Chaos vs. WinAce on Abortion - an AIM Debate
Argued and uploaded February 6, 2004
This is a cleaned-up transcript of a debate which took place in temporary AOL Instant Messenger chatroom "Abortionargumentthingy." It took place on 02/06/2004 and lasted from around 4 PM to 6 PM (EST). Time stamps are included on all comments.
The original topic was "Convincing reason(s) exist(s) for granting adult rights to a human embryo," but quickly became a prolonged discussion of the differences between pre- and post-conception reproductive cells.
Novadistortion and eyefragment were moderators. All participants can be contacted via the private message system at BlizzForums, which originally spawned this debate.
All AIM usernames have been removed to protect the innocent from masses of automated spam. Instead, the appropriate forum nicknames have been used. An unedited transcript of this dialogue, containing much off-topic detritus and distracting commentary, can be obtained from this BF post.
Round 1
[15:51] Chaos: An unfertilized egg is not going to grow into a human being. It does not possess the necessary genetic data and other prerequisites. Neither does a sperm. An embryo does.
[15:51] Chaos: A sperm won't, period, seeing as how it is not even within the female unless it gets there via sexual intercourse, artificial insemination, etc.
[15:53] Novadistortion: I can guess what is coming... but let's just watch
[15:53] eyefragment: give winace a second...
[15:58] WinAce: Chaos' argument implies the following: (1) X has a reasonable chance of later becoming a human being, (2) Hence, interfering with the process of its growth is wrong.
[15:59] WinAce: This argument is very questionable. An 8-month old embryo is nearing the completion of the process; a 3-month old very less so; and so on down to 2-week old, 1 week old, 1 day old, 2 hours after conception, and so on.
[15:59] WinAce: This doesn't stop at conception. 1 minute before, a lucky sperm is on its way to fertilizing and combining with an egg. Applying the logic, these two independent cells have a reasonable chance of becoming a human later on.
[15:59] WinAce: Nevertheless, if a male chooses to withdraw, interfering with the process, he can hardly be said to have committed an immoral act. This appears to invalidate his argument via Reductio ad Absurdum.
[16:00] WinAce: That sums up my first rebuttal.
Round 2
[16:02] Chaos: First.
[16:02] Chaos: http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm
[16:02] Chaos: In the United States, there are approx. 6.69 deaths per 1000 live births.
[16:03] Chaos: So, if born, a baby has a 99.331% chance of surviving past infancy.
[16:03] Chaos: the rebuttal to (1) is, ah, questionable.
[16:04] Chaos: and the US is in the mid-30s on that list.
[16:04] Chaos: Once conception has happened, and the sperm fertilizes the egg, any number of bad things can happen to it that deny that fertilized egg the chance to grow into a "human being."
[16:05] Novadistortion: alright Chaos, I am going to interrupt briefly and ask you to explain why you think the rebuttal to one is questionable, and if you are willing, please provide an alternative.
[16:05] Chaos: Certainly.
[16:05] Chaos: The argument that because SOME embryos are stillborn, or are born with horrible birth defects, or disattach from the wall of the womb, or whatever...
[16:06] Chaos: the argument that springs from that statement, that the assumption that a fertilized egg will become a human is invalid, is nonsensical.
[16:06] Chaos: the percent of pregnancies that end in failure is astronomically low, compared to even a century ago.
[16:06] Chaos: if you get pregnant, it is a near-certainty that you are going to have a baby in somewhere around 9 months
[16:07] Chaos: certainly there are exceptions
[16:07] Chaos: but exceptions do not shatter a rule.
[16:14] WinAce: I'm honestly curious as to what relevancy Chaos thought his preceding messages had on the rebuttal I wrote.
[16:14] WinAce: I did not bring up infant mortality, or birth defects, or miscarriage at all.
[16:14] WinAce: Neither did I use those premises to argue against a human embryo eventually becoming a human being given the right conditions.
[16:14] WinAce: Indeed, I concede it from the outset. It WILL, if put thru the right process, be the seed from which a real human emerges.
[16:15] WinAce: However, my REAL point was that so will individual sperm and egg cells. If allowed to combine, they're well on their way to becoming a human being.
[16:15] WinAce: Both processes, that of fertilization and subsequent growth into a human, can be interfered with, stopping the development of a new human.
