NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose you owned a life support machine and someone who needed it went against your will to use that device because they needed it. Now you may hate the fact that they went against your will to use it but removing him off that machine and killing him simply because "its yours" will not help your case.

Legally, I would be able to do so. My own moral views would not allow it, but the law would, as the guy was committing a crime by stealing my life-support machine and using it against my will.

The way exists but that doesnt make it right. Thus you have to accept the consequneces since there is no morrally accpetable way to deal with it.



You misunderstood the example. It was showing a way of dealing with the embryo without killing it. The only option is to have it. You cannot deal with it without killing it, ergo you have it

That's not how it works, Avalon. A democratic government can't force people to suffer if there's a way out of it, no matter what that way is. Either you find a better way to rid the women of pregnancy or shut up about making abortion illegal.

I agree it is sad. I do not reduce the position of women to incubators. I know women are more than that. But being a woman does not give you the right to play God with someone elses existance. It is better for her to be emotionally crippled and the child to live than for here to be emotinally crippled and the child dead (Abortion is equally crippling in many cases). Of course she has a right to decide if she wants a child or not, but if she has one (IE she is pregnant) then she doesnt have the right to end that child's life

Stop talking about "playing god", you know that's bs. You can't even prove this "god" thing exist. Making decisions is "playing human", everyone makes decisions all the time and it occasionally results in someone's death. Doesn't make it illegal.

if the pro choice side is going to say abortion is okay or even best in cases of rape and incest lets let those who have been raped answer that question, in a study of 192 people who became pregant from rape or incest:
"Many of the women in our sample aborted only because they were pressured to do so, and most reported that the abortion only increased their experience of grief and trauma," said Reardon. "In contrast, none of the women who carried to term said they wished they had not given birth or that they had chosen abortion instead. Many of these women said that their children had bought peace and healing to their lives."
look at www.afterabortion.info for the study. You can find a really good disertation on forced abortions in the US at this site too. In one study 98% of post abortion women said they would not suggest abortion to a friend in the same position of themselves. Over 60% said it made their lives worse. 98% said they were now against abortion. 80% said if they had not been pushed to abortion by a council they wouldn't have had one. Choice? according to most women who have had an abortion, it wasn't a choice, it was a forced or corhersed thing.

Rape is a split second decision. See earlier points made about that.

Wrong. Doesn't have to be split second at all.

She does not have the right to create the embryo and then destroy it. Self defence is only a valid arguement if the only way to defend yourself is to kill the assaliant.

Which is the case with an embryo.

That is not valid here. It is not attacking her. It is only doing what is in its nature to do.

It's entered her body without authorization and is stealing nutrients from her. The embryo's nature has nothing to do with it. It's a lion's nature to catch and kill prey, but if you were attacked by a lion you'd definitely attempt to defend yourself, even using deadly force, if necessary (and I'd say it would be necessary, much like with an embryo).

Conversely her body is only doing what is in its nature to do by allowing it to be there.

Then why does the body itself kill so many of them? Someone showed you statistics for miscarriages before...

Attacking demands damage to the body, and the existance of the embryo is not damage to the body.

Oh yes, it does damage her body.

If it was then the body would move to expell the embryo immidately as it does with all forigen bodies.

Which happens more often than not.

The requirement for self defence killing is a momentary decision where killing the assaliant is the only way to ensure your protection.

Not necessarily a momentary decision.

That is not the case with pregancy. There are two ways to ensure your protection. Abortion or allowing the fetus to live.

Letting a rapist have his way is not "ensuring your protection", it's ensuring his protection.

Your arguement only works if you consider the pregnacy an attack on the mother, which it is not. If it were an attack her body would respond in the way it does to an attack of any other kind.

It can be considered an attack, given the extent of the damage. And. more often than not, her body does respond to it by eliminating the threat. What you're saying here is "let her body fight the flu by itself, if it fails, she can't do anything about it". The body can and does defend itself, but occasionally it fails, that's where medicine comes in.

Grave and me have already had this discussion. By the logic you are using, I am playing God right now by breathing. Playing God means making the decision that a human should die at a specific time. Humans do not have that right. Playing God does not mean continuing the existance of someone.

"Playing god" doesn't mean anything at all, as you have no proof that this "god" person exists.

if the pro choice side is going to say abortion is okay or even best in cases of rape and incest lets let those who have been raped answer that question, in a study of 192 people who became pregant from rape or incest:
"Many of the women in our sample aborted only because they were pressured to do so, and most reported that the abortion only increased their experience of grief and trauma," said Reardon. "In contrast, none of the women who carried to term said they wished they had not given birth or that they had chosen abortion instead. Many of these women said that their children had bought peace and healing to their lives."
look at www.afterabortion.info for the study. You can find a really good disertation on forced abortions in the US at this site too. In one study 98% of post abortion women said they would not suggest abortion to a friend in the same position of themselves. Over 60% said it made their lives worse. 98% said they were now against abortion. 80% said if they had not been pushed to abortion by a council they wouldn't have had one. Choice? according to most women who have had an abortion, it wasn't a choice, it was a forced or corhersed thing.

"Everyone knows 76% of all statistics are fake."
-Homer Simpson :D

So that makes it ok to force the other women to suffer? You know, the ones that actually thought it through and had the abortion because it was the responsible thing to do? Might I add that, if 60% of the women that had an abortion thought it made their lives worse, that means that 40% would've been worse off if abortion was illegal. Making it one non-aborted kid to each of these women, it doubles the amount of unhappy people. 60% of 192 (115.2) women are unhappy now, but without a choice there would be 153.6 unhappy people...

if the pro choice side is going to say abortion is okay or even best in cases of rape and incest lets let those who have been raped answer that question, in a study of 192 people who became pregant from rape or incest:
"Many of the women in our sample aborted only because they were pressured to do so, and most reported that the abortion only increased their experience of grief and trauma," said Reardon. "In contrast, none of the women who carried to term said they wished they had not given birth or that they had chosen abortion instead. Many of these women said that their children had bought peace and healing to their lives."
look at www.afterabortion.info for the study. You can find a really good disertation on forced abortions in the US at this site too. In one study 98% of post abortion women said they would not suggest abortion to a friend in the same position of themselves. Over 60% said it made their lives worse. 98% said they were now against abortion. 80% said if they had not been pushed to abortion by a council they wouldn't have had one. Choice? according to most women who have had an abortion, it wasn't a choice, it was a forced or corhersed thing.

"98% said they were now against abortion", funny, weren't some pro-lifers earlier on using the example of women having abortion after abortion because they kept getting pregnant? That's a very active 2%.;)

"Everyone knows 76% of all statistics are fake."
-Homer Simpson :D

So that makes it ok to force the other women to suffer? You know, the ones that actually thought it through and had the abortion because it was the responsible thing to do? Might I add that, if 60% of the women that had an abortion thought it made their lives worse, that means that 40% would've been worse off if abortion was illegal. Making it one non-aborted kid to each of these women, it doubles the amount of unhappy people. 60% of 192 (115.2) women are unhappy now, but without a choice there would be 153.6 unhappy people...
In the survey less than 10% said they would have even considered abortion if it was illegal. less than 2% said they would have tried to self-abort or would have tried an 'illegal' abortion. Abortion is an supply and demand thing. If its not avalible, people don't do it. It's been proven that in areas where there are no abortion clinics people do not go out of their way to find one. Its an economic principle. a good example: if the only forklift of a warehouse goes bad the owner will drive where ever they may need to and pay what ever they may need to to find a forklift. If the same man wants an icecream, however, they may or may not buy one, depending upon how far they have to get one and how expensive they are. If women felt they NEEDED abortions there would be no decrease in those getting them regardless of where the closest abortion clinic is, and some of those would be self induced. in fact the oposite is found *pbs just did a special on this btw* in areas where there are no abortion clinics, self induced or illegal abortions do not go up and people do not start traveling to other areas to procure a 'legal' abortion. Truth is abortion is almost never needed for the safety of the mother and a womans body is never healthier than it is during and right after birth. Our bodies are MADE to have children. On the other hand, nearly everyone who has an abortion would advise against it, abortion deaths have not gone down since they legalized abortion, and abortion increases a womens risk for suicide, depression, later miscarraiges, later premature babies, increased post partum depression, and beast cancer. Even if you assume that the baby's life isn't more important than the mothers, which i disagree with, abortion is still the worst choice a woman can make, and usually its made for her. Pro-choice is at its very best POOR CHOICE

-snip- www.afterabortion.info -snip-

My, what a wonderfully impartial and unbiased source. Let's look at the list of articles on the website shall we?


Articles and Analysis on Post-Abortion Issues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths
Revisiting the "Koop Report" The Surgeon General's Report on abortion and What Dr. Koop Could Have Reported

Abortion Trauma and Child Abuse and When the Doll Breaks

Abortion and the Feminization of Poverty

The Abortion / Suicide Connection

Women Who Abort Their Reflections on the Unborn

Do You Suffer From Post-Abortion Stress? This questionaire can help you find out

A Study of Deception: Feminist Researcher "Proves" Abortion Increases Self-Esteem

JAMA GYMNASTICS: Jumping Through Hoops to Prove Abortion is Safe

Identifying High Risk Abortion Patients

Women at Risk: Abortion and the High Risk Patient

New Explanation for Bobbitt Mutilation Points to Abortion

Population Control and RU-486: The Hidden Agenda

How To Put Compassion In Pro-Life Politics

Despair Versus Hope

The Aftereffects of Abortion

Limitations on Post-Abortion Research: Why We Know So Little Important information regarding intepretation of these studies and all research on abortion.

Those figures must be reliable given the wide range of viewpoints on here.:rolleyes:

"98% said they were now against abortion", funny, weren't some pro-lifers earlier on using the example of women having abortion after abortion because they kept getting pregnant? That's a very active 2%.;)
actually if you read the statistics, most abortions are not wanted by the mother or she is against abortion even though she has it. So its not neccessarily the 2% that keep coming back, but any part of the whole that doesn't feel like they have ANY OTHER CHOICE, or are being forced by others.

In the survey less than 10% said they would have even considered abortion if it was illegal. less than 2% said they would have tried to self-abort or would have tried an 'illegal' abortion. Abortion is an supply and demand thing. If its not avalible, people don't do it. It's been proven that in areas where there are no abortion clinics people do not go out of their way to find one. Its an economic principle. a good example: if the only forklift of a warehouse goes bad the owner will drive where ever they may need to and pay what ever they may need to to find a forklift. If the same man wants an icecream, however, they may or may not buy one, depending upon how far they have to get one and how expensive they are. If women felt they NEEDED abortions there would be no decrease in those getting them regardless of where the closest abortion clinic is, and some of those would be self induced. in fact the oposite is found *pbs just did a special on this btw* in areas where there are no abortion clinics, self induced or illegal abortions do not go up and people do not start traveling to other areas to procure a 'legal' abortion. Truth is abortion is almost never needed for the safety of the mother and a womans body is never healthier than it is during and right after birth. Our bodies are MADE to have children. On the other hand, nearly everyone who has an abortion would advise against it, abortion deaths have not gone down since they legalized abortion, and abortion increases a womens risk for suicide, depression, later miscarraiges, later premature babies, increased post partum depression, and beast cancer. Even if you assume that the baby's life isn't more important than the mothers, which i disagree with, abortion is still the worst choice a woman can make, and usually its made for her. Pro-choice is at its very best POOR CHOICE

Could we have a link to those figures from an unbiased source please?

My, what a wonderfully impartial and unbiased source. Let's look at the list of articles on the website shall we?



Those figures must be reliable given the wide range of viewpoints on here.:rolleyes:
Unbiased? No. true? Yes. Those stastics and articles are made up of real women WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS. not some theoretical musings of most of the prochoice concepts. try finding any polls from post abortive women that contradic those listed on the site. I've looked, they aren't out there.

actually if you read the statistics, most abortions are not wanted by the mother or she is against abortion even though she has it. So its not neccessarily the 2% that keep coming back, but any part of the whole that doesn't feel like they have ANY OTHER CHOICE, or are being forced by others.

Really? Earlier on the idea of subsequent abortions was being used to suggest that abortion made women feel secure in having unprotected sex as they knew abortion would be available if they got pregnant.

The two arguements are mutually exclusive, which one is wrong?

Could we have a link to those figures from an unbiased source please?
Everyone has a biased. There's no such thing as an unbiased source. These people had a notion of what they'd find because they had had abortions. That site is FOUNDED and RUN by women who have had abortions. They simply polled other women who have had abortions. perhaps the only 'unbiased' source would be polls of men. But then, since most women feel pressured to have abortions by their partners, men aren't unbiased either.

Unbiased? No. true? Yes. Those stastics and articles are made up of real women WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS. not some theoretical musings of most of the prochoice concepts. try finding any polls from post abortive women that contradic those listed on the site. I've looked, they aren't out there.

Pro-lifers have shown on many occaisons that they are prepared to lie, intimidate, threaten and, in extremis, use violence to further their agenda. Until you can find those figures coming from an unbiased source I don't see any reason to take them seriously.

Really? Earlier on the idea of subsequent abortions was being used to suggest that abortion made women feel secure in having unprotected sex as they knew abortion would be available if they got pregnant.

The two arguements are mutually exclusive, which one is wrong?
that part is the 2%, its a fairly small minority that does in fact use them as 'birth control' but its rare. and most ppl who do think like that think like that before the 'choice' but after they've done it once or twice *those statistics included women who have had mulitple abortions* they chance their mind.

Everyone has a biased. There's no such thing as an unbiased source. These people had a notion of what they'd find because they had had abortions. That site is FOUNDED and RUN by women who have had abortions. They simply polled other women who have had abortions. perhaps the only 'unbiased' source would be polls of men. But then, since most women feel pressured to have abortions by their partners, men aren't unbiased either.

The Ministry of Health (or its US equivalent) would be an excellent example of an unbiased source. Why don't you see if they've done any surveys?

Pro-lifers have shown on many occaisons that they are prepared to lie, intimidate, threaten and, in extremis, use violence to further their agenda. Until you can find those figures coming from an unbiased source I don't see any reason to take them seriously.
I repeat, what would you consider 'unbiased' since every poll, every statistic, every possible entity, has a biased.

The Ministry of Health (or its US equivalent) would be an excellent example of an unbiased source. Why don't you see if they've done any surveys?
we have something similar in the US, unfortunately it is neither up to date or unbiased. Most of the people who sit on it are adimately prochoice and have paying links to the abortion industry. also, the most recent statistics they have are from the 80!

that part is the 2%, its a fairly small minority that does in fact use them as 'birth control' but its rare. and most ppl who do think like that think like that before the 'choice' but after they've done it once or twice *those statistics included women who have had mulitple abortions* they chance their mind.

