Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 04, 2018, 07:43:29 PM
-
The Irish referendum on abortion is on May 25th. Below is a rather good pro repeal article.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/24/ann-enright-on-irelands-abortion-referendum?CMP=share_btn_fb
-
Excellent piece.
I like the association of the "pro life" message as "tribal and symbolic" with the mentality that resulted in Brexit and Trump.
-
I got a lot from reading the article and agree with most of it, but am mightily pissed off at her proposed change in terminology. ‘Pregnant without consent’. Unless she means that to apply only to pregnancy that happens through rape, incest or abuse of power she is also relegating women to passive bodies to whom things happen. A vital part of being a sexually active women is taking responsibility for one’s body; I’ve always been aware that contraception can fail (and indeed I conceived because it did so); if you have consensual sex and you are still fertile you risk pregnancy and if you then become pregnant you are responsible for what happens next. It’s empowering. The law desperately needs changing in Ireland but disempowering women is not the way to do it.
I would change the term ‘unwanted pregnancy’ to something like ‘inappropriate’ pregnancy.
The article also reminded me very much of my pregnancies and the sense that my body wasn’t my own and that the people ‘in charge’ knew what was better for me than I did. This applied equally to the midwives pressuring me to have a vaginal delivery (a decision that nearly cost my daughter her life) as it did the obstetricians. You are just a baby and milk machine, even more if you have small children and fall pregnant again. I can’t recall ever being treated as less of a human being. You really are just meat.
-
It is about time it was amended, women shouldn't have to come across the Irish sea for a termination.
It's also about time that we stopped using the anti-choice lobby's preferred term, "pro-life". They are nothing of the sort, unless they're also pacifist, anti-blood-sport vegans, but in any case life as such is not the point - happiness is (I'm a thorough-going rule-utilitarian ethically). Also, regarding a microscopic or near-microscopic bundle of at most a few hundred undifferentiated cells, which is what an embryo is pre-implantation, as fully human is bizarre, to say the least.
-
Ironic that the N.I unionists used to highlight N.I as being different from the repressive, hidebound Republic.....now they try to say Unionism is a bastion against the Republic's liberalism.......
-
Also, regarding a microscopic or near-microscopic bundle of at most a few hundred undifferentiated cells, which is what an embryo is pre-implantation, as fully human is bizarre, to say the least.
Until the mid 19th century the Roman Catholic Church held that the embryo did not acquire a soul until the 40th day of pregnancy, this being the opinion of Thomas Aquinas having studied - not biblical - but Aristotelian "natural law". (I'm sure I have heard somewhere that only boys acquired souls at 40 days, girls - being inferior - had to wait until 90 days.) However, it is now the view that the soul enters the new life at the moment of conception. Presumably, then, the proper role of the scrotum is a pouch for carrying souls - which, no doubt, is the reason a male ballet dancer encloses his scrotum in a hard protective container.
-
It's also about time that we stopped using the anti-choice lobby's preferred term, "pro-life". They are nothing of the sort, unless they're also pacifist, anti-blood-sport vegans, but in any case life as such is not the point - happiness is (I'm a thorough-going rule-utilitarian ethically). Also, regarding a microscopic or near-microscopic bundle of at most a few hundred undifferentiated cells, which is what an embryo is pre-implantation, as fully human is bizarre, to say the least.
Wholeheartedly agree with you.
Rhiannon, your post was extremely thought provoking regarding 'unwanted' pregnancy which I would take to mean a pregnancy resulting from rape, incest, abuse - but the rest of what you said about 'inappropriate' or 'inconvenient' pregnancy was spot on.
I positively winced at what you were put through during pregnancy, if I'd experienced similar I doubt I'd have had another child. You're courageous - but I hope later experiences were less horrific.
-
Looks as if this will be very close. My Irish relatives were pretty well all in favour of same sex marriage but it's about a fifty fifty split this time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=-nnLE-aBoPQ
-
Until the mid 19th century the Roman Catholic Church held that the embryo did not acquire a soul until the 40th day of pregnancy, this being the opinion of Thomas Aquinas having studied - not biblical - but Aristotelian "natural law". (I'm sure I have heard somewhere that only boys acquired souls at 40 days, girls - being inferior - had to wait until 90 days.) However, it is now the view that the soul enters the new life at the moment of conception. Presumably, then, the proper role of the scrotum is a pouch for carrying souls - which, no doubt, is the reason a male ballet dancer encloses his scrotum in a hard protective container.
Not a pleasant thought that last sentence H H.
Regards ippy
-
Amazing that contraception itself was illegal in Ireland. I am expecting a yes vote. My mother nearly died like Ms Halappanavar, as she had a Catholic obstetrician, not in Ireland. Bastard.
-
The Irish journalist Philip Nolan made the interesting point that neither church nor state in Ireland have recognised conception as the beginning of life. For example, if you miscarry, you are not allowed to have a funeral, nor a baptism. If a baby is stillborn, it can't be registered as a birth if the baby is under 500 gms. Life = weight.
From Twitter.
-
I also enjoyed a tweet by Jewdas (who Corbyn visited) -
Brits Out/fuck the Pope/for a 32 county socialist republic/abortions for all.
-
Amazing that contraception itself was illegal in Ireland. I am expecting a yes vote. My mother nearly died like Ms Halappanavar, as she had a Catholic obstetrician, not in Ireland. Bastard.
Could she not have asked for another one? A second opinion is quite in order & always has been. Thankfully she didn't die.
The Irish journalist Philip Nolan made the interesting point that neither church nor state in Ireland have recognised conception as the beginning of life. For example, if you miscarry, you are not allowed to have a funeral, nor a baptism. If a baby is stillborn, it can't be registered as a birth if the baby is under 500 gms. Life = weight.
From Twitter.
Doesn't surprise me, double standards. Used to be same here.
Not a pleasant thought that last sentence H H.
Regards ippy
Never knew that, thought male ballet dancers were au naturel, will never see them in same light again. I know male swimmers/divers wear something that tucks it all away neatly.
-
Never knew that, thought male ballet dancers were au naturel, will never see them in same light again. I know male swimmers/divers wear something that tucks it all away neatly.
Wandering off subject alert.