[16:15] WinAce: Thus, unless one wants to ban contraceptives, the argument Chaos uses (which I explained in my 1st rebuttal) appears dead.
Round 3
[16:15] Chaos: Actually, WinAce is quite incorrect.
[16:15] Chaos: He presented something about X growing up to be a human.
[16:15] Chaos: Or something.
[16:16] Chaos: I provided that over 99% of all pregnancies allowed to proceed end in a live birth.
[16:16] Chaos: And that over 99% of babies born live beyond infancy.
[16:16] Chaos: And then I got disced.
[16:16] Chaos: Anyway.
[16:17] Chaos: Once again, the concept I present has been completely ignored.
[16:17] Chaos: Sperm and egg do not grow into a human being alone.
[16:17] Chaos: To prevent sperm and egg from joining via condoms or contraceptives or whatever does not stop a life that has already begun.
[16:22] Chaos: I'll say it one more time.
[16:22] Chaos: Human life has not begun if you put on a condom or masturbate or whatever.
[16:23] Chaos: It has if the egg is fertilized and is ready to go.
[16:23] Chaos: It is as simple as that, and to deny it is a complete and utter abandonment of common sense.
[16:32] WinAce: Chaos' opinion is entirely too black-and-white. Unless one makes arbitrary distinctions, there is no single point at which human life "begins."
[16:32] WinAce: Human life has been continuously in existence ever since our ancestors were living in cave-like structures. But I suppose that's for another debate altogether.
[16:32] WinAce: Is a sperm cell alive? Yes. Is it human? Yes, it's certainly not that of a dog. This argument is silly, and should be corrected anyway.
[16:32] WinAce: It should be remembered that this debate is about not human *life*, but human *beings*--specifically, when an embryo should be considered equal to one in rights.
[16:32] WinAce: So, when is the clearly-definable boundary at which a human being can be said to "begin"? The answer is that there isn't one.
[16:32] WinAce: Barring a totally arbitrary distinction, human beings do not "begin" at any single point, but are the product of a long, steady process which goes back millions of years.
[16:32] WinAce: Along the way, many possible benchmarks are met. Production of the lucky egg cell in the mom's womb. Its travel thru the fallopian tubes. Its rendezvous with sperm.
[16:32] WinAce: Its travel back. Its implantation into the womb. Its multiplication. Its growth to a size detectible without special instruments. And so on.
[16:32] WinAce: Conceptions is a totally arbitrary benchmark cherry-picked out of a number of possible ones. Why not implantation?
[16:32] WinAce: Why not earlier? Why not later? Certainly no reason I can think of. Killing a sperm cell one second before it combines with an egg is hardly worse than killing the fertilized egg one second after.
[16:33] WinAce: I also note Chaos has abandoned his earlier argument of (1) X has a reasonable chance of later becoming a human being, (2) Hence, interfering with the process of its growth is wrong.
[16:33] WinAce: Finished with my third rebuttal..
Round 4
[16:34] Chaos: I haven't abandoned it. I simply assumed that you could not argue with my rebuttal of (1), which I note that you actually did not do. If you want to argue that my argument is wrong, I can link you those death rates again, and then
[16:34] Chaos: I can provide the definition of "reasonable"
[16:34] Chaos: if you want
[16:34] Chaos: In any case
[16:34] Chaos: I did not exist in the year 1983. I was born on Jan. 10, 1987. I certainly did not exist as a "product of a long, steady process dating back millions of years."
[16:35] Chaos: Perhaps in a sense I am, but when looking at biologically, I was the product of a united sperm and egg.
[16:35] Chaos: Not of some historical process.
[16:36] Chaos: Human beings in fact do begin at a certain point: when a sperm successfully fertilizes an egg.
[16:36] Chaos: Everything that has a beginning needs a specific beginning. I can't give a specific instant where there was sperm and egg and then an instant later there was a zygote, but that moment obviously exists. Otherwise there wouldn't be
[16:36] Chaos: zygotes
[16:37] Chaos: As for black and white
[16:38] Chaos: what now?
[16:38] Chaos: there is no gray area for fertilization.
[16:38] Chaos: either the egg is fertilized or it isnt
[16:38] Chaos: oh, theres a short amount of time where the sperm is wriggling into the egg and its not fertilized yet, but in the end sum, either the sperm successfully fertilizes the egg or it doesnt
[16:38] Chaos: there is no "well, it sort of fertilized the egg."