But surely not every woman who has an abortion and stays pro-choice goes on to have more? 0.5% to 1% at most, and that's hardly enough to justify the first argument.

I repeat, what would you consider 'unbiased' since every poll, every statistic, every possible entity, has a biased.

I would count an unbiased survey performed by an unbiased group to be unbiased.

Here's an example of an unbiased survey question:

Do you prefer apples or pears?

I personally prefer apples but that isn't apparent in the question, making it unbiased.

But surely not every woman who has an abortion and stays pro-choice goes on to have more? 0.5% to 1% at most, and that's hardly enough to justify the first argument.
lets note i wasn't the one who made the first arguement. the people who actively use abortion as a form of birth control and have no moral objection to doing so are a very small minority acording to the sources i've found, and those sources have agreed on both sides of the debate. There is no debate that that group exists. but even if it is only .5% or 1% of the whole US female population, that would actually be enough given the likelihood of people having more than one abortion willingly.

we have something similar in the US, unfortunately it is neither up to date or unbiased. Most of the people who sit on it are adimately prochoice and have paying links to the abortion industry. also, the most recent statistics they have are from the 80!

It's tempting to say that the abortion issue is the least of your problems.

(This debate is really pumping up my postcount you know :))

I would count an unbiased survey performed by an unbiased group to be unbiased.

Here's an example of an unbiased survey question:

Do you prefer apples or pears?

I personally prefer apples but that isn't apparent in the question, making it unbiased.
did you bother to read the survey questions on the site i quoted? they are unbiased questions, with people being allowed to choose FOR abortion in every question. and some did. Thus the fact that the numbers aren't 100%. An Unbiased questionary would not have allowed for disagreance with their biased.

It's tempting to say that the abortion issue is the least of your problems.

(This debate is really pumping up my postcount you know :))
as far as public health reporting in america is sure rates right up there but it certianly isn't alone in the list! :headbang:

lets note i wasn't the one who made the first arguement. the people who actively use abortion as a form of birth control and have no moral objection to doing so are a very small minority acording to the sources i've found, and those sources have agreed on both sides of the debate. There is no debate that that group exists. but even if it is only .5% or 1% of the whole US female population, that would actually be enough given the likelihood of people having more than one abortion willingly.

I accept that you didn't start the arguement but I wanted to drive the point home to whoever did. Also, when threads drag on for this long arguments tend to get recycled and I want to be able to cut at least one point out of the endless (and fairly pointless) cycle.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind a law setting a limit on the number of abortions a woman can have. Two or three maybe with exceptions in exceptional circumstances sounds about right. However, you can't deny abortion to those who use it responsibly purely because some people don't, in the same way you can't scrap the welfare system just because a few people take advantage of it because the majority of claimants have good reasons for it.

In the survey less than 10% said they would have even considered abortion if it was illegal. less than 2% said they would have tried to self-abort or would have tried an 'illegal' abortion. Abortion is an supply and demand thing. If its not avalible, people don't do it. It's been proven that in areas where there are no abortion clinics people do not go out of their way to find one. Its an economic principle. a good example: if the only forklift of a warehouse goes bad the owner will drive where ever they may need to and pay what ever they may need to to find a forklift. If the same man wants an icecream, however, they may or may not buy one, depending upon how far they have to get one and how expensive they are. If women felt they NEEDED abortions there would be no decrease in those getting them regardless of where the closest abortion clinic is, and some of those would be self induced. in fact the oposite is found *pbs just did a special on this btw* in areas where there are no abortion clinics, self induced or illegal abortions do not go up and people do not start traveling to other areas to procure a 'legal' abortion. Truth is abortion is almost never needed for the safety of the mother and a womans body is never healthier than it is during and right after birth. Our bodies are MADE to have children. On the other hand, nearly everyone who has an abortion would advise against it, abortion deaths have not gone down since they legalized abortion, and abortion increases a womens risk for suicide, depression, later miscarraiges, later premature babies, increased post partum depression, and beast cancer. Even if you assume that the baby's life isn't more important than the mothers, which i disagree with, abortion is still the worst choice a woman can make, and usually its made for her. Pro-choice is at its very best POOR CHOICE

How exactly do people take statistics on illegal abortions? Do they take polls inside buildings marked "Illegal Abortion Clinic"?

Also, I don't think you quite understand the concept of supply and demand... If there is more demand than supply, the price will increase, and the supply will increase with it. If the demand falls, the prices drop and suppliers go out of business. This two-way movement keeps happening until a balance in supply/demand is reached. Suppliers don't go where there's no demand, so the fact that there's no abortion clinic somewhere indicates there isn't a demand for it, and if no one there wants to have an abortion, obviously they won't go elsewhere looking for it.

AND, while abortion is a poor choice (I agree with you), pro-life isn't a choice at all.

By the way, you will get slapped down here if you keep calling embryos "babies". It's considered an emotional appeal.

did you bother to read the survey questions on the site i quoted? they are unbiased questions, with people being allowed to choose FOR abortion in every question. and some did. Thus the fact that the numbers aren't 100%. An Unbiased questionary would not have allowed for disagreance with their biased.

Nope, I couldn't find them. Could you give me a direct link please.

actually if you read the statistics, most abortions are not wanted by the mother or she is against abortion even though she has it. So its not neccessarily the 2% that keep coming back, but any part of the whole that doesn't feel like they have ANY OTHER CHOICE, or are being forced by others.

A person that has a choice can be pressured into making the wrong one, but only people that don't have a choice can be forced to do something they don't want.

Unbiased? No. true? Yes. Those stastics and articles are made up of real women WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS. not some theoretical musings of most of the prochoice concepts. try finding any polls from post abortive women that contradic those listed on the site. I've looked, they aren't out there.

Right. An what exactly was the criteria to select these particular women?

my computer is running like molassass, got to go before i freeze it. If you are serious in this debate I would suggest reading some of the testamonies and stastics at www.afterabortion.info and www.abortionbeastcancer.com. A Canadian watchgroup *Catholic but good reporting* is www.lifesite.net. Do an internet search for ABC link or Abortion breast cancer link and you'll come up with a lot of information. For good reporting on forced abortion, and abortion abuses check www.lifedynamics.com and heavy hitting group but you won't believe some of the stuff they have ON TAPE from the abortion industry.

Everyone has a biased. There's no such thing as an unbiased source. These people had a notion of what they'd find because they had had abortions. That site is FOUNDED and RUN by women who have had abortions. They simply polled other women who have had abortions. perhaps the only 'unbiased' source would be polls of men. But then, since most women feel pressured to have abortions by their partners, men aren't unbiased either.

Then let's have a little less of the opinion polls and a little more of the scientific research statistics.

my computer is running like molassass, got to go before i freeze it. If you are serious in this debate I would suggest reading some of the testamonies and stastics at www.afterabortion.info and www.abortionbeastcancer.com. A Canadian watchgroup *Catholic but good reporting* is www.lifesite.net. Do an internet search for ABC link or Abortion breast cancer link and you'll come up with a lot of information. For good reporting on forced abortion, and abortion abuses check www.lifedynamics.com and heavy hitting group but you won't believe some of the stuff they have ON TAPE from the abortion industry.

As I've said before, I wouldn't trust stasistics from blatantly biased websites on either side of the debate.

I would count an unbiased survey performed by an unbiased group to be unbiased.

Here's an example of an unbiased survey question:

Do you prefer apples or pears?

I personally prefer apples but that isn't apparent in the question, making it unbiased.

Also, if you're taking this poll among your classmates of "apple pie recipes from around the world" class, I think it would be a little biased... :rolleyes:

lets note i wasn't the one who made the first arguement. the people who actively use abortion as a form of birth control and have no moral objection to doing so are a very small minority acording to the sources i've found, and those sources have agreed on both sides of the debate. There is no debate that that group exists. but even if it is only .5% or 1% of the whole US female population, that would actually be enough given the likelihood of people having more than one abortion willingly.

I don't think anyone in this forum likes the idea of having abortions instead of birth control, but those aren't the only people that the pro-life agenda would affect.

Also, if you're taking this poll among your classmates of "apple pie recipes from around the world" class, I think it would be a little biased... :rolleyes:

There's an "apple pie recipes from around the world" class in Brazil!!! I'm there!!!:p

It's tempting to say that the abortion issue is the least of your problems.

(This debate is really pumping up my postcount you know :))

(Mine too. It was the first thread I posted to, and only about 10-15 of the posts in my count are in other threads. :D)

did you bother to read the survey questions on the site i quoted? they are unbiased questions, with people being allowed to choose FOR abortion in every question. and some did. Thus the fact that the numbers aren't 100%. An Unbiased questionary would not have allowed for disagreance with their biased.

Huh? You sound a bit confused there. And I think that last word should've been "bias".

I accept that you didn't start the arguement but I wanted to drive the point home to whoever did. Also, when threads drag on for this long arguments tend to get recycled and I want to be able to cut at least one point out of the endless (and fairly pointless) cycle.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind a law setting a limit on the number of abortions a woman can have. Two or three maybe with exceptions in exceptional circumstances sounds about right. However, you can't deny abortion to those who use it responsibly purely because some people don't, in the same way you can't scrap the welfare system just because a few people take advantage of it because the majority of claimants have good reasons for it.

I don't know about limiting the number of abortion per person, but I would be ok with abortions being only for people that had used some other form of contraceptive (which would have to be distributed freely), but it would be hard to prove that you used a condom, for example.

my computer is running like molassass, got to go before i freeze it. If you are serious in this debate I would suggest reading some of the testamonies and stastics at www.afterabortion.info and www.abortionbeastcancer.com. A Canadian watchgroup *Catholic but good reporting* is www.lifesite.net. Do an internet search for ABC link or Abortion breast cancer link and you'll come up with a lot of information. For good reporting on forced abortion, and abortion abuses check www.lifedynamics.com and heavy hitting group but you won't believe some of the stuff they have ON TAPE from the abortion industry.

Typical hit-n-run. The pro-lifers aren't lasting long on this thread, are they? Gotta give Avalon some credit for perseverance...

There's an "apple pie recipes from around the world" class in Brazil!!! I'm there!!!:p

LMAO! :D

I wonder if it's possible for a christian to avoid circular arguments entirely. It's like a fact of life to them (and I should know, I've been christian most of my life).

Well, it isn't ALL Christians... you seem free of the curse, Jocabia and Dempublicents avoid that trap, ex-Catholic UpwardThrust doesn't do it, the long-lost and much lamented Personal Responsibilit didn't do it...

Hell, even my (sometime) Arch-Nemesis Ph33rdom is free and clear on the circular-argument test.


I think it's one of those cases of the loudest voices drowning out all the rest.

I'm not sure you understand me. If Sally is cloned, and her clone is implanted into her, she is not her own DNA. The mother of the clone is the same as Sally's mum

You consent to the posibility of it every day. You cant just say "it is impossible". However fortunetly that consenting doesnt matter because it can be delt with. However consenting to sex means consenting of consequences of it, which could be pregnancy. You have to accept those consequences because there is no way for you to not.

1) Someone didn't look up 'parthenogenesis'...

2) I accept that I could choke on any given bacon sandwich. I do not 'consent' to the choking.

Well, it isn't ALL Christians... you seem free of the curse, Jocabia and Dempublicents avoid that trap, ex-Catholic UpwardThrust doesn't do it, the long-lost and much lamented Personal Responsibilit didn't do it...

Hell, even my (sometime) Arch-Nemesis Ph33rdom is free and clear on the circular-argument test.


I think it's one of those cases of the loudest voices drowning out all the rest.

I guess. The unreasonable ones sure are loud.

But I'm not a christian anymore.

A salt crystal is not growing or developing in anything like the fashion of a human or any other organic growth system. Inanimate is a scientific term, it is to be found in a dictionary and is understood to mean all entities that have none of the qualities of life. This new term of G&I "un-dead" or "not-dead" has been made up by him.
I'm proud to created the Un-dead term: Though scientifically it is referrred to as "not alive".

Rape is a split second decision. See earlier points made about that.

You are wrong about that. Many women are repeatedly raped by spouses and boyfriends. You generalize too much as if it makes your point. Split second decision is not a requirement either. Your ignorance of the law does not help your case, particularly when you appeal to it.

She does not have the right to create the embryo and then destroy it. Self defence is only a valid arguement if the only way to defend yourself is to kill the assaliant. That is not valid here. It is not attacking her. It is only doing what is in its nature to do. Conversely her body is only doing what is in its nature to do by allowing it to be there. Attacking demands damage to the body, and the existance of the embryo is not damage to the body. If it was then the body would move to expell the embryo immidately as it does with all forigen bodies.

She is being injured by the non-person as has been shown time and again. Taking another non-person, could she kill a cougar (not allowed to hunt cougar) if it were doing what is in its nature to do?

You should really learn a little biology. Many women's bodies are ravaged by pregnancy. You'd have to simple close your eyes and ears to argue otherwise. I'll tell you what. Let's make a deal. You can force one woman to be pregnant if you'll permit me to visit all of what you say isn't damage onto your body. First I'll make you puke every morning for a couple of weeks. No problem right? Then I'll implant a ballon in your belly that expands over time, smashing all of your organs and damaging your bladder, possibly causing permanent damage that will make you incontinent when you become older. I'll inject hormones into you that make you unable to control yourself at times, crying, yelling at people, eating things no one in their right mind would eat. I'll put you several hours of labor where I'll make you have regular bouts of severe pain while your body prepares to expel the baby. You better do some excercises to learn to deal with pain though, because you're gonna scream when I tear your anus.

The requirement for self defence killing is a momentary decision where killing the assaliant is the only way to ensure your protection. That is not the case with pregancy. There are two ways to ensure your protection. Abortion or allowing the fetus to live. Your arguement only works if you consider the pregnacy an attack on the mother, which it is not. If it were an attack her body would respond in the way it does to an attack of any other kind.
False. It does not have to be a momentary decision. You keep making up that requirement with out showing any proof it is so. Women have not been charged for killing an abusive husband when it was deemed that this level of force was the only way to protect her person. In many of those cases women took the time to go out and buy a gun. Hardly a split second decision.

Allowing the fetus to live does not ensure your protection. You pretend like you care about women but you don't care enough to do even a modicrum of research to understand the risks and effects of pregnancy. You do women, Christians and yourself a disservice by being lazy.

I guess. The unreasonable ones sure are loud.

But I'm not a christian anymore.