I recall once hearing some kind of fashion expert opine that men's ties were actually phallic symbols. Ballet dancers (and, it would seem, Olympic divers) stick to the old-fashioned codpiece, as worn by Henry VIII.
-
I recall once hearing some kind of fashion expert opine that men's ties were actually phallic symbols.
I was always led to believe that a tie was more of a 'high-lighting'or 'sign posting' piece of clothing. As in 'look what's down here ladies'.
Whichever, it's a bloody silly piece of clothing.
-
This is good
https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/opinion/2018/21/Sali-Hughes-on-abortion-referendum-in-Ireland
-
Wow. Let's hope the polls are right.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/ireland-votes-to-relax-abortion-laws
-
Well done Ireland! No more lonely flights for pregnant Irish women to another country. Welcome home, Mna na hEiriann!
-
Congratulations, Ireland. What A breath of fresh air, and in my opinion, long overdue.
-
The Isle of Man’s progressing too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-43963288
-
Nice comment by the minister of health, Simon Harris,'instead of saying take the boat, we're now saying take our hand, and we will look after you.'
-
Thankfully, it's over, I mean the horrors of the 8th. I noticed during the campaign, how pro-choice people focus on the mother, and her health, and pro-life people focus on the foetus, while the mother is subordinate. She may have to die, as Savita did. No more.
-
Good news indeed, though it does highlight that the situation in Northern Ireland is now so very different from the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland (once the legislation adjustments are made there).
Pressure on NI to change, which has already started, is a separate can of worms though since the DUP don't seem inclined to support changes in abortion law and since while Stormont is mothballed the Tories are unlikely to do anything to upset the DUP, given their dependence on DUP support to remain in power at Westminster.
-
I’m mindful that there’ll be people hurting today. I don’t ageee with them and it’s right that the law will change, but the majority of people in the ‘no’ camp largely were acting for what they believed to be the right reasons. They aren’t evil even though their beliefs resulted in great cruelty and loss.
These things are seldom straightforward.
-
I’m mindful that there’ll be people hurting today. I don’t ageee with them and it’s right that the law will change, but the majority of people in the ‘no’ camp largely were acting for what they believed to be the right reasons. They aren’t evil even though their beliefs resulted in great cruelty and loss.
These things are seldom straightforward.
Completely agree with what you say, Rhi. On such an emotive subject as this, it is all too easy not to respect the other side's point of view.
-
The sight of people rejoicing in the fact that unborn children in Ireland no longer have the right to live is a sad, very sad indictment on the way modern society has lost its way.
Popular opinion can never take away the humanity of the child in its mother's womb,
-
Of course, that is not what people are celebrating. But I think you know that, and you are just trying a bit of misrepresentation.
-
The sight of people rejoicing in the fact that unborn children in Ireland no longer have the right to live is a sad, very sad indication on the way modern society has lost its way.
Popular opinion can never take away the humanity of the child in its mother's womb,
Right. And let's not forget the humanity of forcing women to carry dead babies to full term. It is not a black and white issue no matter how the forces at the extremes of opinion like to portray it.
-
Pregnancy and birth are the most dangerous times in life for most women in the West. Even if a healthy baby is carried to term, the consequences of a difficult or botched labour can be painful, humiliating and lifelong. And this happens far more than people realise, partly because women are conditioned not to speak out (pregnancy and birth arexsupposed to be blessings, right?) and partly because of shame and embarrassment.
I’m lucky that I got through mine relatively ok (a doctor told me this is the unspoken benefit of needed c-sections) but there’s no way my body could take another pregnancy. In the vanishingly unlikely event that I got pregnant now I’d have a termination in a heartbeat, not just for my sake, but because the kids that I have need a functioning, well mother.
-
Well said, Rhiannon. Presumably, AB and others, believe that you should not make such decisions. After all, what do you know, compared with him?
-
Pregnancy and birth are the most dangerous times in life for most women in the West. Even if a healthy baby is carried to term, the consequences of a difficult or botched labour can be painful, humiliating and lifelong. And this happens far more than people realise, partly because women are conditioned not to speak out (pregnancy and birth arexsupposed to be blessings, right?) and partly because of shame and embarrassment.
I’m lucky that I got through mine relatively ok (a doctor told me this is the unspoken benefit of needed c-sections) but there’s no way my body could take another pregnancy. In the vanishingly unlikely event that I got pregnant now I’d have a termination in a heartbeat, not just for my sake, but because the kids that I have need a functioning, well mother.
Of course the health and well being of the mother are factors which must be taken into consideration, but from the eight million abortions performed in this country since 1967, there are a great many mothers who bitterly regret having had the abortion and continue to suffer the consequences. There are other ways of helping distressed pregnant mothers apart from the heavily promoted solution of abortion.
-
The sight of people rejoicing in the fact that unborn children in Ireland no longer have the right to live is a sad, very sad indication on the way modern society has lost its way.
Popular opinion can never take away the humanity of the child in its mother's womb,
The thing is Alan, the joy is mostly coming from the now majority of people that don't share your point of view being set free from an old primitive imposed tyranny of a law a law that I would describe as a law that showed it's distinct lack of humanity so many times over the years.
The best thing about this repeal of this old law Alan, is that you're able to continue in your regressive old way and people that don't share your rather cruel and ignorant views can continue on in their ways too, without having laws they don't want inflicted on them; whether you're right or wrong there's nothing wrong with you disproving, as long as that's all you and people that share your view do.
Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.
-
Of course the health and well being of the mother are factors which must be taken into consideration, but from the eight million abortions performed in this country since 1967, there are a great many mothers who bitterly regret having had the abortion and continue to suffer the consequences. There are other ways of helping distressed pregnant mothers apart from the heavily promoted solution of abortion.
Oh, really? Actually, your posts on this subject are to me so teeth-frindingly wince-making that I have already written - - but refrained from posting - - several scathing ones. It is a waste of time though, you are so bounded by your thick, cottonwool barrier to reality that I'm probably wasting energy writing this one too.
Do you really think that, denied good, clear access to safe abortions, 100% of women would refrain from trying unsafe, positively dangerous methods instead?
-
Yes, ippy, the standard reply to somebody who objects to abortion, is, then don't have one. With the sub-text, and don't make my decision for me.