[16:39] Chaos: "sort of fertilized" eggs don't grow into human beings.
[16:39] Chaos: at one point, what will become a human being does not exist. at another point, it does.
[16:40] Chaos: we can split hairs and quibble over definitions and specifics
[16:40] Chaos: but im not interested in that irrelevant muck.
[16:40] Chaos: at one point, the human life has begun; at another point, it hasn't.
[16:40] Chaos: if you want to interfere as much as possible before that point, fine. life hasn't begun.
[16:49] WinAce: There's a problem of communication here. I've summarized Chaos' 1st argument above. I did *not* rebut it with any birth or death rates, but with the fact its logic is equally useful banning condoms.
[16:49] WinAce: If he disagrees, perhaps he could point out where my rebuttal is vulnerable to his objection. I don't think he'll find it.
[16:49] WinAce: Biologically, yes, he's a product of theoutcome of a combined sperm and egg. He's also the product of a sperm and egg that were yet to meet, and the outcome of his parents' reproductive systems.
[16:49] WinAce: None of this necessitates any special protection for any of them. If it did, it would be immoral for people to obtain vasectomies or use birth control.
[16:50] WinAce: I've shown the development of a human being is not a magical process of instant transformation, with a baby popping out as soon as an egg is fertilized, but a long, drawn out one with many benchmarks.
[16:50] WinAce: Each of those benchmarks is amenable to unevidenced assertions it's where "human beings begin." None is particularly more convincing, although better ones than conception certainly exist.
[16:50] WinAce: The belief that human beings "begin at conception" needs to be defended, not asserted. To do otherwise is to beg the question, an infamous logical fallacy.
[16:50] WinAce: I ask Chaos, *why* do human beings begin at conception? Any answer he gives in this regard will probably be circular, or dubious, or vulnerable to myriad counterexamples.
[16:50] WinAce: This ends my fourth rebuttal.
Round 5
[16:53] Chaos: ive explained this perhaps a dozen times now, but winace is apparently still unable to grasp the concept that once fertilized, an egg will grow into a human being. i have provided a rebuttal to his hairsplitting that a fertilized
[16:53] Chaos: egg will not 'always' successfully grow into a human being
[16:54] Chaos: it should be fairly obvious to see that a fertilized egg is different from an unfertilized egg or a sperm swimming around in the testicles or wriggling toward the womb or whatever. a fertilized egg, at least, on its own
[16:55] Chaos: attached to the wall of the womb
[16:55] Chaos: taking what it needs from its mothers bloodstream
[16:55] Chaos: an unfertilized egg wont do that
[16:55] Chaos: a sperm wont do that
[16:55] Chaos: why this is hard to understand escapes me
[16:55] Chaos: and once that fertilized egg gets going
[16:55] Chaos: it will develop, in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases
[16:55] Chaos: progress into a sentient human being
[16:56] Chaos: denying it the right to do that because it isnt advanced enough yet is ridiculous
[16:57] Chaos: rebuttal ended
[17:12] WinAce: Chaos seems confused, still. I did not rebut his argument by invoking any death rates. The only reason I included a caveat of "reasonable chance" to develop into a human is because many pregnancies tend to end on their own.
[17:12] WinAce: However, this applies pre-and-post conception, as estimates range 15%-75% of pregnancies spontaneously abort on their own.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/abortion_SpontaneousAbortion(Miscarriage).asp
[17:12] WinAce: Therefore, it's irrelevant. And my rebuttal would work without that. So, strip "reasonable chance" completely. Let's offer another paraphrase of Chaos' argument:
[17:12] WinAce: (1) X will, barring certain circumstances, later develop into a human being, (2) Hence, interfering with its becoming a human being is wrong.
[17:12] WinAce: This logic simply does not work. There are counterexamples that (1) will develop into a human being if nature runs its course (2) are not considered wrong if the process is stopped.
[17:12] WinAce: Fertilized eggs are different from unfertilized ones and sperm, yes. But their similarities far outweigh the difference.
[17:12] WinAce: On the other hand, they bear little resemblance to the creature they'll eventually develop into. And so do individual eggs/sperm. In that case, the differences FAR outweight the similarities.