Obviously, it isn't contagious, then. ;)

Grave and me have already had this discussion. By the logic you are using, I am playing God right now by breathing. Playing God means making the decision that a human should die at a specific time. Humans do not have that right. Playing God does not mean continuing the existance of someone.

I love how you declare victories in these discussions. When you make a decision for another person that could injure and/or kill them (like forcing them to remain pregnant) you are playing God. You are making a decision for the only person that is present during the point most abortions occur. I like how you keep arguing that an abortion decision can't be made without consideration of the effects on the future person and then make the argument that decision you're making needn't consider the woman. You are playing God and the only one who can't see it is you.

(Mine too. It was the first thread I posted to, and only about 10-15 of the posts in my count are in other threads. :D)

*gapes in admiration*

1) Someone didn't look up 'parthenogenesis'....

Interesting. I have just looked it up, does it create a clone of the woman or someone with unique DNA?


2) I accept that I could choke on any given bacon sandwich. I do not 'consent' to the choking.

Then accept may be a better word. The point is that a woman has to accept the posibility of a pregnacy. In the case of a pregnancy (unlike choking) she must deal with the consequences by acceping them because the outcome of not accepting them is the destruction of a human

Typical hit-n-run. The pro-lifers aren't lasting long on this thread, are they? Gotta give Avalon some credit for perseverance...

On this thread sure. I'm still trying to get him to explain why Creationism is more scientifically based than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory in another thread.:rolleyes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9926201

A salt crystal is not growing or developing in anything like the fashion of a human or any other organic growth system. Inanimate is a scientific term, it is to be found in a dictionary and is understood to mean all entities that have none of the qualities of life. This new term of G&I "un-dead" or "not-dead" has been made up by him.

Seriously, dude... you need medication, or something.

First you coined your own definition (a thing MUST be dead, alive or inanimate)..

Then, you argued that a foetus MUST be alive because it doesn't fit properly anywhere else in your 'dead, alive, inanimate' scheme...

Then, I pointed out that simply 'not alive' (not coining a phrase, simply adding the negative to one of the existing states) would be more accurate, and produce a triumvirate where a foetus DOES fit...

Now you are claiming that 'inanimate' means "all entities that have none of the qualities of life"... despite evidence from several posters (remember Jocabia's 'robot'?) to the contrary?

And, now you are allocating two new definitions to me - undead (which was suggested by another poster), and 'not dead'... which NOBODY has suggested yet, as far as I know?

You REALLY need to keep track of the debate, my friend.

Then accept may be a better word. The point is that a woman has to accept the posibility of a pregnacy. In the case of a pregnancy (unlike choking) she must deal with the consequences by acceping them because the outcome of not accepting them is the destruction of a human

But if I'm choking on a bacon sandwich I'd expect somebody to slap me on the back to dislodge the mouthful responsible for choking me (I apologise for the disturbing mental image this analogy may have caused in relation to abortion:D ).

And, now you are allocating two new definitions to me - undead (which was suggested by another poster)

Grave_n_idle do you think I should trademark the term un-dead?

So now you guys need to use the tm? Un-dead (tm) is my own creation after all :D

Grave and me have already had this discussion. By the logic you are using, I am playing God right now by breathing. Playing God means making the decision that a human should die at a specific time. Humans do not have that right. Playing God does not mean continuing the existance of someone.

No - my friend... you have continually failed to understand.

(Or you have deliberately misunderstood to further your agenda... I'm being charitable, and assuming you just don't 'get it'.

You can breathe. If you DO breathe, you are, therefore, not upsetting the natural order.

A person who MUST be on a ventilator CAN NOT breathe. Thus, to put that person on a ventilator, is to subvert the natural order.

A whole world of difference my friend.

And, of course, where you could argue 'god' has ordained the death of the person who can't breathe,you can also argue that SAVING that person (against the natural order) IS 'playing god'.

Wrong. Doesn't have to be split second at all.


Yes it does. See legal presecent and points before. What you are arguing for would be a much larger change to the law than I am asking for.


It's entered her body without authorization and is stealing nutrients from her. The embryo's nature has nothing to do with it. It's a lion's nature to catch and kill prey, but if you were attacked by a lion you'd definitely attempt to defend yourself, even using deadly force, if necessary (and I'd say it would be necessary, much like with an embryo).

Incorrect. Its had authorisation if the woman had consentual sex. Furthermore the way the body treats the embryo proves it is not an attack. If it were a biolgical agent, an infection or other injury the body would do its best to deal with it by destroying the embryo or expelling it as it does with other forigen bodies. The body clearly allows for it to exist. Thus it cannot be considered an attack.


Then why does the body itself kill so many of them? Someone showed you statistics for miscarriages before...

Miscarages are very rarely the result of the body actively trying to fight off the embryo, or in any way treating it as a forigen body or an infection


Oh yes, it does damage her body.

But the damage cannot be considered an attack (see earlier point) also the damage to her body is less important that the ending of the existance of the embryo



Letting a rapist have his way is not "ensuring your protection", it's ensuring his protection.

The embryo is not a rapist, nor is it comparable to one.


It can be considered an attack, given the extent of the damage. And. more often than not, her body does respond to it by eliminating the threat. What you're saying here is "let her body fight the flu by itself, if it fails, she can't do anything about it". The body can and does defend itself, but occasionally it fails, that's where medicine comes in.

Her body would only respond if the mothers life was in danger. That would be an example of the baby's death by natural causes. If you can allow both the mother and the embryo to live, there is no reason why you shouldnt.

-snip-
You should really learn a little biology. Many women's bodies are ravaged by pregnancy. You'd have to simple close your eyes and ears to argue otherwise. I'll tell you what. Let's make a deal. You can force one woman to be pregnant if you'll permit me to visit all of what you say isn't damage onto your body. First I'll make you puke every morning for a couple of weeks. No problem right? Then I'll implant a ballon in your belly that expands over time, smashing all of your organs and damaging your bladder, possibly causing permanent damage that will make you incontinent when you become older. I'll inject hormones into you that make you unable to control yourself at times, crying, yelling at people, eating things no one in their right mind would eat. I'll put you several hours of labor where I'll make you have regular bouts of severe pain while your body prepares to expel the baby. You better do some excercises to learn to deal with pain though, because you're gonna scream when I tear your anus.
-snip-

You're scary in a good way. I like you. :D

Grave_n_idle do you think I should trademark the term un-dead?

So now you guys need to use the tm? Un-dead (tm) is my own creation after all :D

Never, I will never surrender to your trade-marked tyranny.

From now on, all things will be classified to belong in one of three groups:
1.Alive
2.Dead
3.Meh

'Meh' includes stones, fetuses, paperweights, many of the less interesting plant types, Intelligent Design advocates, those irritating stones which always get into your sandals and just about anything else I feel like including.

As Meh(tm) is now a a trade mark anyone who uses it has to pay me £5.

No - my friend... you have continually failed to understand.

(Or you have deliberately misunderstood to further your agenda... I'm being charitable, and assuming you just don't 'get it'.

You can breathe. If you DO breathe, you are, therefore, not upsetting the natural order.

A person who MUST be on a ventilator CAN NOT breathe. Thus, to put that person on a ventilator, is to subvert the natural order.

A whole world of difference my friend.

And, of course, where you could argue 'god' has ordained the death of the person who can't breathe,you can also argue that SAVING that person (against the natural order) IS 'playing god'.

By this logic, we are not to allow any medicine at all ever, since it is pereverting the natural order. Playing God is when we say "this persons life ends now", not saying "this persons life must continue"

Grave_n_idle do you think I should trademark the term un-dead?

So now you guys need to use the tm? Un-dead (tm) is my own creation after all :D

At least if we had to pay royalties on it, Avalon MIGHT start to remember where he found it???

;)

Obviously, it isn't contagious, then. ;)

Unfortunately, I believe it is. I've been immunized through pain, though.

*gapes in admiration*

This thread is a ticket to deadly-ness.

But if I'm choking on a bacon sandwich I'd expect somebody to slap me on the back to dislodge the mouthful responsible for choking me (I apologise for the disturbing mental image this analogy may have caused in relation to abortion:D ).

I agree, but your misunderstanding. In that case the consequences of the problem (choking) can be delt with (hitting your back) and no one is killed or seriously harmed. However the consequence of sex being pregnancy cannot be delt with in the fashion that would end it without someone dying.

By this logic, we are not to allow any medicine at all ever, since it is pereverting the natural order. Playing God is when we say "this persons life ends now", not saying "this persons life must continue"

Speaking of God, would you mind answering my post on your thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9926201). I wouldn't ask but you did start the thread and claim that Creationism was based on science so it'd be polite to continue the debate you started. Thank you.:)

Interesting. I have just looked it up, does it create a clone of the woman or someone with unique DNA?

Once you make a copy of something, that something isn't unique anymore, now is it?

Well, I admit it. Avalon II has more stamina than me. I can't see the point anymore of arguing with someone who makes up 'scientific' definitions but ignores it when people tell him the actual scientific definitions (like not alive or the actually aspects of a living organism), makes up 'legal' definitions but says you're not allowed to appeal to the law if you correct him, makes up arguments by other posters, drops any arguments that he doesn't have a way to dismiss and declares victories on various arguments or all arguments every 20 or so pages. If Avalon II spent as much time studying as he does posting nonsensical definitions (usually including several spelling and grammar errors) and arguing about things he doesn't understand, his stamina would be impressive and this thread would still be interesting. But I've ceased learning anything and A II certainly isn't absorbing our arguments or attempts to educate him at least about the terms and laws he is using in his arguments, so I really can't waste my time anymore. Enjoy.

On this thread sure. I'm still trying to get him to explain why Creationism is more scientifically based than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory in another thread.:rolleyes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9926201

Somebody needs to be touched by His noodly appendange... :rolleyes:

I agree, but your misunderstanding. In that case the consequences of the problem (choking) can be delt with (hitting your back) and no one is killed or seriously harmed. However the consequence of sex being pregnancy cannot be delt with in the fashion that would end it without someone dying.

Actually if the abortion is performed early (or through the morning after pill) the fetus could be ejected before it reaches the biological level of a bacon sandwich.;)

Somebody needs to be touched by His noodly appendange... :rolleyes:

Amen brother, amen.

Well, I admit it. Avalon II has more stamina than me. I can't see the point anymore of arguing with someone who makes up 'scientific' definitions but ignores it when people tell him the actual scientific definitions (like not alive or the actually aspects of a living organism), makes up 'legal' definitions but says you're not allowed to appeal to the law if you correct him, makes up arguments by other posters, drops any arguments that he doesn't have a way to dismiss and declares victories on various arguments or all arguments every 20 or so pages. If Avalon II spent as much time studying as he does posting nonsensical definitions (usually including several spelling and grammar errors) and arguing about things he doesn't understand, his stamina would be impressive and this thread would still be interesting. But I've ceased learning anything and A II certainly isn't absorbing our arguments or attempts to educate him at least about the terms and laws he is using in his arguments, so I really can't waste my time anymore. Enjoy.

Wait...I need to get this straight...you thought that one can learn something on the forums?!!! :eek:

Has this been your first debate on the forums?

I debate for the fun: also to see if I can understand their side. Also i invented a new term un-dead (tm) :D

Interesting. I have just looked it up, does it create a clone of the woman or someone with unique DNA?

Then accept may be a better word.



'Accept' IS a better word. One can accept the possibility of many risks, without EVER 'consenting' to being party to those risks.

If you go bungee jumping, you ACCEPT the risks... but you don't CONSENT to having your brains pasted all over the rocks.



The point is that a woman has to accept the posibility of a pregnacy. In the case of a pregnancy (unlike choking) she must deal with the consequences by acceping them because the outcome of not accepting them is the destruction of a human

No - she really does NOT have to accept the possibility... especially here in the rural end of Georgia, where children just are NOT educated about sex, and where the girls are instilled with the 'good old biblical values' of obedience to men. And then, the local authorities wonder why they have so many pregnant 13 year olds.....

And - again.... 'destruction' is a reasonable phrase to use, but 'a human' is STILL a matetr for debate.

But if I'm choking on a bacon sandwich I'd expect somebody to slap me on the back to dislodge the mouthful responsible for choking me (I apologise for the disturbing mental image this analogy may have caused in relation to abortion:D ).

You SHOULD be apologising for the mental scarring I'm now suffering over that poor bacon sandwich... man, I am SO hungry now.... :)

Yes it does. See legal presecent and points before. What you are arguing for would be a much larger change to the law than I am asking for.

No, it doesn't. You're the only one who thinks that. No court would send a person to jail that had to plot to and kill his captor to escape from being held hostage and tortured if there was no other way of doing so.

Incorrect. Its had authorisation if the woman had consentual sex.

If having sex = consent to pregnancy, then having a door = consent to burglary.

Furthermore the way the body treats the embryo proves it is not an attack. If it were a biolgical agent, an infection or other injury the body would do its best to deal with it by destroying the embryo or expelling it as it does with other forigen bodies. The body clearly allows for it to exist. Thus it cannot be considered an attack.

If the body clearly allowed it to exist, there wouldn't be as many miscarriages. By your definition, a tape worm isn't attacking your body, since the body can't always expel it by itself.

Miscarages are very rarely the result of the body actively trying to fight off the embryo, or in any way treating it as a forigen body or an infection

Then what are they?

But the damage cannot be considered an attack (see earlier point) also the damage to her body is less important that the ending of the existance of the embryo

Yes, it can be considered an attack, the damage is pretty extensive and intense and long lasting. It's a vicious attack on the woman. And her body is no less important than the embryo's.

The embryo is not a rapist, nor is it comparable to one.

No, but it is comparable to a squatter who's stealing food from someone.

Her body would only respond if the mothers life was in danger.

Not true. The body responds to any kind of danger, be it life-threatening or not.

That would be an example of the baby's

Embryo, not baby.

death by natural causes. If you can allow both the mother and the embryo to live, there is no reason why you shouldnt.

No one is "not allowing" them to live. Pro-lifers are the one's intent on "not allowing" people their rights.

Never, I will never surrender to your trade-marked tyranny.

From now on, all things will be classified to belong in one of three groups:
1.Alive
2.Dead
3.Meh

'Meh' includes stones, fetuses, paperweights, many of the less interesting plant types, Intelligent Design advocates, those irritating stones which always get into your sandals and just about anything else I feel like including.

As Meh(tm) is now a a trade mark anyone who uses it has to pay me £5.