-
Of course the health and well being of the mother are factors which must be taken into consideration, but from the eight million abortions performed in this country since 1967, there are a great many mothers who bitterly regret having had the abortion and continue to suffer the consequences. There are other ways of helping distressed pregnant mothers apart from the heavily promoted solution of abortion.
It’s true that some women regret their terminations. And another problem is the number of women forced into them by abusive partners, or even parents. But these don’t make up the majority. And something you will rarely hear discussed, if ever, because it is such a huge taboo, are the women who regret becoming mothers.
Every one of us is faced with choices according to circumstance and we have to live with the consequences. That you disapprove is no reason to take choices away. Women do not need to be protected from themselves.
-
Yes, that is the point, taking choice away. Church and state together, policing women's bodies, what paradise for bigots.
-
I'm not very clued up about the abortion issue, but I had a thought that might be relevant. Why is it ok to abort a child we know will have poor quality of life, while everything possible is done to save the life of someone who's had a stroke, even if it means they will be left paralyzed and unable to communicate for years afterwards?
-
A child is not aborted. A foetus is aborted.
I suppose the church opposes this because it will be one immature human fewer whose brain it can meddle with ...
-
A child is not aborted. A foetus is aborted.
I suppose the church opposes this because it will be one immature human fewer whose brain it can meddle with ...
In the early stages it’s an embryo.
-
The sight of people rejoicing in the fact that unborn children in Ireland no longer have the right to live is a sad, very sad indictment on the way modern society has lost its way.
Popular opinion can never take away the humanity of the child in its mother's womb,
What is your view of the situation considering a woman who is shown to be pregnant with a child displaying the features of total anencephaly*, Alan?
Or of a woman who is pregnant as the result of a violent rape which nearly resulted in her own death?
*As a subheading to such tragic medical situations, it might be interesting for you to tell us how you find evidence in them of a righteous, omnipotent God. And how such poor creatures display evidence of 'ensoulment'.
-
It's that old, old question of ' when is a child a child'? When the baby is born or is it from conception ???
Nick
-
In the early stages it’s an embryo.
embryo, foetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager ....
All just man made labels to describe the continuous development of human life which every one of us has gone through.
-
What is your view of the situation considering a woman who is shown to be pregnant with a child displaying the features of total anencephaly*, Alan?
Or of a woman who is pregnant as the result of a violent rape which nearly resulted in her own death?
*As a subheading to such tragic medical situations, it might be interesting for you to tell us how you find evidence in them of a righteous, omnipotent God. And how such poor creatures display evidence of 'ensoulment'.
I respect the sanctity of all human life, and it is not up to us to pass judgement of the quality of each individual's life.
-
I respect the sanctity of all human life, and it is not up to us to pass judgement of the quality of each individual's life.
That’s ducking the question.
-
embryo, foetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager ....
All just man made labels to describe the continuous development of human life which every one of us has gone through.
Not entirely. The first two apply to most mammals and the first applies to most organisms, including plants. Do they have souls too?
-
I respect the sanctity of all human life,
Define 'human life' AB.
and it is not up to us to pass judgement of the quality of each individual's life.
Presumably therefore it is for the individual themselves. In which case I presume you support voluntary, consensual euthanasia.
-
I respect the sanctity of all human life
And do you believe that all stages (e.g. from a fertilised egg through to an adult) deserve equal respect?
-
I respect the sanctity of all human life, and it is not up to us to pass judgement of the quality of each individual's life.
You're living in some sort of dream world Alan, you let your imagination run silly at times this post of yours is yet another one of those times; how do you know your take on this subject is any better than the judgement of others.
The trouble with judgemental people like yourself Alan, is where this line of thought of yours takes us and it wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that there's so many of you that have allowed yourselves to be taken in by this unsubstantiated unsustainable nonsense, that ends up causing so much unnecessary pain and heartache needlessly to so many, when all you need to do is don't get involved if you don't like it.
By the way you still haven't managed to let us know how you've managed to receive all of this complex judgemental info from your Mr Magic man in the sky, such as when this soul you speak of enters the embryo and all of the other godly godly stuff you're always on about, as though you know it all first hand?
Oh yes, do we still have that little man sitting at the controls inside our heads, never did get an answer to that one?
Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.
-
A child is not aborted. A foetus is aborted.
I suppose the church opposes this because it will be one immature human fewer whose brain it can meddle with ...
A foetus can rub it's eyes just like a child.... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
-
Just a thought,
I wonder how many of the Irish who voted to repeal the 8th amendment would be alive today if the abortion act of 1967 had been applied to Ireland too.
-
Just a thought,
I wonder how many of the Irish who voted to repeal the 8th amendment would be alive today if the abortion act of 1967 had been applied to Ireland too.
So you want to stop their vote?
-
Alan if some of those people were not alive today, like ourselves if we had been aborted,what would it matter to them or us.I've often thought if I had been aborted - which was never on the cards, I'm just making a point - I wouldn't be here to care!
-
So you want to stop their vote?
Yes, it’s not like Alan is the first to think of this.
-
Yes, it’s not like Alan is the first to think of this.
The anti-choice lobby has always been long on sentimentality and irrelevance, and short on logic.
-
A foetus can rub it's eyes just like a child.... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
We kill and eat ducks with orange sauce. Is that what you meant?
Human foetuses don't really have eyes until about the eighth week of pregnancy. At what point do you content they start rubbing them?
-
Just a thought,
I wonder how many of the Irish who voted to repeal the 8th amendment would be alive today if the abortion act of 1967 had been applied to Ireland too.
I wonder which way Savita Halappanavar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar) would have voted if she were alive today.
-
When I was conceived, my mother, father, brother and sister lived in a one bedroom terraced house in Dale street in Middlesbrough. My dad was a labourer in the steelworks with a very low wage. Surely it would have been an easy option to have me aborted. But I grew up in a very loving family, and my mum and dad were immensely proud of me.
-
When I was conceived, my mother, father, brother and sister lived in a one bedroom terraced house in Dale street in Middlesbrough. My dad was a labourer in the steelworks with a very low wage. Surely it would have been an easy option to have me aborted. But I grew up in a very loving family, and my mum and dad were immensely proud of me.
You know fuck all.
-
When I was conceived, my mother, father, brother and sister lived in a one bedroom terraced house in Dale street in Middlesbrough. My dad was a labourer in the steelworks with a very low wage. Surely it would have been an easy option to have me aborted. But I grew up in a very loving family, and my mum and dad were immensely proud of me.
