NationStates Jolt Archive

So, there is quite a bit of argument as to whether or not life begins at conception. For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that any fertilized egg is a human being.*

So, research has shown that 50-80% of all fertilized eggs are either miscarried or fail to properly implant in the uterus. On top of that 50% of all miscarriages are linked to serious genetic abnormalities - usually in the first trimester.

As such, are those who hold this view pushing for weekly pregnancy testing and putting money into genetic engineering to solve the problem? After all, at least 1/4 of all human beings die in utero due to genetic abnormalities. Shouldn't we be doing something about it?

*This does not imply that I agree with this contention.

Yes. It means that any woman that has had more than one period is a serial killer. :)

Yes. It means that any woman that has had more than one period is a serial killer. :)

Now, now - don't you need intent to be a serial killer?

Now, now - don't you need intent to be a serial killer?
Well it definitely means that 50-80% of women should be up on manslaughter charges.

Well it definitely means that 50-80% of women should be up on manslaughter charges.

First of all, we are talking about 50-80% of pregnancies ending, not 50-80% of women having ended pregnancies.

Second of all, did you miss the part where 50% of all miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities?

Bumpity bump bump Bumpity bump bump...

well personally I'm all for genetic engerneering, the sooner we start growing people in vats the sooner we can leave abortion and contraceptive debates behind us

well personally I'm all for genetic engerneering, the sooner we start growing people in vats the sooner we can leave abortion and contraceptive debates behind us

What you just said has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic engineering.

well personally I'm all for genetic engerneering, the sooner we start growing people in vats the sooner we can leave abortion and contraceptive debates behind us

How will the ability to grow people in vats stop all the religious ones arguing that that is as wrong as contraception or abortion. If we could grow people in vats and could eliminate the possibility of any woman, anywhere, ever getting pregnant, then maybe all the debate would stop.

Unfortunately, technological advances do not come with built in social and attitude changes.

So, research has shown that 50-80% of all fertilized eggs are either miscarried or fail to properly implant in the uterus. On top of that 50% of all miscarriages are linked to serious genetic abnormalities - usually in the first trimester.

As such, are those who hold this view pushing for weekly pregnancy testing and putting money into genetic engineering to solve the problem? After all, at least 1/4 of all human beings die in utero due to genetic abnormalities. Shouldn't we be doing something about it?

What? You mean that 50-80% of them die? Naturally? On their own? Oh. I guess they cannot possibly be living humans then.

But seriously. The way I see it, if the mother had nothing to do with the deaths, there very well cannot be manslaughter charges. If she is actively trying to cause a miscarriage through substance abuse or physical beating... well, we do have child abuse laws for such.

Now, as for putting funding into keeping the child alive, we are getting into whether it is right to allow someone to die, which is a completely different matter than taking the active stance of killing that person.

How will the ability to grow people in vats stop all the religious ones arguing that that is as wrong as contraception or abortion.


simple, we breed religion out of people

and how is that possible? it's in our DNA to seek a higher power.

simple, we breed religion out of people

Religion is genetic? OK it runs in families, etc. But if it were genetic I would be A russian orthodox catholic jew protestant.
If we breed the desire to believe that there are possibilities of things being better out, we just end up with an apathetic and depressed race that would commit collective suicide. No, we need the potential for religion to be human.

What? You mean that 50-80% of them die? Naturally? On their own? Oh. I guess they cannot possibly be living humans then.

But seriously. The way I see it, if the mother had nothing to do with the deaths, there very well cannot be manslaughter charges. If she is actively trying to cause a miscarriage through substance abuse or physical beating... well, we do have child abuse laws for such.

Now, as for putting funding into keeping the child alive, we are getting into whether it is right to allow someone to die, which is a completely different matter than taking the active stance of killing that person.

Look! Someone flunked reading comprehension! There was nothing said about whether or not they are "living humans" other than the assumption that they are.

Second of all, do you think it is ok to walk by an injured person who may be dieing and do nothign about it?

totally agree, Demi.

anybody who actually believes that life begins at conception should be supporting what you suggest; half the living humans in the world die as a matter of course, by their standards, and yet they are doing nothing.

of course, people who believe that life begins at conception should also be campaigning to ensure that identical twins get only one vote between the two of them, only one social security number, only one drivers license, et cetera, since at conception they were a single entity.

but i have long since given up hope of finding logical consistency in people who still try to claim that human personhood starts when a sperm hits an egg.

So, there is quite a bit of argument as to whether or not life begins at conception. For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that any fertilized egg is a human being.*

So, research has shown that 50-80% of all fertilized eggs are either miscarried or fail to properly implant in the uterus. On top of that 50% of all miscarriages are linked to serious genetic abnormalities - usually in the first trimester.

As such, are those who hold this view pushing for weekly pregnancy testing and putting money into genetic engineering to solve the problem? After all, at least 1/4 of all human beings die in utero due to genetic abnormalities. Shouldn't we be doing something about it?

*This does not imply that I agree with this contention.

Looks like you were baiting this thread just for me. You wouldn't do something like that would you Dem :p ;)

I certainly know more than one couple that would have loved for there to be more things that could have been done to prevent them from having a miscarriage.

Don't know that genetic engineering is the answer I'd go for. Also, mandatory pregnancy testing, IMO would be a civil rights violation.

While I see miscarriages as tragedies, they are also a natural occurance that happens spontaneously in most cases. No one is directly culpable for doing another human intentional harm in these cases. Although they are tragic, they don't rise to a higher level of tragedy than any other loss of life that occurs in the course of nature. This area deserves attention/research, just like HIV research, Cancer research, natural disaster relief, aid to malnurished children, mental health research and a host of other worthy causes.

Note, the significant difference her in the cause for loss of life between a miscarriage and an abortion. One is active willful harm of a human, the other is a death by natural causes. Any death by natural causes is sad and tragic and should be prevented if possible, but at least it's not murder.

Looks like you were baiting this thread just for me. You wouldn't do something like that would you Dem :p ;)

Actually, no. The comment was much more general.

I certainly know more than one couple that would have loved for there to be more things that could have been done to prevent them from having a miscarriage.

So, wouldn't it have been great if we had the technology to prevent it?

Don't know that genetic engineering is the answer I'd go for.

It is the only way we could correct such genetic problems.

Also, mandatory pregnancy testing, IMO would be a civil rights violation.

Even to save 1/4 of all humans?

While I see miscarriages as tragedies, they are also a natural occurance that happens spontaneously in most cases.

Yes, that is well-known. But, as I pointed out, 50% of them are due to genetic problems. Shouldn't we try to fix those problems?

Cancer happens spontaneously, but we certainly try to fix it.

No one is directly culpable for doing another human intentional harm in these cases. Although they are tragic, they don't rise to a higher level of tragedy than any other loss of life that occurs in the course of nature.[/qutoe]

But aren't we trying to prevent other things that cuase loss of life?

[QUOTE=Personal responsibilit]This area deserves attention/research, just like HIV research, Cancer research, natural disaster relief, aid to malnurished children, mental health research and a host of other worthy causes.

Of course, but most of those don't cause death to 1/4 of all human beings. Shouldn't the primary cause of death be addressed more quickly?

Note, the significant difference her in the cause for loss of life between a miscarriage and an abortion. One is active willful harm of a human, the other is a death by natural causes. Any death by natural causes is sad and tragic and should be prevented if possible, but at least it's not murder.

Note, this thread is not about the difference between abortion and miscarriage. It is addressing the idea of whether or not we should be saving those who, to many, make up 1/4 of all human beings.