LMAO! :D

By this logic, we are not to allow any medicine at all ever, since it is pereverting the natural order. Playing God is when we say "this persons life ends now", not saying "this persons life must continue"

That's right. If you really don't want to "play god", you have to be against all kinds of medicine. If people want to be cured, they need to visit the nearest apostle, who will pray over the sick one and lay hands and he'll be cured if god will's it.

By this logic, we are not to allow any medicine at all ever, since it is pereverting the natural order. Playing God is when we say "this persons life ends now", not saying "this persons life must continue"

It's YOUR logic, my friend.

I notice you don't like it when you sit on the spikey end of it.

Well, I admit it. Avalon II has more stamina than me. I can't see the point anymore of arguing with someone who makes up 'scientific' definitions but ignores it when people tell him the actual scientific definitions (like not alive or the actually aspects of a living organism), makes up 'legal' definitions but says you're not allowed to appeal to the law if you correct him, makes up arguments by other posters, drops any arguments that he doesn't have a way to dismiss and declares victories on various arguments or all arguments every 20 or so pages. If Avalon II spent as much time studying as he does posting nonsensical definitions (usually including several spelling and grammar errors) and arguing about things he doesn't understand, his stamina would be impressive and this thread would still be interesting. But I've ceased learning anything and A II certainly isn't absorbing our arguments or attempts to educate him at least about the terms and laws he is using in his arguments, so I really can't waste my time anymore. Enjoy.

Aw. :(

Wait...I need to get this straight...you thought that one can learn something on the forums?!!! :eek:

Has this been your first debate on the forums?

I debate for the fun: also to see if I can understand their side. Also i invented a new term un-dead (tm) :D

I invented the Filthy Whore(tm) argument. :D
I don't charge royalties, though.

That's right. If you really don't want to "play god", you have to be against all kinds of medicine. If people want to be cured, they need to visit the nearest apostle, who will pray over the sick one and lay hands and he'll be cured if god will's it.

Actually don't knock it unless you try it.

You'll have to go to Utah though since the Apostles all live there. They are the only Apostles with the authority and power to do that.

Just thought I'd mention that :D

un-Paid for by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints
(Free advertisements)

Actually don't knock it unless you try it.

You'll have to go to Utah though since the Apostles all live there. They are the only Apostles with the authority and power to do that.

Just thought I'd mention that :D

un-Paid for by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints
(Free advertisements)

I'm not knocking it, I'm just telling Avalon what to do if he's serious about not "playing god".

If having sex = consent to pregnancy, then having a door = consent to burglary.

Diffrence, you can stop a burgular without nessecarly killing him. To stop a pregnancy you have to kill the embryo


If the body clearly allowed it to exist, there wouldn't be as many miscarriages. By your definition, a tape worm isn't attacking your body, since the body can't always expel it by itself.


Killing a tapeworm is diffrent to killing an embryo since the tapeworm isnt human. If the body would not allow the embryo to exist, or considers its existance an attack, why does the reproductive system allow and indeed encourge the embryo to grow in the way it does.


Yes, it can be considered an attack, the damage is pretty extensive and intense and long lasting. It's a vicious attack on the woman. And her body is no less important than the embryo's.

Yes, but its not just the embryo's body that is concern here. It's its existance.


No, but it is comparable to a squatter who's stealing food from someone.

No it isnt. Your confusing two elements here. The body clearly wants the embryo there otherwise it would not be designed in the way it is to allow it there. The human woman however may not. Akin to the house wanting the person but the squatter not. Its better to compare it to someone who has stolen the use of your life support machine and now needs it for 9 months to stay alive while his healing process completes itself. He may have stolen it but by removing it just because "its yours" means killing him.


Not true. The body responds to any kind of danger, be it life-threatening or not.

True, but if we were to destroy the embryo it would be over reacting to a non life threatening condition


No one is "not allowing" them to live. Pro-lifers are the one's intent on "not allowing" people their rights.

A mother who had an abortion would be not allowing her embryo to live. You are simply allowing her to do that

Lets look at it this way. Suppose for some reason my right to vote meant you couldnt have your right to vote. Surely it would be better for both of us if we could find a way for us both to be able to vote.

Once you make a copy of something, that something isn't unique anymore, now is it?

I have said it now several times. Unique from the mothers DNA. If there is a process here where the fertalisation occurs without sperm and creates a clone of the woman then the mother of the clone would be the same as the mother of the woman being cloned.

It's YOUR logic, my friend.

I notice you don't like it when you sit on the spikey end of it.

My logic is that we dont decide that a person is to die. Medicine decides that a person should continue to live.

Playing God: Making a consious decision to end the existance of another human

That is my logic. Medicine is the preseveration of life. You misunderstood me.

By this logic, we are not to allow any medicine at all ever, since it is pereverting the natural order. Playing God is when we say "this persons life ends now", not saying "this persons life must continue"
You are correct. We "play god" every time we exercise self-determination. That (the ability to create) is how we were made in God's image.

You are correct. We "play god" every time we exercise self-determination. That (the ability to create) is how we were made in God's image.
I thought we became as God once Adam and Eve ate the fruit? Since we now know Good from evil and can be punished for choosing evil.
Before we were innocent and couldn't choose wrongly since we didn't know what was wrong.

I thought we became as God once Adam and Eve ate the fruit? Since we now know Good from evil and can be punished for choosing evil.
Before we were innocent and couldn't choose wrongly since we didn't know what was wrong.
That's another interpretation. The phrase "made in God's image" though does point to the moment of creation.

Diffrence, you can stop a burgular without nessecarly killing him. To stop a pregnancy you have to kill the embryo

I wasn't talking about how to stop it, I was refering to the matter of consent. Do you or do you not consent to having your home broken into by installing a door on it?

Killing a tapeworm is diffrent to killing an embryo since the tapeworm isnt human. If the body would not allow the embryo to exist, or considers its existance an attack, why does the reproductive system allow and indeed encourge the embryo to grow in the way it does.

I'm not talking about whether or not the tape worm is human, I used this as an example that not everything your body can't fight is supposed to be in there. You seem to be purposely taking my statements out of context.

Yes, but its not just the embryo's body that is concern here. It's its existance.

There's no existence without body and there's no body without existence.

No it isnt. Your confusing two elements here. The body clearly wants the embryo there otherwise it would not be designed in the way it is to allow it there. The human woman however may not. Akin to the house wanting the person but the squatter not.

The squatter is the embryo, not the woman. The woman is the house, or its lawful owner.

Its better to compare it to someone who has stolen the use of your life support machine and now needs it for 9 months to stay alive while his healing process completes itself. He may have stolen it but by removing it just because "its yours" means killing him.

I'll remove it and send him to die in jail. It's not nice, but I'm perfectly allowed to do so. No one has the right to steal from someone else "because they need it".

True, but if we were to destroy the embryo it would be over reacting to a non life threatening condition

It's not overreacting, it's the minimal reaction. There is no lesser reaction.

A mother who had an abortion would be not allowing her embryo to live. You are simply allowing her to do that

Yep. It's her business, not mine.

Lets look at it this way. Suppose for some reason my right to vote meant you couldnt have your right to vote. Surely it would be better for both of us if we could find a way for us both to be able to vote.

So now you want me to be able to choose? 'Cause just now you were keen on taking away the woman's sovereignty over her own body, which is a lot more basic than voting.

No - she really does NOT have to accept the possibility... especially here in the rural end of Georgia, where children just are NOT educated about sex, and where the girls are instilled with the 'good old biblical values' of obedience to men. And then, the local authorities wonder why they have so many pregnant 13 year olds....

Firstly, I dont agree with that states sex eductation policy.

Secondly however she does have to accept the responablity because not accepting the reponsablity means the a human being destroyed


And - again.... 'destruction' is a reasonable phrase to use, but 'a human' is STILL a matetr for debate.

What makes us human is indeed a matter for debate. Philosophically it has been discussed whether sentinece, consousness etc makes us human. However these are philosophical ideas and non verifiable. I have three points which clearly show what beinga human is in non philosophical sense

Having human DNA which is uniqe from the mother

Being a self contained individual entity

Developing and growing as a life form

If an entity has these three chaterstics then it is clearly a human. There are philosophical objections to them being purely the grounds but those are non objective. These are. An embryo is doing all of them.

I have said it now several times. Unique from the mothers DNA. If there is a process here where the fertalisation occurs without sperm and creates a clone of the woman then the mother of the clone would be the same as the mother of the woman being cloned.
But there is no such thing, even, as "unique from DNA" because once the template is used, finished with, things start to change.

I have said it now several times. Unique from the mothers DNA. If there is a process here where the fertalisation occurs without sperm and creates a clone of the woman then the mother of the clone would be the same as the mother of the woman being cloned.

But if the DNA is equal to the mother's, what the hell does its differences with the grandmother's DNA have to do with anything?

Let me explain. You take a woman's egg and her genetic code and make a clone. Implant it on the same woman. According to you, this embryo's DNA is unique because it's different from the woman's mother, but this difference only shows that the woman is different from her mother, not that the embryo is different from the woman.

Got it now?

My logic is that we dont decide that a person is to die. Medicine decides that a person should continue to live.

Playing God: Making a consious decision to end the life of another human

That is my logic. Medicine is the preseveration of life. You misunderstood me.

No - medicine decides nothing. The Hippocratic Oath is designed to guide medicine into preserving life.

Of course, opinion is divided, even in the medical community... is QUANTITY of life most impotant (it doesn't MATTER if it hurts like hell, so long as you live ONE MORE DAY), or if QUALITY of life is most important.

Your definition of playing god is balderdash. It is your opinion, masquerading as a definition. Find a source that backs your hubris.

I don't 'misunderstand you'... I believe you are unsupported by any evidence, and that you are wrong. Misunderstanding doesn't come into it.

My logic is that we dont decide that a person is to die. Medicine decides that a person should continue to live.

Playing God: Making a consious decision to end the life of another human

That is my logic. Medicine is the preseveration of life. You misunderstood me.

Making someone who should be dead stay alive isn't any less "playing god" than making someone who should be alive die. If you think so, you must think that your God's job is more so to kill people than to give them life.

I wasn't talking about how to stop it, I was refering to the matter of consent. Do you or do you not consent to having your home broken into by installing a door on it?

Consent is the wrong word, as Grave has pointed out. You accept it as a posibility. The diffrence is between the two is that you can stop a burglary without killing the burglar. You cant stop a embryo without killing it


I'm not talking about whether or not the tape worm is human, I used this as an example that not everything your body can't fight is supposed to be in there. You seem to be purposely taking my statements out of context.

The body not only cannot fight the embryo, it actively advocates its being there. The tapeworm is not actively advocated for being there. There are favourable conditions for it but it is not actively advocated, unlike the embryo.


There's no existence without body and there's no body without existence.

Circular arguement. The embryo has a body its just a great deal smaller than yours. How would you define body?


The squatter is the embryo, not the woman. The woman is the house, or its lawful owner.

You missed the point. The body itslef clearly supports the embryo being there. The woman herself may not like it but her body clearly wants it there. To end the pregnancy would be the destruction of the human. Something which humans have a right to be protected from


I'll remove it and send him to die in jail. It's not nice, but I'm perfectly allowed to do so. No one has the right to steal from someone else "because they need it".

But you dont have the right to kill them either.


It's not overreacting, it's the minimal reaction. There is no lesser reaction.

Yes there is. No reaction


Yep. It's her business, not mine.

It is also the embryo's business. She is not making this decision in a vacumm. What she chooses to do could end the embryo's existance. She does not have that right. That is playing God. A consious decision to end a humans existance.


So now you want me to be able to choose? 'Cause just now you were keen on taking away the woman's sovereignty over her own body, which is a lot more basic than voting.

If there was a way for both of us to vote as opposed to me being able to take away your right to vote, wouldnt you rather the government legislated so that I couldnt take away your right to vote?

Diffrence, you can stop a burgular without nessecarly killing him. To stop a pregnancy you have to kill the embryo

But you can't kill it because it isn't alive, it has no working brain until late in pregnancy.

Killing a tapeworm is diffrent to killing an embryo since the tapeworm isnt human. If the body would not allow the embryo to exist, or considers its existance an attack, why does the reproductive system allow and indeed encourge the embryo to grow in the way it does.

The embryo isn't human yet, you wouldn't call a pile of bricks and mortar a house would you?

Yes, but its not just the embryo's body that is concern here. It's its existance.

But it isn't self-aware as we have explained several times already.

No it isnt. Your confusing two elements here. The body clearly wants the embryo there otherwise it would not be designed in the way it is to allow it there. The human woman however may not. Akin to the house wanting the person but the squatter not. Its better to compare it to someone who has stolen the use of your life support machine and now needs it for 9 months to stay alive while his healing process completes itself. He may have stolen it but by removing it just because "its yours" means killing him.

The body produces hormones encouraging the person in question to have sex but you frown on pre-marital sex don't you? Besides, your analogy is still flawed because in the case of a life-support machine it wouldn't cause any harm to the owner.

Here's a better analogy:

You wake up one morning to discover that some fanatical jazz fans have linked you up to a critically ill jazz legend and only you have the right genetic make-up to keep him alive. Sure you locked your door to keep people like this out but if you wanted to be sure you would've bricked up the doorway, right? Anyway, to help him recover you'll have to stay plugged into him for 9 months, while experiencing the same symptons that Jocabia described earlier. Are you obligated to go through that?

True, but if we were to destroy the embryo it would be over reacting to a non life threatening condition

Having a child young is a very good way to be impoverished for the rest of your life, is it really over-reacting?

A mother who had an abortion would be not allowing her embryo to live. You are simply allowing her to do that

It isn't alive, it doesn't have a right to live because it isn't. Under your logic, if I had a laser beam that would make potatoes alive and sentient if I used it on them it would be murder not to use my beam on every potato I could, failing to do so would be refusing to let them live.

Lets look at it this way. Suppose for some reason my right to vote meant you couldnt have your right to vote. Surely it would be better for both of us if we could find a way for us both to be able to vote.

Agreed, but if he had to chop off his genitals to allow you to vote you wouldn't expect him to do so. Your reasoning only works if the 'way' is easy for both parties.

Incidently, as I've answered all of your ponts would you mind answering mine on your other thread? Thanks. linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9926201)

Secondly however she does have to accept the responablity because not accepting the reponsablity means the a human being destroyed


No - she doesn't have to accept the responsibility... again, stop just repeating the same words over and over.

You have yet to PROVE that 'a human being' is PRESENT, let alone 'destroyed'.