I'm glad to hear it, but that is completely irrelevant to thedebate.
-
You know fuck all.
Why the need to go into so much detail Rhi? ;D ;D ;D
Regards ippy
-
Why the need to go into so much detail Rhi? ;D ;D ;D
Regards ippy
What is Lawrence Krauss's current status within the National Secular Society?
-
What is Lawrence Krauss's current status within the National Secular Society?
Who won the F A Cup in 1927?
-
Who won the F A Cup in 1927?
Cardiff City.
-
Cardiff City.
Correct, and so what would you like to add on the subject of the thread?
-
Correct, and so what would you like to add on the subject of the thread?
I know you wanted them to introduce abortion into Ireland but did you really, really, really want them to bearing in mind just two really's has never counted as support on religionethics?
-
I know you wanted them to introduce abortion into Ireland but did you really, really, really want them to bearing in mind just two really's has never counted as support on religionethics?
no idea what point you are trying to make there.
-
We kill and eat ducks with orange sauce. Is that what you meant?
No, just responding to #37 where HH claimed a foetus is not a child. See the video below: if it looks like a child and rubs its eyes like one, it probably is.
[edit: technically a foetus is an unborn child].
Human foetuses don't really have eyes until about the eighth week of pregnancy. At what point do you content they start rubbing them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uhixkt2OW0
-
I'm sure there's no requirement in the law for anyone to have an abortion if they don't want to have one.
It's so simple, if anyone has some form of objection to abortion, they don't have to have one.
Those that want the choice have the choice too, with the bonus of not having to inflict their ideas about abortion on others.
Let's hope the Northern Islanders see the light, I'm sure it'll come eventually.
Regards ippy
-
No, just responding to #37 where HH claimed a foetus is not a child. See the video below: if it looks like a child and rubs its eyes like one, it probably is.
[edit: technically a foetus is an unborn child].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uhixkt2OW0
A foetus is an unborn child, not a child. That’s not a technicality, it’s a fact.
-
No, just responding to #37 where HH claimed a foetus is not a child. See the video below: if it looks like a child and rubs its eyes like one, it probably is.
[edit: technically a foetus is an unborn child].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uhixkt2OW0
How old was the foetus in that video?
-
A foetus is an unborn child, not a child. That’s not a technicality, it’s a fact.
So an unborn child is not a child until it's born. If you say so. It's still a person though.
-
If you say so. It's still a person though.
Really? Justify that statement - do you really think that a 100 cell hollow ball of cells (the 5 day old embryo as an example) is a 'person'.
I think you need to think much more carefully about what 'personhood' means and when it starts and when it ends. Glib, simplistic statements that somehow imply (without thinking about it) that all stages of development from conception are 'a person' doesn't really advance or understanding at all.
-
All that video shows Spud, is that a foetus moves about, which we know, and bears some resemblance to a child. The foetus doesn't have eyes, its hands move over the area where eyes will eventually be. At what stage of gestation is that particular foetus?
-
Really? Justify that statement - do you really think that a 100 cell hollow ball of cells (the 5 day old embryo as an example) is a 'person'.
I think you need to think much more carefully about what 'personhood' means and when it starts and when it ends. Glib, simplistic statements that somehow imply (without thinking about it) that all stages of development from conception are 'a person' doesn't really advance or understanding at all.
Of course they are a person. It's a human being in there. The only difference between before and after birth is that after birth it's oxygenating its blood using its lungs... lungs that are already present while it is inside, just not yet being used. Plus, it gets its nutrients from its mother when its in and for a while after it comes out.
When it's a 5 day old embryo all the genes needed to develop into a person are there. So it is already a person, from the moment of conception.
You can't justify murdering it by saying it isn't a person.
-
When it's a 5 day old embryo all the genes needed to develop into a person are there. So it is already a person, from the moment of conception.
There is a difference between something that has the potential to develop into something and actually being that thing.
An acorn has the potential to develop into an oak tree, but that doesn't mean that an acorn is an oak tree.
-
Of course they are a person. It's a human being in there. The only difference between before and after birth is that after birth it's oxygenating its blood using its lungs... lungs that are already present while it is inside, just not yet being used. Plus, it gets its nutrients from its mother when its in and for a while after it comes out.
When it's a 5 day old embryo all the genes needed to develop into a person are there. So it is already a person, from the moment of conception.
You can't justify murdering it by saying it isn't a person.
From the moment of conception you say?
Given that something like half of all foetuses are spontaneously aborted before the mother is even aware she is pregnant, doesn’t that make your god, who you allege designed the human reproductive system, the murderer of half of all persons?
-
Really? Justify that statement - do you really think that a 100 cell hollow ball of cells (the 5 day old embryo as an example) is a 'person'.
Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.
-
Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.
Do you have a soul at that point?
-
Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.
Then how do you explain the possibility of twinning. If this 5 day old embryo is me, and then becomes identical twins, which one of the twins is me.
There are certain critical features that we ascribe to personhood (perhaps the most critical being neurological continuity) and a 5 day old embryo doesn't have that.
-
So what is a person? I'm addressing this to the pro-life people.
-
So what is a person? I'm addressing this to the pro-life people.
And a follow-up question:
Are all persons (people) of equal moral value, regardless of their age.
-
So what is a person? I'm addressing this to the pro-life people.
The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death. Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.
-
Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.
Does it have a soul at that point?
-
The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death. Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.
So no answer to my question?
-
So no answer to my question?
I thought it was consciousness and free will?
-
I've noticed that pro-life people tend to slide around with the terms they use. A foetus is a person, then a human being, then a baby, and so on. I feel suspicious about this, as it looks like a kind of sleight of hand.
So just now, I ask what a person is, and there is no answer, but a description of human life. Well, sure, my toe nail is huiman.
Why is there this slipperiness?
-
Post 76 by Alan:
Of course it is a person.
It describes you five days after you were conceived.
Post 81 by Alan:
The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death. Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.
All of Which is a value judgement. Not all people would agree, of course, as they may make different value judgments to yours. In fact, within your own church, for the greater part of its history, it taught that human life did not begin with conception, and such lauded saints as Jerome and Augustine certainly didn't seem to think so.
