloism]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

psssst, use URL tags for urls that end in parentheses.

Fixed it.

[Auralia]

I'm not sure what you've described is possible. Mind giving me a source?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

We're talking humans here, not sheep.

[Condunum]

Are you under any obligation to continue supporting him? Should you be legally forced to continue supporting him?

Yes, if I was his mother and he was inside my womb.

You don't get to change the hypothetical.

[Condunum]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

We're talking humans here, not sheep.

Humans are no better than sheep.

[Galloism]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

We're talking humans here, not sheep.

Other than federal funding not being allowed, there's not much difference between a human and a sheep at the single-called organism stage.

[Auralia]

Yes, if I was his mother and he was inside my womb.

Arbitrary distinction. Answer the question as presented.

Not an arbitrary distinction. Parents have special obligations towards their children. Question as presented is irrelevant to this debate.

I've read Judith Jarvis Thomson. I don't find her convincing.