What makes us human is indeed a matter for debate. Philosophically it has been discussed whether sentinece, consousness etc makes us human. However these are philosophical ideas and non verifiable. I have three points which clearly show what beinga human is in non philosophical sense

Having human DNA which is uniqe from the mother

Being a self contained individual entity

Developing and growing as a life form


I don't accept those arbitrary terms. Provide a source that backs them up, or explain WHY they should be accepted?


If an entity has these three chaterstics then it is clearly a human. There are philosophical objections to them being purely the grounds but those are non objective.

Not only are they non-objective, they are ambiguous to the point of nonsensical hilarity. Did you know, there are SOME entities, in which the male lives INSIDE the female, for his entire existence? What about symbiosis? What about parasitism? The simple assertion "Being a self contained individual entity" means nothing.


These are. An embryo is doing all of them.

AN embryo may be self-contained, but it cannot survive as an individual entity.

Thus, by YOUR logic, the embryo fails to meet point two, and thus, is NOT human.

Firstly, I dont agree with that states sex eductation policy.

Secondly however she does have to accept the responablity because not accepting the reponsablity means the a human being destroyed



What makes us human is indeed a matter for debate. Philosophically it has been discussed whether sentinece, consousness etc makes us human. However these are philosophical ideas and non verifiable. I have three points which clearly show what beinga human is in non philosophical sense

Having human DNA which is uniqe from the mother

Being a self contained individual entity

Developing and growing as a life form

If an entity has these three chaterstics then it is clearly a human. There are philosophical objections to them being purely the grounds but those are non objective. These are. An embryo is doing all of them.

Your 3 made-up points can't even cover embryos. The first excludes clones but includes cancer, the second obviously doesn't apply to embryos, as they can't possibly survive as an individual entity, and your third is incredibly vague.

But if the DNA is equal to the mother's, what the hell does its differences with the grandmother's DNA have to do with anything?

Let me explain. You take a woman's egg and her genetic code and make a clone. Implant it on the same woman. According to you, this embryo's DNA is unique because it's different from the woman's mother, but this difference only shows that the woman is different from her mother, not that the embryo is different from the woman.

Got it now?

It depends on your defintion of mother. If you define mother as being the woman only who is pregnant with the embryo then it is not diffrent from the mother. If however you define the mother as the person whom half your genetic material is made up of then it is diffrent to the mother.

It depends on your defintion of mother. If you define mother as being the woman only who is pregnant with the embryo then it is not diffrent from the mother. If however you define the mother as the person whom half your genetic material is made up of then it is diffrent to the mother.

What about if it is the person who ALL of your genetic material comes from?

As in parthenogenesis... a clone that is a clone of it's own 'mother'.

Your 3 made-up points can't even cover embryos. The first excludes clones but includes cancer, the second obviously doesn't apply to embryos, as they can't possibly survive as an individual entity, and your third is incredibly vague.

The first does not exclude clones if the mother is defined as the woman whom half the DNA comes from as opposed to the woman who only incubates the child. Secondly the independent suvival of the embryo is not an issue as to whether it is an individual entity or not, if a man is on a lifesupport machine, does that mean he and that machine are one entity. And the third term is what seperates humans from corpses. Corpses are decomposing and dying, not developing and growing.

It is also the embryo's business. What is not aware has no business.

She is not making this decision in a vacumm. What she chooses to do could end the embryo's existance. Yes, so?

She does not have that right. Prove that she doesn't. You can't list that as an assumption when it isn't one.

That is playing God. By whose definition? This is pure rhetoric without backing merit. Next will you be saying gene therapy is playing god?

A consious decision to end a humans existance. The question is whether a fetus is human. Which you have not proven. Really, it seems about as human as a cell on my back.

It depends on your defintion of mother. If you define mother as being the woman only who is pregnant with the embryo then it is not diffrent from the mother. If however you define the mother as the person whom half your genetic material is made up of then it is diffrent to the mother.

Could you give us all of your 'definitions' so far in one post for easy reference please.

While you're at it, could you respond to my post at the top of this page here please linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9926201)

What about if it is the person who ALL of your genetic material comes from?

As in parthenogenesis... a clone that is a clone of it's own 'mother'.

Again you miss the point. If that is the case (clone) then the mother is not the woman who is incubating the baby but the person who created that sequence of DNA to begin with. The mother of the person being cloned.

Simonist']Alright, first I want you to understand that though I'm pro-choice, I would never see myself in a situation (even those I support the choice for) that would convince me to get an abortion. Now, I understand in the cases of rape, health concerns, incest, or in EXTREME cases, age and/or financial limitations (consider that just because they can't afford a child doesn't mean that they CAN afford hospital costs and attorney costs for adoption cases). However, I don't think that abortions should be a matter of "Oooh, this baby is oh-so-inconvenient for me, I don't think I'll keep it". I believe that it should remain legal, but very closely monitored, and to be honest, I don't think the personal opinions really need to go into it. Like I said, I can't imagine me ever having an abortion, no matter the circumstances, because that's just what I believe -- but it's not my place to attempt to force those beliefs on another person, especially one who may really need an abortion, situationally speaking.
The phrase you end with "need an abortion" is rather haunting. No woman "needs" an abortion. And let's not forget the real victim the baby. As for cases of rape rape is a terrible thing. But killing a baby is that really going to fix that horror. As for financal problems more couples in america are looking for babies to adopt then are currently avalible that is why many adopt foriegn babies. Thru adoption a horrible tradjity could have a better ending as that young girl knows that she at least did the right thing and her child can have a better life.

The phrase you end with "need an abortion" is rather haunting. No woman "needs" an abortion. And let's not forget the real victim the baby. As for cases of rape rape is a terrible thing. But killing a baby is that really going to fix that horror. As for financal problems more couples in america are looking for babies to adopt then are currently avalible that is why many adopt foriegn babies. Thru adoption a horrible tradjity could have a better ending as that young girl knows that she at least did the right thing and her child can have a better life.

The embryo is NOT a baby, it is a small lump of living matter which cannot survive outside of it's mother and therefore is not a baby.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your points, if you check a few pages back we went over the idea of abortion in the case of rape.

Ok here is my definiton of human for those who havent yet got it

1. An entity with distinctly homosapien DNA
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from its mother*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that the Homosapien DNA demands

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

If there is anything further I need to claify I will

The phrase you end with "need an abortion" is rather haunting. No woman "needs" an abortion. False. There are many instances where a woman may need an abortion, including the most obvious example of the woman's life being in jeopardy.

Again you miss the point. If that is the case (clone) then the mother is not the woman who is incubating the baby but the person who created that sequence of DNA to begin with. The mother of the person being cloned.

Out of interest, when do you plan to respond to my FSM point? linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453400&page=12)

Consent is the wrong word, as Grave has pointed out. You accept it as a posibility. The diffrence is between the two is that you can stop a burglary without killing the burglar. You cant stop a embryo without killing it

And if in one case there was no way to get rid of the burglar without killing him, it would be legal to do so.

The body not only cannot fight the embryo, it actively advocates its being there. The tapeworm is not actively advocated for being there. There are favourable conditions for it but it is not actively advocated, unlike the embryo.

I didn't realize my body had gone to law school.

Circular arguement. The embryo has a body its just a great deal smaller than yours. How would you define body?

It's not a circular argument. A circular argument is when you say "A is B if C is D, C is D because A is B". It's when you base one argument in another and give proof for neither. What I said is that "body = existence, existence = body", which is just stating that the two things are the same.

You missed the point. The body itslef clearly supports the embryo being there. The woman herself may not like it but her body clearly wants it there. To end the pregnancy would be the destruction of the human. Something which humans have a right to be protected from

Right. So if your house "wants" a squatter, but you, the lawful owner, don't, who gets to decide if he stays or goes?

But you dont have the right to kill them either.

I won't kill him, just take back my life-support and kick him out of the house.

Yes there is. No reaction

No reaction isn't a lesser reaction, it's a lack of reaction. We've been through this.

*snip "playing god" bs*

If there was a way for both of us to vote as opposed to me being able to take away your right to vote, wouldnt you rather the government legislated so that I couldnt take away your right to vote?

If I'm living peacefully in my own country and voting, and you come along and try to take away my right to vote, I won't "prefer" that we both get to vote, I'll "prefer" that you get out of my country! Dictator!

False. There are many instances where a woman may need an abortion, including the most obvious example of the woman's life being in jeopardy.

That is the only one where it is aplicable seeing as how in all other cases two humans can live. If there is a way to allow both humans to live then they should be kept so.

What is not aware has no business.

Yes, so?

Prove that she doesn't. You can't list that as an assumption when it isn't one.

By whose definition? This is pure rhetoric without backing merit. Next will you be saying gene therapy is playing god?

The question is whether a fetus is human. Which you have not proven. Really, it seems about as human as a cell on my back.
In the american system of law you always side with life that is to say you do not prove that it is life and only then do you protect it you protect it unless it can absolutly be proven that it is not life. And a baby with a heart a brain and even dreams (yes science has proven fetuses do dream when they sleep) is that proven non-life????

Ok here is my definiton of human for those who havent yet got it

1. An entity with distinctly homosapien DNA
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from its mother*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that the Homosapien DNA demands

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

If there is anything further I need to claify I will

So if I had a ray which could give potatoes human DNA and start them on a two year process to change into a human it would instantly become a human rather than a mutating potato?

Have you answered my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453400&page=12) yet by the way?

The first does not exclude clones if the mother is defined as the woman whom half the DNA comes from as opposed to the woman who only incubates the child. Secondly the independent suvival of the embryo is not an issue as to whether it is an individual entity or not, if a man is on a lifesupport machine, does that mean he and that machine are one entity. And the third term is what seperates humans from corpses. Corpses are decomposing and dying, not developing and growing.

Do you even know what a 'clone' is?

That is the only one where it is aplicable seeing as how in all other cases two humans can live. If there is a way to allow both humans to live then they should be kept so.

Surely by accepting that you're admitting that the mother has more value than the embryo? How is this consistant with calling them both human beings?

The link hasn't changed by the way, but here it is just to save you any trouble.:) link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453400&page=12)

In the american system of law you always side with life that is to say you do not prove that it is life and only then do you protect it you protect it unless it can absolutly be proven that it is not life.

In the american system of law, women have a constitutional right to an abortion.

It is life.
It is not a person.
Yes, it can be said that having an abortion is killing the fetus.

So far I've seen nothing that has produced any sway that the mothers life is not more important than a being not born yet with some points being raised for the third trimester.

Again you miss the point. If that is the case (clone) then the mother is not the woman who is incubating the baby but the person who created that sequence of DNA to begin with. The mother of the person being cloned.

So - if humans DID reproduce parthenogentically (and it is 'possible'), then you are saying: no matter how many thousands of years this continued for, how many generations of parthenogenetic births.... they would not be people? (Because they wouldn't start with 'unique' DNA)... and are you ALSO saying that only the FIRST parthenogenetic reproducer would be 'mother'?

It depends on your defintion of mother. If you define mother as being the woman only who is pregnant with the embryo then it is not diffrent from the mother. If however you define the mother as the person whom half your genetic material is made up of then it is diffrent to the mother.

Of course, if the embryo only gets half of its genetic code from someone, its code will be different from that person. Let me put it into a practical example.

I go to doctors and genetic engineers, they take one of my eggs, and my genetic code, make a clone, implant it in my uterus, I carry it for 9 months, I give birth to it, breastfeed, everything... Are you saying that this baby is the daughter of my mother?? That the child i gave birth to is, in fact, my sister?

and by not making pedophilia legal we are encouraging kidnapping.
Just because there are unwanted circumstances to the illegalization of something doesn't mean it should be legal

your sperm cells are not alive.

# Living things are made of cells.
# Living things obtain and use energy.
# Living things grow and develop.
# Living things reproduce.
# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

sperm and egg alone do not fit these criteria, together they do.

A human sperm does not contain all the DNA of a person, it only has half the chromosomes. Therefore it is not human because it could easily be examined and seen to be not a person. However the DNA of a Zygote is inseperable from that of a full grown 40 year old human. No scientist in the world could tell which was which.

Of course, if the embryo only gets half of its genetic code from someone, its code will be different from that person. Let me put it into a practical example.

I go to doctors and genetic engineers, they take one of my eggs, and my genetic code, make a clone, implant it in my uterus, I carry it for 9 months, I give birth to it, breastfeed, everything... Are you saying that this baby is the daughter of my mother?? That the child i gave birth to is, in fact, my sister?

Kinky huh?

But you can't kill it because it isn't alive, it has no working brain until late in pregnancy

The embryo isn't human yet, you wouldn't call a pile of bricks and mortar a house would you?.

See earlier defintion of human


But it isn't self-aware as we have explained several times already.

Self awareness is not a pre-requiste for existing. My ruler exists but it is not self aware. It is also not a pre-requiste for being human either


The body produces hormones encouraging the person in question to have sex but you frown on pre-marital sex don't you?

I do, but I dont legislate against it because that decision can be made in a vaccum with no one's rights being denied


Besides, your analogy is still flawed because in the case of a life-support machine it wouldn't cause any harm to the owner

The harm caused by a pregnacy to the woman is not justifcation enough to destroy the embryo


You wake up one morning to discover that some fanatical jazz fans have linked you up to a critically ill jazz legend and only you have the right genetic make-up to keep him alive. Sure you locked your door to keep people like this out but if you wanted to be sure you would've bricked up the doorway, right? Anyway, to help him recover you'll have to stay plugged into him for 9 months, while experiencing the same symptons that Jocabia described earlier. Are you obligated to go through that?

Yes. But also the Jazz band did not have the right to do it to you in the first place so they are in the wrong (rape) but if they did it to you, you have to accept the consequences seeing as not doing so would kill him. However seing as this was done to you against your consent the government must do all it can to help you during this time


Having a child young is a very good way to be impoverished for the rest of your life, is it really over-reacting?

Yes, because you dont destroy humans to make yourself not empovierished


It isn't alive, it doesn't have a right to live because it isn't. Under your logic, if I had a laser beam that would make potatoes alive and sentient if I used it on them it would be murder not to use my beam on every potato I could, failing to do so would be refusing to let them live.

Your analogy is flawed because you are doing something positive to turn them into living sentient beings. A more accurate description is that you have a series of potatos that are developing into sentient beings and you use a laser on them that kills them. That is destorying them


Agreed, but if he had to chop off his genitals to allow you to vote you wouldn't expect him to do so. Your reasoning only works if the 'way' is easy for both parties.


That is not a comparable injury for what a mother goes through.

A human sperm does not contain all the DNA of a person, it only has half the chromosomes. Therefore it is not human because it could easily be examined and seen to be not a person. However the DNA of a Zygote is inseperable from that of a full grown 40 year old human. No scientist in the world could tell which was which.
So what?