However at least yours is a value judgment and not an arbitrary one, even though you readily confuse the two in your last sentence. :)
-
The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death. Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.
'Biologically controlled process' eh!
Good to see you've dropped the 'soul' silliness at last, Alan.
-
The earthly part of human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception and ends with our physical death. Attempts to categorise any part of this process as not being human life involves making arbitrary, value based judgements.
A bit like valuing human life over and above other life forms is an arbitrary, value based judgement born of our partisanship and prejudice. 'Thou Shalt not kill' obviously only applies to humans, in'it ?
-
Also, the pro-life people seem to value the life of the mother negatively - well, put it this way, she is to be forced to give birth.
-
Also, the pro-life people seem to value the life of the mother negatively - well, put it this way, she is to be forced to give birth.
You can see where Margaret Atwood got her ideas from.
-
You can see where Margaret Atwood got her ideas from.
Absolutely, woman as the incubator, whose own welfare is often strangely ignored by pro-life people. She becomes subordinated to the foetus, a rather mad point of view. Hence, the strength of the bodily dependency arguments. Am I compelled to function as the conduit for this other life form? Of course, an unspoken argument from pro-life people, is that you got pregnant, so now you must suffer.
-
Yes, for all the sentimental stuff there’s definitely an undercurrent of the need to punish in there.
-
Also, the pro-life people seem to value the life of the mother negatively - well, put it this way, she is to be forced to give birth.
Just to clarify.
All the pro life groups I know of consider the life of the mother to be a priority if there is a choice between saving the lives of either the mother or the child.
And a woman is not forced to give birth - it is a natural process.
However, deliberate force is needed to terminate the life of the unborn child.
-
Does it have a soul at that point?
It does not matter when the soul comes into existence - the fact that process of life has begun is the important factor from which all other things come. The consequence of terminating the life of the unborn child will inevitably prevent it's soul from existing in our world.
-
Just to clarify.
All the pro life groups I know of consider the life of the mother to be a priority if there is a choice between saving the lives of either the mother or the child.
And a woman is not forced to give birth - it is a natural process.
However, deliberate force is needed to terminate the life of the unborn child.
Woman-hating bullshit.
-
Yes, pro-life often means anti-woman. I think the Irish campaign was spurred on by the death of Savita Halappanavar. And for any woman, birth is a dangerous event. Why should the state prescribe it?
-
Yes, pro-life often means anti-woman. I think the Irish campaign was spurred on by the death of Savita Halappanavar. And for any woman, birth is a dangerous event. Why should the state prescribe it?
Childbirth is invasive, violent and very often there is nothing ‘natural’ about it. Although to be fair if it was left for the ‘natural’ process to take place (as Alan believes his god designed it) more women and babies would die in agony, so I guess we should be grateful.
-
... human life is a continuous, biologically controlled process which begins at the moment of conception ...
Conception, better described as fertilisation is a process, not is single one off event. At what point in that process does 'human life' begin Alan. And be aware that prior to the process of fertilisation and thereafter the cells are both human and alive.
... and ends with our physical death.
And define physical death for me please Alan.
We mostly consider nowadays that a person dies when there is irreversible and permanent loss of brain function - so called brain death. We may be able to keep the person's body biologically alive after that point, but the person has died. The loss of neurological function is the key at the end of life and should surely also be the key at the beginning of life.
As such prior to the development of any neurological tissue or function how can you describe that earlier entity as a person. Particularly as the fertilised egg (zygote) could become several people via twinning, or even two zygotes could become a single person via the rather rarer phenomenon of embryo fusion.
A zygote is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree.
-
It does not matter when the soul comes into existence - the fact that process of life has begun is the important factor from which all other things come. The consequence of terminating the life of the unborn child will inevitably prevent it's soul from existing in our world.
Far far far more unborn children (using your definition) are lost through natural (God provided) causes than ever by termination.
It's almost as if God doesn't really care about those ones does he?
-
They're God's little abortions.
-
Woman-hating bullshit.
This is a totally unjustified accusation Rhi.
I know of many young mothers who share the same views - could you call them woman haters?
Ons such woman is Bernadette Smyth, director of the Precious Life group in Northern Ireland, who has campaigned tirelessly for many years, showing tremendous love and compassion for both the mother and her child. Many of the young women she helped have become active supporters in her group.
-
This is a totally unjustified accusation Rhi.
I know of many young mothers who share the same views - could you call them woman haters?
Ons such woman is Bernadette Smyth, director of the Precious Life group in Northern Ireland, who has campaigned tirelessly for many years, showing tremendous love and compassion for both the mother and her child. Many of the young women she helped have become active supporters in her group.
It’s woman-hating to claim that childbirth isn’t forced (it is if you don’t want it and can’t get a termination) and it’s wrong to claim it is natural and non violent. Early terminations, by contrast, are not only more humane than a lot of birth procedures but they are not carried out by force.
Your god is brilliant st designing childbirth where babies suffocate, get their heads wedged, where women are led with fissures and anal and bladder incontinence. My totally unnatural c-sections saved my kids and saved me from god knows what (my body failed to naturally go into labour so my child would have died in my womb) but I’m aware that women (in the West as well as in the developing world) sometimes have to put their fingers into their vaginas to dig out faeces because of damage done in childbirth, for example, or permanently leak urine. Most of the time it can’t be fixed, and as we’ve seen with the mesh scandal it can make things even worse to try. Women often suffer humiliation and pain and even attempt and commit suicide because of the damage that comes with ‘natural childbirth’ - all designed by your god.
And you have the nerve to say that abortions involve deliberate force.
-
I couldn't agree with you more, Rhi. Nuff said.
-
Woman-hating bullshit.
Strongly seconded.
-
Good post, Rhiannon. What enrages me is that childbirth is still painful and dangerous, and in many parts of the world very dangerous, (it's the way God makes it), yet these pro-lifers pontificate about the sanctity of the foetus, and make mealy-mouthed points that of course we care about mothers. Centuries of control of women's bodies are being over-turned, and the misogynists don't like it.
-
It does not matter when the soul comes into existence - the fact that process of life has begun is the important factor from which all other things come. The consequence of terminating the life of the unborn child will inevitably prevent it's soul from existing in our world.