[17:12] WinAce: A fertilized egg, "on its own," will become fodder for necrotizing bacteria. So will a sperm cell left to its own devices.
[17:12] WinAce: When both are allowed to do what they're programmed to do, however, a human results. When both are barred from the process they're "meant" to become, a human is prevented from existing.
[17:12] WinAce: So, per Chaos' reasoning, should sperm cells be denied the right to progress into a sentient human being, just because they aren't advanced enough yet?
[17:13] WinAce: Done with my fifth rebuttal.
Round 6
[17:13] Chaos: Fertilized eggs and are different from unfertilized ones and sperm.
[17:13] Chaos: Bravo.
[17:13] Chaos: So what is to be gained from saying that "similarities outweigh differences"?
[17:18] Chaos: winace is still ignoring the undeniable difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized one and sperm, even though he admitted that they are "different."
[17:18] Chaos: he continues to ignore the fact that if, granting everything proceeds normally, or normally enough that the baby is born healthy, a sentient being supposedly possessing all those "inalienable rights" will exist
[17:21] Chaos: i'm just going to lay out our differences, or what i perceive them to be, and then im done. because we really are just going in circles.
[17:25] Chaos: we're just going in circles. i think that, if a human being has these inalienable rights, then it has them 100% of the time, from the time that life begins, in my opinion fertilization, until death.
[17:29] Chaos: egg and sperm, alone, will not grow into a human being. separate from each other, they will not create what will develop a brain, a heart, a personality and consciousness all its own
[17:29] Chaos: as such, any attempts to prevent that consciousness from occurring before it actually starts as a zygote is, in my opinion, fine. you can't kill chris if chris doesn't exist, or a "potential" chris doesn't exist.
[17:30] Chaos: but once it does, it possesses that supposedly inalienable right to life
[17:31] Chaos: o"and that's that. its an opinion. "I" was a zygote, "I" was an embryo, "I" was a fetus. Or at least, what would become me was. seeing as how i'm here,
[17:31] Chaos: i cannot support denying that to someone else in good conscience
[17:31] Chaos: or "potential" someone else
[17:31] Chaos: that's that
[17:38] WinAce: Chaos' final rebuttal is disappointing. I concede that an embryo will, if nothing interferes, develop into a sentient human being with full human rights. I have from the start.
[17:38] WinAce: I also know that sperm and eggs will, if nothing interferes during sexual intercourse, develop into an identically sentient human being. I've used this counter-example from the start.
[17:38] WinAce: In neither case does the potential for a human (if nature be allowed to run its course) convince me that abortion, or latex barriers, means of interfering with the process, are wrong.
[17:38] WinAce: Chaos has unambiguously failed in demonstrating so, and has opted in reasserting his opinion instead of addressing counterarguments.
[17:38] WinAce: Once again, human life is the result of a long, drawn-out process, and cannot be defined by an arbitrary "beginning point" like conception unless one begs the question.
[17:39] WinAce: Given how birth control itself denies a potential future human the right to exist, I cannot understand Chaos' insistence that the same exact thing is immoral AFTER two cells arbitrarily combine.
[17:40] WinAce: That concludes my final rebuttal.
Closing Statements
[17:42] Chaos: final thought
[17:43] Chaos: i think that what ive been saying has been refuting what winace said. he thinks im just reasserting my original opinion
[17:43] Chaos: fine
[17:43] Chaos: i think my original opinion more than refutes what hes said
[17:43] Chaos: the differences between a fertilized egg and the rest are undeniable
[17:43] Chaos: and thats the end of it
[17:46] WinAce: My final thought on the matter is what I've been saying all along: conception is not a magical or esoteric event.
[17:47] WinAce: It is merely a benchmark of the long and arduous process that eventually results in a human being with rights and sentience.
[17:47] WinAce: There are other benchmarks.
[17:47] WinAce: Some more intuitive or reliable than conception at defining the difference between right-less and right-possessing entities.
[17:48] WinAce: A fertilized egg is a far way off from a baby, and far more resembles the individual sperm and egg that came before it.
[17:48] WinAce: On the other hand, a baby far more resembles a late-term embryo than a fertilized egg.
[17:48] WinAce: This means the boundary for allowing abortions would likely fall somewhere in between. This is exactly what current law recognizes, thus, there is no need for a chance.
[17:48] WinAce: /change