Well, I'm off now. Have fun everyone.:)

Oh, and thanks in advance to Avalon for answering my question. I'll be interested to see your reply.

Of course, if the embryo only gets half of its genetic code from someone, its code will be different from that person. Let me put it into a practical example.

I go to doctors and genetic engineers, they take one of my eggs, and my genetic code, make a clone, implant it in my uterus, I carry it for 9 months, I give birth to it, breastfeed, everything... Are you saying that this baby is the daughter of my mother?? That the child i gave birth to is, in fact, my sister?

Like I said, it depends on which definiton of mother you would use. You would not be its bioloigical mother but you would be its maternal mother. Since biology is what I am discussing with my definiton I am using the biological use of the term mother.

The first does not exclude clones if the mother is defined as the woman whom half the DNA comes from as opposed to the woman who only incubates the child.

Which means now we have to define "mother".

Secondly the independent suvival of the embryo is not an issue as to whether it is an individual entity or not, if a man is on a lifesupport machine, does that mean he and that machine are one entity.

If a person gets a pacemaker implanted because their heart doesn't beat correctly by itself, yes, the machine becomes a part of the person. Regardless of whether it's temporary or not (they could be about to get a heart transplant).

And the third term is what seperates humans from corpses. Corpses are decomposing and dying, not developing and growing.

It's still vague. A lot of things grow and develop, and you have yet to specify what is this "human way" that excludes gametes.

So - if humans DID reproduce parthenogentically (and it is 'possible'), then you are saying: no matter how many thousands of years this continued for, how many generations of parthenogenetic births.... they would not be people? (Because they wouldn't start with 'unique' DNA)... and are you ALSO saying that only the FIRST parthenogenetic reproducer would be 'mother'?

As I see it, parthenogenic reproduction produces a clone, yes? Then the woman who incubated the child is not the biological mother of that child. Merely the maternal mother. The biological mother would be the mother of the woman who was cloned.

It is life.
It is not a person.
Yes, it can be said that having an abortion is killing the fetus.

So far I've seen nothing that has produced any sway that the mothers life is not more important than a being not born yet with some points being raised for the third trimester.

If you would say life stops when the heart stops beating than one might say life starts when the heart comences its beating. If you made it illegal to abort a baby after the heart began to beat you would make all abortions done in america illegal. They are all done after the heart starts.

The phrase you end with "need an abortion" is rather haunting. No woman "needs" an abortion. And let's not forget the real victim the baby. As for cases of rape rape is a terrible thing. But killing a baby is that really going to fix that horror. As for financal problems more couples in america are looking for babies to adopt then are currently avalible that is why many adopt foriegn babies. Thru adoption a horrible tradjity could have a better ending as that young girl knows that she at least did the right thing and her child can have a better life.

Wrong. Some women do in fact medically need an abortion when the pregnancy endangers their life. Also, stop refering to embryos as babies, that's just emotional appeal.

-snip

I notice you carefully cut out my inquiry about my question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453400&page=12). If you're not going to answer it just admit it and don't keep avoiding the question.

Which means now we have to define "mother".

If a person gets a pacemaker implanted because their heart doesn't beat correctly by itself, yes, the machine becomes a part of the person. Regardless of whether it's temporary or not (they could be about to get a heart transplant).

It's still vague. A lot of things grow and develop, and you have yet to specify what is this "human way" that excludes gametes.

See post 2607

Ok here is my definiton of human for those who havent yet got it

1. An entity with distinctly homosapien DNA
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from its mother*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that the Homosapien DNA demands

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

If there is anything further I need to claify I will

That is your definition.

I find it unacceptable.

Why should we accept your bizarre collection of restrictions?

By your system of regulation, any 'human' thatproduces a child that does not RIGIDLY meet the convention (distinctly homosapien DNA) would be 'not human'. Thus - by your logic, the next evolutionary step would cease to be human. Also - one could argue Down's Syndrome babies are 'not human' by that description.

By your definition, human clones are ALSO not human - since they may not have HAD a 'fertilised egg', or may not have 'distinctly different DNA'.

Ignoring (AGAIN) the fact that an embryo CANNOT exist 'of itself'... i.e. it MUST have another organism to sustain it. Also - the embryo/foetus REQUIRES another 'thing'... (the placenta) to facilitate that interaction. Thus - a foetus is only HALF of the 'existent entity'.

Your fourth point is just as flawed, since homo sapien DNA can 'demand' many different things... most of which are abberations to the organism you require to meet rule 1.

Ok here is my definiton of human for those who havent yet got it

1. An entity with distinctly homosapien DNA
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from its mother*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that the Homosapien DNA demands

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

If there is anything further I need to claify I will

Your definition of human is worth exactly nothing times zero to the law. SOURCES! Medical, biology sources.

If you would say life stops when the heart stops beating than one might say life starts when the heart comences its beating. If you made it illegal to abort a baby after the heart began to beat you would make all abortions done in america illegal. They are all done after the heart starts.
No.
I don't even know what you just said, really.
But, no.
The idea is that the fetus is dependent on the mother and is part of her body. She has the choice to decide whether or not she can care for another life. If she cannot care for it, this world needs no more orphans and no more children being brought up in miserable conditions.

In the american system of law you always side with life that is to say you do not prove that it is life and only then do you protect it you protect it unless it can absolutly be proven that it is not life. And a baby with a heart a brain and even dreams (yes science has proven fetuses do dream when they sleep) is that proven non-life????

Source?

As I see it, parthenogenic reproduction produces a clone, yes? Then the woman who incubated the child is not the biological mother of that child. Merely the maternal mother. The biological mother would be the mother of the woman who was cloned.

Read what I wrote.

Then reply.

Forget your little assurances about what you think you know.

"So - if humans DID reproduce parthenogentically (and it is 'possible'), then you are saying: no matter how many thousands of years this continued for, how many generations of parthenogenetic births.... they would not be people? (Because they wouldn't start with 'unique' DNA)... and are you ALSO saying that only the FIRST parthenogenetic reproducer would be 'mother'?"

Note: we are talking about an infinite series, here. EVERY child born (would be a girl, obviously) would have the same non-unique DNA... since their 'mother' would be providing ALL the material.

By YOUR logic, those thousands of generations of girls are not 'human beings', yes?

Note 2: The parthenogenetic child would be created by a cell effectively providing ALL the material required (by some form of non-divisive duplication, yes?). Thus - the mother would yeild an 'egg', which would progress to blastocyst, embryo, foetus, baby... and so on - but there would be no outside interaction... no sperm, no surgery.

Thus - the 'mother' creates an effective duplicate of herself, as her own progeny. Are you still seriously saying that only the 'mother' of the FIRST parthenogenetic human, would be 'mother'?

As I see it, parthenogenic reproduction produces a clone, yes? Then the woman who incubated the child is not the biological mother of that child. Merely the maternal mother. The biological mother would be the mother of the woman who was cloned.

You should never kill some thing because you were not sure it was life. If you are going to kill ending a life you had better be damn sure it is not a human. This is not a subject for questions of theory or non positives. If it can't be proven with 100% certainty that this is NOT life then how could anyone kill it and say it is ok because it may not have been human?!?! If we can not all agree it isn't life than the only safe assumption is to treat it as life just in case. This is the basis of our judical system Protect life especially if it can't protect it self the weak and defenceless need our protetion the most!

By your system of regulation, any 'human' thatproduces a child that does not RIGIDLY meet the convention (distinctly homosapien DNA) would be 'not human'. Thus - by your logic, the next evolutionary step would cease to be human. Also - one could argue Down's Syndrome babies are 'not human' by that description.

Human's variate a great deal, but they can still be shown to be observably within a single speices. That is what species clasification is for. To take a group of animals which themsleves are varied but share enough simmilaries to warrant being a spieces


By your definition, human clones are ALSO not human - since they may not have HAD a 'fertilised egg', or may not have 'distinctly different DNA'.

The clone arguement has already been rebutted. Clones are included because they have distinctly diffrent DNA to the biological mother.


Ignoring (AGAIN) the fact that an embryo CANNOT exist 'of itself'... i.e. it MUST have another organism to sustain it. Also - the embryo/foetus REQUIRES another 'thing'... (the placenta) to facilitate that interaction. Thus - a foetus is only HALF of the 'existent entity'.

The embryo does not have to be indepent to be able to exist of itself. A parasite exists of itself but it still takes benefical nutrients etc from the host organism. By your logic parasites are not organisms when the have a host


Your fourth point is just as flawed, since homo sapien DNA can 'demand' many different things... most of which are abberations to the organism you require to meet rule 1.

The DNA provides the guidelines as to how the life form should develop

You should never kill some thing because you were not sure it was life. If you are going to kill ending a life you had better be damn sure it is not a human. This is not a subject for questions of theory or non positives. If it can't be proven with 100% certainty that this is NOT life then how could anyone kill it and say it is ok because it may not have been human?!?! If we can not all agree it isn't life than the only safe assumption is to treat it as life just in case. This is the basis of our judical system Protect life especially if it can't protect it self the weak and defenceless need our protetion the most!

You make a good point but how is it related to what I said about Pathogenic reporduction?

You should never kill some thing because you were not sure it was life. If you are going to kill ending a life you had better be damn sure it is not a human. This is not a subject for questions of theory or non positives. If it can't be proven with 100% certainty that this is NOT life then how could anyone kill it and say it is ok because it may not have been human?!?! If we can not all agree it isn't life than the only safe assumption is to treat it as life just in case. This is the basis of our judical system Protect life especially if it can't protect it self the weak and defenceless need our protetion the most!
You better get started on adopting those orphans, then.

No.
I don't even know what you just said, really.
But, no.
The idea is that the fetus is dependent on the mother and is part of her body. She has the choice to decide whether or not she can care for another life. If she cannot care for it, this world needs no more orphans and no more children being brought up in miserable conditions.

Well I know many orphans and adopted children who made something of their lives who would disagree with you.

Kinky huh?

Completely insane.

I agree with you it is a life that you are destroying that could have been something. The women had a choice before to either use protection or birth control pills. It is soley their own fault.

Note: we are talking about an infinite series, here. EVERY child born (would be a girl, obviously) would have the same non-unique DNA... since their 'mother' would be providing ALL the material.

By YOUR logic, those thousands of generations of girls are not 'human beings', yes?

Note 2: The parthenogenetic child would be created by a cell effectively providing ALL the material required (by some form of non-divisive duplication, yes?). Thus - the mother would yeild an 'egg', which would progress to blastocyst, embryo, foetus, baby... and so on - but there would be no outside interaction... no sperm, no surgery.

Thus - the 'mother' creates an effective duplicate of herself, as her own progeny. Are you still seriously saying that only the 'mother' of the FIRST parthenogenetic human, would be 'mother'?

No, they would all be humans because they all have diffrent DNA to the biological mother. In the case of parthongenic reprodcution the biological mother is the mother of the woman who has the baby who has been partogenicaly concieved child. The reason being that it is she who gave her half her DNA.

Source?

You be the source.
If I were to go hunting and acidentally shoot one of your loved ones. Tell me honestly would you be ok with that if I were to tell you that there was a chance that your loved one was a deer (I was not sure so I shot) Or would you be of the idea that I should have been 100% certain before I pulled the trigger.
I don't mean to offend you but I believe strongly in this

IVAN

Well I know many orphans and adopted children who made something of their lives who would disagree with you.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you actually think I have something against orphans? Did you get the point at all of what I was trying to say?

“The statistics may surprise you: Adoption is a $6.3 billion industry
that is unregulated. Since 1971, United States citizens have adopted
more than 265,000 children internationally. In 2001 alone, more than
19,000 children from other countries were adopted by U.S. citizens.
Orphanages are full in most countries, yet the welfare of these
orphaned and abandoned children is not the top priority in the current
system of adoption. The number of orphans worldwide is estimated at
more than 13 million.”

Source:

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:HfSEuWOK1zAC:www.theweekly.com/subs/overcoffee.html+%22number+of+orphans+worldwide%22+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

13 million orphans. I mean, maybe you like making orphans, I don't know. But usually being in an orphanage isn't as nice as being with a family.
Individual orphans, however, are usually sweet and kind, and if they steal anything it's usually due to Old Fagin teaching them tricks.

See earlier defintion of human

Which you pulled out of your @$$.

Self awareness is not a pre-requiste for existing. My ruler exists but it is not self aware. It is also not a pre-requiste for being human either

I do, but I dont legislate against it because that decision can be made in a vaccum with no one's rights being denied

But it does affect someone. It could create an embryo. You can't just ignore that.

The harm caused by a pregnacy to the woman is not justifcation enough to destroy the embryo

Says you, a person that can never suffer from pregnancy.

Yes. But also the Jazz band did not have the right to do it to you in the first place

Neither does the embryo. Show me where the law says that anyone has the right to inhabit a person's body.

so they are in the wrong (rape) but if they did it to you, you have to accept the consequences seeing as not doing so would kill him. However seing as this was done to you against your consent the government must do all it can to help you during this time

Yes, because you dont destroy humans to make yourself not empovierished

Your analogy is flawed because you are doing something positive to turn them into living sentient beings. A more accurate description is that you have a series of potatos that are developing into sentient beings and you use a laser on them that kills them. That is destorying them

The embryo can't turn into a sentient being without the woman's help, so his analogy was perfectly accurate.

That is not a comparable injury for what a mother goes through.

I would pay to see you give birth to a baby while saying that.

Like I said, it depends on which definiton of mother you would use. You would not be its bioloigical mother but you would be its maternal mother. Since biology is what I am discussing with my definiton I am using the biological use of the term mother.

Maternal mother. Hahaha...

As I see it, parthenogenic reproduction produces a clone, yes? Then the woman who incubated the child is not the biological mother of that child. Merely the maternal mother. The biological mother would be the mother of the woman who was cloned.

Oh my god, you said it again! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

If you would say life stops when the heart stops beating than one might say life starts when the heart comences its beating. If you made it illegal to abort a baby after the heart began to beat you would make all abortions done in america illegal. They are all done after the heart starts.

Source?

Just like to point out that this is already the 5th longest thread in General history.

See post 2607

I refuse to use the Avalonic term of "maternal mother". It's too ridiculous for words.

Just like to point out that this is already the 5th longest thread in General history.
It really could have been the shortest though.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you actually think I have something against orphans? Did you get the point at all of what I was trying to say?