Now that you've committed yourself to a total dualism in your thinking, you are no longer at liberty to state that the moment of conception or any other point (e.g. Aquinas etc believing the moment was "the quickening") determines personhood. If you believe that the 'soul' is pre-existing and waiting its moment to piggy-back onto a fertilised egg, foetus, embryo or whatever, then that soul will have plenty more chances to get into this world in other situations. Unless you think that God has previously determined the circumstances for that particular 'ensoulment'. This would seem a little haphazard on his part, since large numbers of fertilised eggs never develop in any case, without any direct measures to abort them.
-
Interesting stuff, Dicky. Christians such as AB seem to get into a right fandangle with biology, souls, God, wombs, women, babies. Do they actually understand what they are saying?
-
It does not matter when the soul comes into existence - the fact that process of life has begun is the important factor from which all other things come. The consequence of terminating the life of the unborn child will inevitably prevent it's soul from existing in our world.
Half of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted before the mother is aware she is pregnant. Why does your god murder so many babies?
-
Childbirth is invasive, violent and very often there is nothing ‘natural’ about it. Although to be fair if it was left for the ‘natural’ process to take place (as Alan believes his god designed it) more women and babies would die in agony, so I guess we should be grateful.
Prior to the advent of modern medicine, one in four women died in child birth. So I guess we can be thankful we don't leave it to God anymore.
-
There is a difference between something that has the potential to develop into something and actually being that thing.
An acorn has the potential to develop into an oak tree, but that doesn't mean that an acorn is an oak tree.
You can justify killing an acorn, or a tree at any stage of its development, though, because it is a plant.
-
You can justify killing an acorn, or a tree at any stage of its development, though, because it is a plant.
But an acorn isn't an oak tree, which is the point you are deliberately failing to confront.
-
This would seem a little haphazard on his part, since large numbers of fertilised eggs never develop in any case, without any direct measures to abort them.
Indeed, in fact several hundred.
I know that this thread is specifically concerned with women's role in reproduction, but I am also minded of the priest in his pulpit (I don't know - I might actually have been there in early adolescence) fulminating about "when you throw away a condom you are throwing away a child". No way, when you throw away the condom from a young man in good health you are throwing away - potentially - hundreds of millions of children.
I do recall a sermon in which a priest advised his congregation not to use a certain gentlemen's hairdresser because there was an advert for Durex on the mirror.
-
This is where it all gets even madder, doesn’t it? You can’t have an abortion, but you also can’t prevent conception to begin with.
-
This is where it all gets even madder, doesn’t it? You can’t have an abortion, but you also can’t prevent conception to begin with.
That's right - you would have thought that anyone who opposes abortion would be the strongest proponent of effective contraception, which makes abortion unnecessary. But they typically aren't - those that oppose abortion often oppose effective contraception too. It's all about having lots and lots of children.
-
That's right - you would have thought that anyone who opposes abortion would be the strongest proponent of effective contraception, which makes abortion unnecessary. But they typically aren't - those that oppose abortion often oppose effective contraception too. It's all about having lots and lots of children.
Or abstinence. Well, on the woman’s part at any rate.
-
But an acorn isn't an oak tree, which is the point you are deliberately failing to confront.
Okay, and likewise an embryo isn't a child. But it's still human, so we are prohibited from killing it, unlike an acorn, which is a plant.
-
Okay, and likewise an embryo isn't a child. But it's still human, so we are prohibited from killing it, unlike an acorn, which is a plant.
Prohibited by who?
-
Okay, and likewise an embryo isn't a child. But it's still human, so we are prohibited from killing it, unlike an acorn, which is a plant.
Currently in the incubators of my research group human cells are growing which are used in medical research. Those cells are demonstrably human and demonstrable also alive. Am I prohibited from killing those cell cultures Spud?
-
Currently in the incubators of my research group human cells are growing which are used in medical research. Those cells are demonstrably human and demonstrable also alive. Am I prohibited from killing those cell cultures Spud?
Personally I would say yes.
-
Personally I would say yes.
So you are claiming that every single living human cell shouldn't be destroyed.
So for example if someone gives a blood sample (which will contain millions of living human cells) and the diagnostic test needing to be performed will necessarily result in those cells being destroyed, that that in your bizarre opinion isn't permissible.
How about if someone has their leg amputated - there will be billions of living human cells - we must therefore keep that amputated leg alive as we aren't permitted to kill those cells.
-
The traditional example was a tumour, which presumably Spud would keep alive.
-
So you are claiming that every single living human cell shouldn't be destroyed.
So for example if someone gives a blood sample (which will contain millions of living human cells) and the diagnostic test needing to be performed will necessarily result in those cells being destroyed, that that in your bizarre opinion isn't permissible.
How about if someone has their leg amputated - there will be billions of living human cells - we must therefore keep that amputated leg alive as we aren't permitted to kill those cells.
I thought you meant stem cell research using human embryos.
-
He didn't say that nor anything like that so why you thought it I don't know.
If it was stem cells, which are harvested and used to greatly benefit people with various diseases, so what? The days of using stem cells from human embryos are over.
I think you and Alan B (& probably Nicholas M for different reasons), live on another planet and might well form a little mutually congratulatory cell of dreamers somewhere far away, out of reach of the general public.
-
The days of using stem cells from human embryos are over.
What do you mean?
-
I thought you meant stem cell research using human embryos.
And why on earth would you assume that Spud.
I do have human stem cells currently growing in my labs - derived from bone marrow. You do understand that not all stem cells are derived directly from an embryo.
But of course all human cells (well almost all) are driven from a human embryo if you go far enough back. But I don't understand why you should consider that it is wrong to destroy existing human embryonic stem cells. I can understand (although I don't agree) why people object to the destroying of a 5 day old human embryo to obtain those cells, but once derived (and the embryo destroyed) why would you think it necessary to keep every single cell derived alive for ever, and all their progeny. Don't forget that these cells divide every few hours, so you do the maths at to how many you might have in a year or so and think of the cost and resources needed to keep them all alive.
You're comments demonstrate scientific illiteracy as well an ethical naivety.
-
What do you mean?
I apologise, daresay stem cells are still used from human embryos but what I meant was they are not exclusively so, as above poster has explained. Many diseases are controlled or cured by use of stem cells now which a few years ago were incurable. There's a particularly bad - painful - skin condition, can't remember the name of it off hand but it is really dreadful - which can be cured now by the use of stem cells.
