Stop&think” A completely hypocritical post from Col Rouge.”

Nothing hypocritical about what I said, except in your eyes. I suggest you come up with some argument rather than simply firing off rounds of emotional hyperbole.

Re “The state has always interfered in the sovereign decisions of others when those decisions have led to actions that deprive others of that very sovereignty.”

Yes, however, unlike a child or adult, an embryo or foetus has never held the same position, status or sovereignty “in law” or “for the state to interfere in” as someone who has actually been born.

RE “while those who support 'pro-choice' stances are carried away by the emotions of a difficult moral conundrum.”

The “extreme emotional act” of bombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion Staff or demanding women be imprisoned for seeking an abortion have never been pursued by the pro-choice lobby.

RE equating the expiration of separate Ova and Sperm a killing.

Nothing I ever argued would make use of such a facile comment,

Comparing an egg or sperm to a “life”, where a “life” is perceived as a separate cognitive and autonomous individual . . .

is as moronic as comparing an embryo or foetus to a “life”, where a “life” is perceived as a separate cognitive and autonomous individual

As for the foetus / embryo, whatever rights anyone may assign to it, those rights are only recognized as subordinate to the woman in whose body it is developing. That said, the rights (including choice) of the superior entity (the woman) must always prevail over any rights of the subordinate entity.

Yabby states that until a child is born it is not yet a person. It is this dangerous approach which leads to all sorts of probelms for people, not least of whom, the unborn child. The folly of such an argument can be seen when one considers partial birth abortions. Because the baby's head has not emerged, Yabby's definition of personhood is accepted, and the doctor pierces the back of the head and sucks out the brain with a catheter. Then the deceased body is removed.

Col Rouge will probably say I am being emotive, or calling up people's emotions, but these are simply clear facts.

Yabby says: "it is a long way from a zygote to a person." Well it's a long way from a toddler to a granny - much longer in fact. Yes, the zygote contains cells and DNA, but exactly why this is compared to cells on our knee is bizarre. Is your knee a separate living being that will one day be able to think for itself, breathe and talk? No. A zygote is a very very young human being and that is simply a matter of undeniable scientific fact. It may be dependent on the mother, but so is a 2-year old.

In these debates it is important to get our definitions clear as well, and I can see why Col Rouge and I disagree so emphatically. Col Rouge refers to life as a "separate cognitive and autonomous individual". If you look at my definition above, I talk about biological life, as there is an unbroken continuum with a zygote. Col Rouge's approach is similar to what I mentioned about Peter Singer: personhood based on cognitive levels. I think this is a dangerous stance, as this definition of life would not include some adults, for example those in a vegetative state who have lost cognitivity and autonomy.

I can only agree with aquavirus that humans have always killed their young - it's a fact. Again what I ask for is honesty - call a spade a spade.

"Yabby states that until a child is born it is not yet a person."

I said no such thing. Clearly you cannot read, are trying to
build a strawman argument, or havent stopped and thought :)

Please reread what I actually stated and feel free to comment.
If you have anything intelligent to say, I will certainly
respond.

Meantime please think about why you use the term "unborn child"
After all, you don't call an acorn, an ungrown oak tree, or
a person, a notyet corpse.

Yabby "If its not yet born, then its not a child."

Would this not translate into "until a child is born it is not yet a person"?

Or perhaps you totally despise the word 'child' being used to describe a being before birth. If so, please set out the magical process that occurs through the birth canal that changes whatever it is inside the womb to a child in a matter of centimetres and minutes. I'm sure it will make for an interesting biology lesson.

Now let's not confuse the issue. Acorns and oak trees have nothing to do with human beings. The fact that one in 10,000 acorns becomes an oak tree has very little to do with the process of the originating of human life. The complete lack of logic does nothing for your argument, and responding to my posts by saying I have nothing intelligent to say is a little defeatist, seeing as though you have ignored all of my arguments.

We are talking about the beginning of human life, not the end. Just because the zygote has potential to be a fully grown adult does not deprive it of its status as a human, just as your potential to be a senior citizen does not make you any less a human now. When we start confusing potency with being, we run into many errors. Why would I call myself a notyet corpse? All human beings gain life at fertilisation and lose that life upon death. I am quite right to use the term 'unborn child' as much as I can use the terms infant, teenager, adult and geriatric.

If you wish to make a further post, I suggest to you that you read my posts and begin to actually address the arguments raised, or a continuing debate on this forum will be pointless and immature.

"Would this not translate into "until a child is born it is not yet a person"?"

Nope, it would not translate like that.

How can you have a person, without them having a human brain?
Quite simple, no human brain = no person. Its at about week
25 that we can first describe the development of the brain,
ie. the development of the neocortex etc, as a human brain
being in place.

It was well explained by somebody qualified in the field,

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6231

that human life never really begins, but simply continues.

Sperms and ova are cells, they form yet another cell, a diploid
cell. Its still only a cell. It will combine dna in unique
ways, but so what?

Acorns and trees certainly have something to do with it,
given that all life is related.

As Darwin wisely noted, far more potential beings will be created
then can ever survive. Most women could create around 400
little zygotes, so the potential is nearly unlimited. As
resources are clearly limited, its really up to the mother
to decide, which of those 400 potentially cute little babies,
she actually wants to spend the next 20 years taking care of.

Personally I am much more concerned with thinking, feeling,
suffering people and other creatures, then about the rights
of diploid cells, which clearly can be created in overabundance

Let's leave acorns and oak trees, please.

If we are talking about human beings, then the position that you take in support of the other article is quite tenuous. If we were to agree that human life never begins, then you could treat me as you like, because really, what would distinguish me from a big pile of dinosaur excrement?

The neo-cortex can be described as early as the 8th week, and I'm sure, as science progresses, we will be able to track its development even earlier.

Once again there are sweeping generalisations and dogmatic-sounding assertions such as "no human brain = no person". From what authority does this come?

Your final paragraph says it all - you are more concerned with a set group of human people - those people who like you, can think properly, feel things and suffer - than with very young human lives. You even rank "other creatures" higher on your scale. It is interesting that you could rank your pet budgie higher than yourself at 8 months old, simply because you can hear its voice and see it suffer.

If only people could hear the 'silent scream' or see the reality of abortion: perhaps this would wake them up to the reality that occurs.