“The statistics may surprise you: Adoption is a $6.3 billion industry
that is unregulated. Since 1971, United States citizens have adopted
more than 265,000 children internationally. In 2001 alone, more than
19,000 children from other countries were adopted by U.S. citizens.
Orphanages are full in most countries, yet the welfare of these
orphaned and abandoned children is not the top priority in the current
system of adoption. The number of orphans worldwide is estimated at
more than 13 million.”

Source:

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:HfSEuWOK1zAC:www.theweekly.com/subs/overcoffee.html+%22number+of+orphans+worldwide%22+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

13 million orphans. I mean, maybe you like making orphans, I don't know. But usually being in an orphanage isn't as nice as being with a family.
Individual orphans, however, are usually sweet and kind, and if they steal anything it's usually due to Old Fagin teaching them tricks.


I would rather be an orphan than be dead that was my piont I am not trying to insult your intellegence but if you are honestly telling me that we should kill unwanted babies because the world does not need them then I must reply to the contrary it is from among these very people that our world will be changed and who are we to decide which life is not worth living.

You should never kill some thing because you were not sure it was life. If you are going to kill ending a life you had better be damn sure it is not a human. This is not a subject for questions of theory or non positives. If it can't be proven with 100% certainty that this is NOT life then how could anyone kill it and say it is ok because it may not have been human?!?! If we can not all agree it isn't life than the only safe assumption is to treat it as life just in case. This is the basis of our judical system Protect life especially if it can't protect it self the weak and defenceless need our protetion the most!

Protect the woman, then. She's the one having her body invaded.

Your definition of human is worth exactly nothing times zero to the law. SOURCES! Medical, biology sources.

A medical defintion of a human is something with homosapien DNA

Part of the definition of being seperate from the mother is having unique DNA to it. If it has the same DNA as the biological mother it can be regarded as part of the mother. This can be seen not only in the case of humans, but in the case of mitocondria as well

The existence of separate mitochondrial DNA suggests that, at one point, mitochondria were separate entities from their current host cells

The clone arguement can be seen to be delt with here

...while it's true that replacing the egg nucleus with the DNA of the cloned person is the primary technique used to clone in the laboratory, this genetic transfer is not all that happens. As stated earlier, the cloner must next stimulate the genetically modified egg to grow in the same fashion as it would had it been fertilized. Thus, just as Dolly the cloned sheep is not its mother, so a cloned human embryo is not merely a somatic cell line derived from the person who was cloned; it is a separate and distinct living entity.

The clone arguement has already been rebutted. Clones are included because they have distinctly diffrent DNA to the biological mother.

It really, really hasn't been successfully rebutted.

I agree with you it is a life that you are destroying that could have been something. The women had a choice before to either use protection or birth control pills. It is soley their own fault.

And most of them did use birth control. Stop replying to 178 pages long threads after reading only the original post.

Protect the woman, then. She's the one having her body invaded.

Which woman? the one having the baby or the one who is the baby?
of the two who is more in need of protection(who is less able to protect themselves) Is it not possible to protect them both?

You be the source.
If I were to go hunting and acidentally shoot one of your loved ones. Tell me honestly would you be ok with that if I were to tell you that there was a chance that your loved one was a deer (I was not sure so I shot) Or would you be of the idea that I should have been 100% certain before I pulled the trigger.
I don't mean to offend you but I believe strongly in this

IVAN

I don't hunt. I was refering to how you keep stating things that supposedly everyone knows as if they were facts. You have to link to medical or biology sources to prove your point.

Just like to point out that this is already the 5th longest thread in General history.

LMAO! :D

It really could have been the shortest though.

It shouldn't be an issue at all.

A medical defintion of a human is something with homosapien DNA

Source?

Which woman? the one having the baby or the one who is the baby?
of the two who is more in need of protection(who is less able to protect themselves) Is it not possible to protect them both?

The one with the embryo inside has seniority. ;)

LMAO! :D

Scratch that, 4th. The Babe Thread got moved to Spam.

Which you pulled out of your @$$

No, I didnt. It consists of medical reasons which all make up a cohesive point. If I said what you just said about my arguments to some of your arguements, you would be less than impressed. As am I here.


But it does affect someone. It could create an embryo. You can't just ignore that.

The embryo does not yet exist. Thus I am not oblidged to consider its rights if it does not exist


Says you, a person that can never suffer from pregnancy.

The fact that I am a man has no bearing on my arguement. There is no level of pain that is enduced by something which is not killing you that justifiys killing it. For example, lets say you were under operation but something went wrong with the anistetic and you experianced a massive ammount of pain from the surgon clamping open your chest. Does that give you the right to kill him? No it doesnt.


Neither does the embryo. Show me where the law says that anyone has the right to inhabit a person's body.

By the fact that denying it that inhabitation is destroying it. It is not a direct right. It is indirect.


The embryo can't turn into a sentient being without the woman's help, so his analogy was perfectly accurate.

No it wasnt, because the action being decribed was not a negative one. He proposed that not doing a postive action is murder. Abortion is not failing to do a postive action. It is doing a negative one.

Source?

http://www.answers.com/topic/human-1?method=6

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Scratch that, 4th. The Babe Thread got moved to Spam.

How many more pages till it's first place??

I don't hunt. I was refering to how you keep stating things that supposedly everyone knows as if they were facts. You have to link to medical or biology sources to prove your point.

You are missing the point and didn't answer the question. Your silence however speaks volumes. It should be obvious in any court of law (or conversation around a dinner table for that matter) that it would not be acceptable for me to say because "I thought... I shot" If we are not sure (100% certain) that a fetus is not a life a human life then How can we say it is ok to kill it because it might not be human (it is no excuse for the man behind the trigger it ought not to be accepted from the man behind the scalpel) Doctors of all people should know better then that. They sign a hipokratic oath saying they will preserve life at all costs. that is what I meant.

IVAN

It really, really hasn't been successfully rebutted.

Yes it has. I have shown you a link explaining it. The biological mother of a clone is the same as the biological mother of the person being cloned, since they share the same DNA.

The one with the embryo inside has seniority. ;)

It is prefrable to allow both to exist if we can.

No, I didnt. It consists of medical reasons which all make up a cohesive point. If I said what you just said about my arguments to some of your arguements, you would be less than impressed. As am I here.

It's not a medical reason unless it comes from a medic. And I did pull my analogies out of my head. They're analogies, not definitions.

The embryo does not yet exist. Thus I am not oblidged to consider its rights if it does not exist

Exactly, it doesn't have rights.

The fact that I am a man has no bearing on my arguement. There is no level of pain that is enduced by something which is not killing you that justifiys killing it. For example, lets say you were under operation but something went wrong with the anistetic and you experianced a massive ammount of pain from the surgon clamping open your chest. Does that give you the right to kill him? No it doesnt.

You haven't been through much physical pain in your life, have you? 'Cause I've been through some pains that made me wish I was dead, or at least unconscious, and I know none of them were nearly as intense as labor.

By the fact that denying it that inhabitation is destroying it. It is not a direct right. It is indirect.

It's not a right at all. I don't have to take squatters.

No it wasnt, because the action being decribed was not a negative one. He proposed that not doing a postive action is murder. Abortion is not failing to do a postive action. It is doing a negative one.

It's interrupting a negative action (the embryo stealing nutrients from the woman).

http://www.answers.com/topic/human-1?method=6

Not a dictionary source, a medical or biological source. Otherwise I can prove that an embryo isn't human by showing that the words have different latin roots.

A medical defintion of a human is something with homosapien DNA
*Types with his humans*

See? Lookit! All of the little humans dancing about on the keyboard!

That isn't a medical definition and you know it.

A human is defined as a homo-sapient Person. Personhood is another questionable issue, but the commonly defined biological requirement of personhood in humans is the potential to, if completely unaided by other beings, maintain or develop consciousness, self awareness, control over one's actions and a sense biographic identity.

Part of the definition of being seperate from the mother is having unique DNA to it. If it has the same DNA as the biological mother it can be regarded as part of the mother. This can be seen not only in the case of humans, but in the case of mitocondria as well.
Incidentally, not everything that makes up a person has that person's DNA. Bacteria? Inorganic compounds?

You are missing the point and didn't answer the question. Your silence however speaks volumes. It should be obvious in any court of law (or conversation around a dinner table for that matter) that it would not be acceptable for me to say because "I thought... I shot" If we are not sure (100% certain) that a fetus is not a life a human life then How can we say it is ok to kill it because it might not be human (it is no excuse for the man behind the trigger it ought not to be accepted from the man behind the scalpel) Doctors of all people should know better then that. They sign a hipokratic oath saying they will preserve life at all costs. that is what I meant.

IVAN

And saying that a parasite might be human is no excuse to take away the woman's right to not be infested with parasites.

Exactly, it doesn't have rights.

Thats not what I said.


The embryo does not yet exist. Thus I am not oblidged to consider its rights if it does not exist

I said if the embryo does not exist it doesnt have rights


You haven't been through much physical pain in your life, have you? 'Cause I've been through some pains that made me wish I was dead, or at least unconscious, and I know none of them were nearly as intense as labor.

No, you have been through pains very severe. So severe that you wish they were gone. Seing as the only way to make them gone at that time, in your mind was for you to die, you are making the leep to assuming you wanted to die. You didnt want to die, you just didnt want to experiance the pain anymore.


It's not a right at all. I don't have to take squatters.

You do if as a result of those squatters being in your house if you evict them they will die.

The one with the embryo inside has seniority. ;)

According to the laws of humanity the one who is less able to protect him or her self is in most need of our protection. For example I am walking down a back street in New York I see 2 seperate muggings simultaneously I can only help one of these 2 people. Who do I help?

Person 1
A young woman age 15 who is in a wheel chair.
Or
Person 2
Lenox Lewis a heavy weight champion boxer

Please don't say it was more moral for me to help a man who could knock me out in one hit rather than helping a young lady in a wheel chair.

In same way it would be wrong to help a full grown woman at the cost of a baby who has no way to protect his or her self. Besides it is possible to help both the mother and the child.

IVAN

It is prefrable to allow both to exist if we can.

I agree. I'm all for allowing it. You, on the other hand, have been talking about dismissing women's rights. That I cannot on a sane conscience allow.

A human is defined as a homo-sapient Person. SNIP

That is only one part of the definition. If you see post 2607 there are other parts. It has to be a whole entity, IE not just part of another entity

How many more pages till it's first place??

First place is 5641, so you've still got a ways to go.

Third place is 3617.

No, you have been through pains very severe. So severe that you wish they were gone. Seing as the only way to make them gone at that time, in your mind was for you to die, you are making the leep to assuming you wanted to die. You didnt want to die, you just didnt want to experiance the pain anymore.

Same effect.

You do if as a result of those squatters being in your house if you evict them they will die.

Morally, maybe. But not legally.

And saying that a parasite might be human is no excuse to take away the woman's right to not be infested with parasites.

That would be a fair comparision if we did not have pretty definitive evidence that the baby will grow up to be a person just like the mother and a parisite will never be human. Don't lose track of the real issue. That baby was you at one point and me Thank God your and my mothers chose life.

IVAN

Not a dictionary source, a medical or biological source. Otherwise I can prove that an embryo isn't human by showing that the words have different latin roots.

Fair enough

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm

http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/Eukarya/Animalia/Chordata/Vertebrata/Mammalia/Primates/Hominidae/Homo/Sapiens/

Same effect.

No, diffrent. Because in those situations if I had given you a pill which would have taken away that pain you would want that instead of dieing.


Morally, maybe. But not legally.

Thus I am arguing for a change in the law. Furthermore if as a direct action of throwing them out you killed them (IE you intnetionally threw them onto a spike or something) it would be regared as killing.

According to the laws of humanity the one who is less able to protect him or her self is in most need of our protection.
Protection, yes. Medical treatment, not necessarily. The net goal of disaster management is to do a first assessment of how much good you can conceivably do with what you have. If you arrive alone on the scene of a helicopter crash and you notice a man with a large hole in his chest and a man missing a hand, you take very little time to realise the majority of your medical effort should be spent on the handless one, even if the other man is still alive and needs some emotional assistance. Both are in life-threatening danger, but one has clearly progressed too far for your efforts to be of much help in the current circumstances. If you were to focus on the one with a gaping chest, he'd probably die anyway, as would the other man due to easily preventable blood loss.

The thing is, the child is dependent on the mother. Anything the mother has to suffer will end up being reflected in her treatment of the child. Add to the fact that the child is less likely to survive than the parent on top of this and you have your solution to the medical dilemma. Unless you put the mother first, you're more likely to doom both of them.

I agree. I'm all for allowing it. You, on the other hand, have been talking about dismissing women's rights. That I cannot on a sane conscience allow.

If it is denying those rights in favour of them both existing then we should disallow those rights

That is only one part of the definition. If you see post 2607 there are other parts. It has to be a whole entity, IE not just part of another entity
A human can be so even if they have the same DNA as their mother as long as they are also a person in their own right.

And you know what? As much as your non-entity statement probably backs up the abortionist viewpoint, I can't agree with it. We're all part of other entities, even as humans. Pack behaviour. Community. Society. God. Infinately many possible entities exist above and including our own. That's what makes us spiritual.

That would be a fair comparision if we did not have pretty definitive evidence that the baby will grow up to be a person just like the mother and a parisite will never be human. Don't lose track of the real issue. That baby was you at one point and me Thank God your and my mothers chose life.

IVAN

Thank Goddess, yeah. What it will be doesn't change what it is. It's a parasite.

I would rather be an orphan than be dead that was my piont I am not trying to insult your intellegence but if you are honestly telling me that we should kill unwanted babies because the world does not need them then I must reply to the contrary it is from among these very people that our world will be changed and who are we to decide which life is not worth living.
They're not babies.
If you had been dead before you had been born you would have had no idea what hit you. You would have had no ideas at all.
I don't know what sort of world wide changes have occured from the inside of a mother's womb but when you come up with any, let me know.

Protection, yes. Medical treatment, not necessarily. The net goal of disaster management is to do a first assessment of how much good you can conceivably do with what you have. If you arrive alone on the scene of a helicopter crash and you notice a man with a large hole in his chest and a man missing a hand, you take very little time to realise the majority of your medical effort should be spent on the handless one, even if the other man is still alive and needs some emotional assistance. Both are in life-threatening danger, but one has clearly progressed too far for your efforts to be of much help in the current circumstances. If you were to focus on the one with a gaping chest, he'd probably die anyway, as would the other man due to easily preventable blood loss.

The thing is, the child is dependent on the mother. Anything the mother has to suffer will end up being reflected in her treatment of the child. Add to the fact that the child is less likely to survive than the parent on top of this and you have your solution to the medical dilemma. Unless you put the mother first, you're more likely to doom both of them.