Personally I see nothing wrong in taking stem cells from an embryo which is not going to progress to being a baby but we'll have to agree to differ on that one.
The Planned Parenthood organisation in America came in for a lot of stick about that because of selling embryos but they didn't offer abortions with the purpose of giving embryos for research, they sold on embryos that women had decided to abort so were redundant anyway. The organisation needs money to keep going and abortion is only part of their work, they do help people plan their families with contraception and any sexually active person. Trump of course withdrew government funding for them (or intended to, don't know if it has happened), to get votes and support. I doubt he really cares about abortion.
-
And why on earth would you assume that Spud.
I didn't think that you were referring to destroying cells from a blood sample or suchlike, because only a fool would believe that to be wrong and I didn't think I came across as that stupid. Your original wording could have been interpreted to mean destroying a living embryo, so I assumed that's what you meant. Thanks for clarifying, though.
-
I apologise, daresay stem cells are still used from human embryos but what I meant was they are not exclusively so, as above poster has explained. Many diseases are controlled or cured by use of stem cells now which a few years ago were incurable. There's a particularly bad - painful - skin condition, can't remember the name of it off hand but it is really dreadful - which can be cured now by the use of stem cells.
I'd be interested to know if this condition can be cured using cells from a baby's umbilical cord, which apparently is effective as a source of stem cells?
-
I didn't think that you were referring to destroying cells from a blood sample or suchlike, because only a fool would believe that to be wrong and I didn't think I came across as that stupid. Your original wording could have been interpreted to mean destroying a living embryo, so I assumed that's what you meant. Thanks for clarifying, though.
But you have failed to explain, from an ethical standpoint, why it is perfectly acceptable to destroy a blood sample (which is, of course, derived originally from a human embryo), or some skin cells growing in a lab (also originally derived from a human embryo) but not stem cells derived from a human embryo (or rather pre-embryo or blastocyst - see below).
And actually it isn't really the case that the entity that develops five days after fertilisation is an embryo, which is why those early stages are ofter referred to as the pre-embryo. Given that the embryonic stem cells in the inner mass of that structure (the blastocyst) actually go on to form the embryo (which is why they are of such interest scientifically and clinically) it is hard to argue that the embryo is already in existence at that point.
-
I'd be interested to know if this condition can be cured using cells from a baby's umbilical cord, which apparently is effective as a source of stem cells?
There are many possible sources of cells for clinical use, via methods often call regenerative medicine. You are correct that umbilical cord stem cells are one, as are embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) and loads of cells that are 'differentiated' cells rather than stem cells.
There is no magic bullet, one size fits all and as we develop these techniques one type of cell may be best for one clinical application, with a different type best for a different application. Currently we don't know which works best as there is far, far more research to be done. Research is ongoing looking at all the different cell types in labs across the world.
Therefore to ignore one particular cell type is foolish as that might be the best type and we would therefore be cutting off the opportunity to develop the best treatment.
There is another big reason why researchers use embryonic stem cells - specifically because they are the cells which form the embryo and all the tissues in our body eventually. That reason is to study the earliest developmental processes, and in particular what goes wrong in many congenital diseases. That research cannot be carried out using adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells as their developmental stage is too late and for umbilical cord stem cells aren't actually part of the developing baby.
Another obvious problem with umbilical cord stem cells is more pragmatic - unless you have had them banked down at birth, there isn't a person-specific cell source available. And for the vast, vast majority of us we don't have our umbilical cord stem cells banked down and can, obviously, we can never remedy that.
-
But you have failed to explain, from an ethical standpoint, why it is perfectly acceptable to destroy a blood sample (which is, of course, derived originally from a human embryo), or some skin cells growing in a lab (also originally derived from a human embryo) but not stem cells derived from a human embryo (or rather pre-embryo or blastocyst - see below).
Just to confirm that yes it is acceptable to destroy, for example, a blood sample: you are not taking a human life. The issue here is that when stem cells are taken from the blastocyst, that blastocyst is then destroyed. Would you agree that you and I were once blastocysts, which if destroyed would have resulted in you and I being killed? No other blastocysts would have grown to become you and I. Therefore destoying a blastocyst is taking a human life.
There are many possible sources of cells for clinical use, via methods often call regenerative medicine. You are correct that umbilical cord stem cells are one, as are embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) and loads of cells that are 'differentiated' cells rather than stem cells.
There is no major bullet, one size fits all and as we develop these techniques one type of cell may be best for one clinical application, with a different type best for a different application. Currently we don't know which works best as there is far, far more research to be done. Research is ongoing looking at all the different cell types in labs across the world.
Therefore to ignore one particular cell type is foolish as that might be the best type and we would therefore be cutting off the opportunity to develop the best treatment.
There is another big reason why researchers use embryonic stem cells - specifically because they are the cells which form the embryo and all the tissues in our body eventually. That reason is to study the earliest developmental processes, and in particular what goes wrong in many congenital diseases. That research cannot be carried out using adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells as their developmental stage is too late and for umbilical cord stem cells aren't actually part of the developing baby.
Another obvious problem with umbilical cord stem cells is more pragmatic - unless you have had them banked down at birth, there isn't a person-specific cell source available. And for the vast, vast majority of us we don't have our umbilical cord stem cells banked down and can, obviously, we can never remedy that.
Thanks for this info.
-
Just to confirm that yes it is acceptable to destroy, for example, a blood sample: you are not taking a human life.
Define what you mean by 'a human life'.
The issue here is that when stem cells are taken from the blastocyst, that blastocyst is then destroyed.
True.
Would you agree that you and I were once blastocysts, which if destroyed would have resulted in you and I being killed?
I disagree - you and I didn't exist until a stage way after the blastocyst, because none of the key features that define personhood are present in the blastocyst. And how can a single blastocyst be 'me' if, in the case of identical triplets, it is also Tom and Jack too. You cannot ascribe continuity in personhood until the possibility of twinning has passed.
The blastocyst is not a person, true it could potentially develop into a person given the right conditions, which would include implantation into a receptive uterus. But then so could a specific oocyte (egg cell) and spermatocyte (sperm cell) give the right conditions which would include one fertilising the other.
So it is true that were that blastocyst to be destroyed then you or I wouldn't have existed (just as is the case had that oocyte and spermatocyte been destroyed). However it isn't true that destroying that blastocyst resulted in you or I being killed, because at that point neither you nor I existed as persons. So we can't be killed if we don't exist yet.
No other blastocysts would have grown to become you and I. Therefore destoying a blastocyst is taking a human life.
No other oocyte and sperm could have become you and I so is destroying an oocyte and a spermatocyte 'taking a human life'. And actually I would argue against you on the basis of personhood - personhood is much more than mere genetics. Personhood is about neurological continuity and therefore it is pointless to try to ascribe continuity relevant to personhood to any stage before neurological development has started.
So sure a blastocyst can potentially develop into a person, but so can an oocyte and spermatocyte, but to claim that blastocyte to be a specific person makes no sense biologically or metaphysically.
-
Prof, of course a person's individual characteristics aren't present as a blastocyst, and their genetic makeup wil be influenced by the environment. But can you still say it is human life - egg and sperm on their own are not, but once fertilization occurs that is an individual human?
-
Prof, of course a person's individual characteristics aren't present as a blastocyst, and their genetic makeup wil be influenced by the environment. But can you still say it is human life - egg and sperm on their own are not, but once fertilization occurs that is an individual human?
Easy to make those kinds of naive simplistic statements - but they simply crumble to dust when subjected to scrutiny from either a biological standpoint, or an ethical one.
You make the glib statement that 'once fertilization occurs that is an individual human' - yet you don't justify at all and indeed you can't. As I have pointed out several times you cannot justify that statement as it might be 2 or 3 people, of even (rarely) 2 fertilised eggs could become one person via embryo fusion. Looking forward you cannot ascribe personhood continuity between a zygote (fertilised egg) and a specific individual person for the reasons I've stated. And the only tenable conclusion is that the zygote is not an individual human, let alone a person, but has the potential to develop into one (or more than one). So destroying a zygote (or a blastocysts) isn't killing a individual human or person.
Trust me I have looked into these issues in depth - indeed I have even published papers on it. I have read very widely, with in the scientific literature (my main profession) but also from an ethical standpoint which I have also studied in depth and published on. I've read many articles that make the kind of non-justified hand waving statements that you do and also the articles that demonstrate those glib statements to be completely unjustifiable from first principles.
-
So killing a blastocyst could be killing more than one life. Evrn worse.
-
So killing a blastocyst could be killing more than one life. Evrn worse.
No - it isn't killing any life, as life (in the ethically important sense of personhood) hasn't started yet. You could just as well claim that killing a million sperm cells is killing a million people. Both are non-sense.
You can tie yourself up in knots all you like about the problems of trying to assign the moment of conception (itself non-sensical as conception or fertilisation is a process) as the point at which ethically significant human life (personhood) starts but any argument is easily rebuffed and has been by far more eminent commentators than you and I for decades.
The blastocyst isn't a person, it isn't you or I any more than the egg and sperm is you or I - destroying it may mean that you or I don't come to exist, but that isn't the same as killing us.
-
At what point does it become 'a human' though? Surely there is no distinguishable point after conception. An egg or a sperm cannot develop into a human. A blastocyst can.
-
No - it isn't killing any life, as life (in the ethically important sense of personhood) hasn't started yet. You could just as well claim that killing a million sperm cells is killing a million people. Both are non-sense.
This is nonsense. Of course it is killing a living organism. A sperm is part of the father and an egg is part of the mother. Both are unable to develop any further. Once fertilization occurs the zygote starts to develop as an individual separate from its parents. Just as a boy is not a man but is still a human, a fertilized ovum is an individual living human organism, no different in nature from an adult human.
You can tie yourself up in knots all you like about the problems of trying to assign the moment of conception (itself non-sensical as conception or fertilisation is a process) as the point at which ethically significant human life (personhood) starts but any argument is easily rebuffed and has been by far more eminent commentators than you and I for decades.
Now you are talking about ethically significant human life, I can think of a possible reason why using blastocyst stem cells it would be ethical, and that is because if you had a situation where you could save either a woman or her unborn child, it may be that the woman could be said to have more right to live than the baby. However, this is hypothetical and I cannot think of any examples - some may exist though. Given this situation, you might compare it to saving the life of a person with an incurable disease using stem cells of a blastocyst.
The blastocyst isn't a person, it isn't you or I any more than the egg and sperm is you or I - destroying it may mean that you or I don't come to exist, but that isn't the same as killing us.
See above.
-
This is nonsense. Of course it is killing a living organism.
No it isn't.
In a biological sense an organism is defined as any individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. A zygote (or blastocyst) isn't an organism as it has no ability to go any of those things in isolation from the mother. It is not self maintaining.
A sperm is part of the father and an egg is part of the mother. Both are unable to develop any further.
Nor can a zygote or blastocyst - it is no more able to independently develop further than a sperm or egg. Both are entirely dependent on certain steps outside of their independent autonomy to develop.
Once fertilization occurs the zygote starts to develop as an individual separate from its parents. Just as a boy is not a man but is still a human, a fertilized ovum is an individual living human organism, no different in nature from an adult human.
But development after a few days of basic cell division, is entirely dependent on external factors provided by the mother. A blastocyte cannot develop further alone and certainly not into a person.
-
At what point does it become 'a human' though? Surely there is no distinguishable point after conception.
There are plenty - first those that are critical to the ability to develop further - most notably implantation. And then intrinsic features and their development that are relevant to personhood. The most obvious being first gastrulation (and formation of the primitive streak) which defines the axis of the forming embryo and actually defines whether one or more embryo will form. But perhaps more relevant is neurulation and the development of the nervous system and the brain. We are comfortable with the concept of brain death - that when brain function is irreversibly lost - that the person is dead, regardless of whether other physiological processes might be able to be maintained, perhaps artificially. So the same would apply to 'brain birth' that a person comes into existence when certain relevant neurological functions develop.
An egg or a sperm cannot develop into a human. A blastocyst can.
Yes they can - in both cases certain necessary and sufficient inputs need to happen - sure there are slightly less for a zygote than for a sperm or egg (the later two needing to engage in fertilisation) but in both cases there is the possibility that they can develop into a human.