You are missing the point I think. Unlike your comparision we are able to save the baby and help the mother. Unlike the chopper accident the baby will survive and we can help both. Murder is never the right answer the child did nothing wrong and yet we think it is ok to kill that child for what purpose protect the most in need.

Protection, yes. Medical treatment, not necessarily. The net goal of disaster management is to do a first assessment of how much good you can conceivably do with what you have. If you arrive alone on the scene of a helicopter crash and you notice a man with a large hole in his chest and a man missing a hand, you take very little time to realise the majority of your medical effort should be spent on the handless one, even if the other man is still alive and needs some emotional assistance. Both are in life-threatening danger, but one has clearly progressed too far for your efforts to be of much help in the current circumstances. If you were to focus on the one with a gaping chest, he'd probably die anyway, as would the other man due to easily preventable blood loss.

The thing is, the child is dependent on the mother. Anything the mother has to suffer will end up being reflected in her treatment of the child. Add to the fact that the child is less likely to survive than the parent on top of this and you have your solution to the medical dilemma. Unless you put the mother first, you're more likely to doom both of them.

You are missing the point I think. Unlike your comparision we are able to save the baby and help the mother. Unlike the chopper accident the baby will survive and we can help both. Murder is never the right answer the child did nothing wrong and yet we think it is ok to kill that child for what purpose protect the most in need.

Fair enough

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm

"Anatomically, modern humans can generally be characterized by the lighter build of their skeletons compared to earlier humans. Modern humans also have very large brains, which vary in size from population to population and between males and females, but the average is around 1300 cc."

Embryos aren't human beings.

http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/Eukarya/Animalia/Chordata/Vertebrata/Mammalia/Primates/Hominidae/Homo/Sapiens/

"Homo sapiens are characterized by bipedal posture, excellent eyesight, and a very large brain that allows for innovative thought and problem-solving capabilities. The head of a Homo sapiens is larger than other primates because the skull needs room to enclose this large brain. Humans also have a highly developed nervous system and strong senses. Especially important is depth perception (stereoscopic vision), made possible because their eyes are located near each other. Like other apes, humans have opposable thumbs and nails on their fingers, but they lack tails. The upper legs of a human have very strong muscles allowing it to stand upright. A curve in the spine near the lower back also allows upright posture because the center of gravity of a human is directly over the pelvis."

Embryos aren't human beings.

No, diffrent. Because in those situations if I had given you a pill which would have taken away that pain you would want that instead of dieing.



Thus I am arguing for a change in the law. Furthermore if as a direct action of throwing them out you killed them (IE you intnetionally threw them onto a spike or something) it would be regared as killing.

Then you got a whole lot of laws to change before you can get to abortion. You'll have to make all kinds of charity obligatory. Start crackin'.

Protection, yes. Medical treatment, not necessarily. The net goal of disaster management is to do a first assessment of how much good you can conceivably do with what you have. If you arrive alone on the scene of a helicopter crash and you notice a man with a large hole in his chest and a man missing a hand, you take very little time to realise the majority of your medical effort should be spent on the handless one, even if the other man is still alive and needs some emotional assistance. Both are in life-threatening danger, but one has clearly progressed too far for your efforts to be of much help in the current circumstances. If you were to focus on the one with a gaping chest, he'd probably die anyway, as would the other man due to easily preventable blood loss.

The thing is, the child is dependent on the mother. Anything the mother has to suffer will end up being reflected in her treatment of the child. Add to the fact that the child is less likely to survive than the parent on top of this and you have your solution to the medical dilemma. Unless you put the mother first, you're more likely to doom both of them.

Hear, hear.

If it is denying those rights in favour of them both existing then we should disallow those rights

We'll have to agree to disagree.

You are missing the point I think. Unlike your comparision we are able to save the baby and help the mother. Unlike the chopper accident the baby will survive and we can help both. Murder is never the right answer the child did nothing wrong and yet we think it is ok to kill that child for what purpose protect the most in need.

Murder is a legal term. Stop calling it child. It is a parasite of the human species. An embryo. Not a living, breathing, walking, playing, laughing child. Parasite != child.

Not a dictionary source, a medical or biological source. Otherwise I can prove that an embryo isn't human by showing that the words have different latin roots.

You know mate, we've been approaching this whole debate in the wrong way:

I hereby define 'Abortion' to mean 'giving food to starving children' and 'Abortion clinic' to mean 'a place where cute, fluffy kittens are looked after until they can be adopted.

Now, I defy anybody to argue that abortion is murder or that building abortion clinics is morally wrong.

See how easy it is to win a debate when you define all of the words?:p

Murder is a legal term. Stop calling it child. It is a parasite of the human species. An embryo. Not a living, breathing, walking, playing, laughing child. Parasite != child.

Actually I'm redefining 'murder' to mean 'saving people from burning buildings' and 'embryo' to mean 'small, bitter tasting cabbage, often grown in Austria-Hungary'.

If it's wanted, it's a child, a progeny, a baby and a blessing and privilege, an awesome celebration, an event that forever marks a happy occurrence in our lives that we will remember for the rest of our lives and fondly recall in the waning years of our existence as they again produce their own children, our grand-children and great grand-children and we then will 'remember when' and understand the significance of being…

However, if it's not wanted, apparently, it isn’t worth anything more than the road kill we see on the side of the street as we drive to the clinic...


Whose fault is it that it's not wanted? Apparently not being ‘wanted’ has the ability to change the very individual of a pre-born from ‘baby’ to ‘parasite.’

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Really? I've just defined 'disagree' to mean 'stripping naked, dipping one's genitals in turpentine and playing blackjack in the middle of a busy road'.

You know mate, we've been approaching this whole debate in the wrong way:

I hereby define 'Abortion' to mean 'giving food to starving children' and 'Abortion clinic' to mean 'a place where cute, fluffy kittens are looked after until they can be adopted.

Now, I defy anybody to argue that abortion is murder or that building abortion clinics is morally wrong.

See how easy it is to win a debate when you define all of the words?:p
Okay, easy.

Abortion is wrong because the food is poisoned. How dare you poison kids! You abortionist!

Not sure how to argue second one: I've never heard Abortion clinics in a debate.

If it's wanted, it's a child, a progeny, a baby and a blessing and privilege, an awesome celebration, an event that forever marks a happy occurrence in our lives that we will remember for the rest of our lives and fondly recall in the waning years of our existence as they again produce their own children, our grand-children and great grand-children and we then will 'remember when' and understand the significance of being…

However, if it's not wanted, apparently, it isn’t worth anything more than the road kill we see on the side of the street as we drive to the clinic...
Nice appeal to emotion there.

Okay, easy.

Abortion is wrong because the food is poisoned. How dare you poison kids! You abortionist!

Not sure how to argue second one: I've never heard Abortion clinics in a debate.

So you don't care about the poor fluffy kittens then?

Nice appeal to emotion there.

As IF the pro-choice side isn't entirely based on the appeal to emotion... But the baby isn't wanted, the mother can't have it, it will destroy everyone's lives, the needs of the other children MUST come first etc., etc., etc.

Get off your high horse and look back, you'll see it's just a wooden rocking horse after all and you just look silly.

As IF the pro-choice side isn't entirely based on the appeal to emotion... But the baby isn't wanted, the mother can't have it, it will destroy everyone's lives, the needs of the other children MUST come first etc., etc., etc.

Get off your high horse and look back, you'll see it's just a wooden rocking horse after all and you just look silly.

But if we redefine 'wooden' to mean 'golden' then you must admit that we've got a point.

You know mate, we've been approaching this whole debate in the wrong way:

I hereby define 'Abortion' to mean 'giving food to starving children' and 'Abortion clinic' to mean 'a place where cute, fluffy kittens are looked after until they can be adopted.

Now, I defy anybody to argue that abortion is murder or that building abortion clinics is morally wrong.

See how easy it is to win a debate when you define all of the words?:p

Cool! Solve the problem of abortion right and world hunger in one step! It's genius. :D

If it's wanted, it's a child, a progeny, a baby and a blessing and privilege, an awesome celebration, an event that forever marks a happy occurrence in our lives that we will remember for the rest of our lives and fondly recall in the waning years of our existence as they again produce their own children, our grand-children and great grand-children and we then will 'remember when' and understand the significance of being…

However, if it's not wanted, apparently, it isn’t worth anything more than the road kill we see on the side of the street as we drive to the clinic...


Whose fault is it that it's not wanted? Apparently not being ‘wanted’ has the ability to change the very individual of a pre-born from ‘baby’ to ‘parasite.’

Yep. Because words have connotations, so different words are appropriate in different situations.

Really? I've just defined 'disagree' to mean 'stripping naked, dipping one's genitals in turpentine and playing blackjack in the middle of a busy road'.

ROFL! You're killing me.

Cool! Solve the problem of abortion right and world hunger in one step! It's genius. :D
Are fetus's edible?:confused:

So you don't care about the poor fluffy kittens then?

Pro-lifers hate kittens. :(

As IF the pro-choice side isn't entirely based on the appeal to emotion... But the baby isn't wanted, the mother can't have it, it will destroy everyone's lives, the needs of the other children MUST come first etc., etc., etc.

Get off your high horse and look back, you'll see it's just a wooden rocking horse after all and you just look silly.

The rights of the woman MUST come first, yes.

Pro-lifers hate kittens. :(
Is that why radical ones blow them up?

"Anatomically, modern humans can generally be characterized by the lighter build of their skeletons compared to earlier humans. Modern humans also have very large brains, which vary in size from population to population and between males and females, but the average is around 1300 cc."

Embryos aren't human beings.

"Homo sapiens are characterized by bipedal posture, excellent eyesight, and a very large brain that allows for innovative thought and problem-solving capabilities. The head of a Homo sapiens is larger than other primates because the skull needs room to enclose this large brain. Humans also have a highly developed nervous system and strong senses. Especially important is depth perception (stereoscopic vision), made possible because their eyes are located near each other. Like other apes, humans have opposable thumbs and nails on their fingers, but they lack tails. The upper legs of a human have very strong muscles allowing it to stand upright. A curve in the spine near the lower back also allows upright posture because the center of gravity of a human is directly over the pelvis."

Embryos aren't human beings.

They are members of the Homo sapien race as charcterised by there DNA. The DNA of the homosapien develops these conditions. They are in the early stage of this development but that does not exclude their membership from the species. Speices is defined by the nature of the life form. And how is the nature of the life form defined. DNA.

Are fetus's edible?:confused:

People were exchanging recipes on another thread, so I'd yeah. It's meat, after all.

Is that why radical ones blow them up?

Yes. They're murderers of fluffy, innocent kitties. Evil bastards...

They are members of the Homo sapien race as charcterised by there DNA. The DNA of the homosapien develops these conditions. They are in the early stage of this development but that does not exclude their membership from the species. Speices is defined by the nature of the life form. And how is the nature of the life form defined. DNA.

Again, this is your word. Show me the source. I took direct quotations from your 2 previous sources and they clearly don't apply to embryos.

But if we redefine 'wooden' to mean 'golden' then you must admit that we've got a point.

:p ;)

Yep. Because words have connotations, so different words are appropriate in different situations.


A rose by any other name... is still a rose.

A rose by any other name... is still a rose.

Unless it is a duck, but that is another story...

A rose by any other name... is still a rose.

And poetry is all about connotation. Sweet, but my point stands.

Again, this is your word. Show me the source. I took direct quotations from your 2 previous sources and they clearly don't apply to embryos.

A human zygote is no less a unicellular organism than a paramecium. Simultaneously, a human zygote is no less a member of the species homo sapien than you are. Thus humans are capable of reproduction by mitosis, albeit only for a few seconds. This, of course, is how identical twins are formed. Also, individual cells of multicellular organisms replicate by mitosis


species, in biology, a category of classification, the original and still the basic unit in the demarcation of plant and animal types. The species marks the boundary between populations of organisms rather than between individuals. Because related species are not absolutely permanent (see evolution), a precise definition of the term is difficult. On the basis of genetics, scientists now include in a species all individuals that are potentially or actually capable of interbreeding and that share the same gene pool. The latter term refers to that collection of characteristics whose combination is unique in the species, although each individual of the group may not display every single one of the characteristics (see genetics). In the few cases where members of different species can interbreed, the offspring are usually sterile (e.g., the mule). Groups distinguished by lesser differences than those marking a species are called variously subspecies, varieties, races, or tribes.

Emphasis added.

Emphasis added.
So Bushmen are a seperate specioes. a Homo sapien that mates with them produces a sterile child.

So now we have two Human races?

So Bushmen are a seperate specioes. a Homo sapien that mates with them produces a sterile child.

So now we have two Human races?

Can you prove this.

Emphasis added.

Ignoring the geocities link, good, you found something to support that having human DNA is required to be considered part of the human species. But that can't be the only requirement, as it includes lots of other things that clearly aren't human beings. So a complete list of requirements would be nice.

Ignoring the geocities link, good, you found something to support that having human DNA is required to be considered part of the human species. But that can't be the only requirement, as it includes lots of other things that clearly aren't human beings. So a complete list of requirements would be nice.
I think you should get on the differences between a human and a person.

College Teacher at TCC Portsmouth said so. So I'd have to ask him where he got exact information.

But why don't you go mate with one and check till than :D (Jk because it would take a year to find out at least)

Ignoring the geocities link, good, you found something to support that having human DNA is required to be considered part of the human species. But that can't be the only requirement, as it includes lots of other things that clearly aren't human beings. So a complete list of requirements would be nice.

I have posted a list of the requirements

1. An entity with distinctly homosapien DNA
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from its mother*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that the Homosapien DNA makes it do so

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

I have posted a list of the requirements

1. An entity with distinctly homosapien DNA
2. An entity with DNA that is unique from its mother*
3. An entity that exists of itself (IE is not part of anothers body)
4. An entity that is growing and developing in the pattern that the Homosapien DNA makes it do so

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

And you gave me one valid source for the human DNA part. What about the rest? Sources, sources!

I think you should get on the differences between a human and a person.

Me? Why me?

Me? Why me?
You have more endurance for this type of thing than me.

You have more endurance for this type of thing than me.

Says who? I'm lazy. I'm taking the easiest possible argument because of how lazy I am.

I am pro-life. Personally, I see a human fetus as being human and for the following reasons; none of them religous:

1. The human fetus posesses human DNA. You posess human DNA. Ipso Facto.
2. It was concieved in a human womb by human sperm and human egg cells.
3. Once the cells divide enough, it looks human enough to me.
4. Life signs can be read early on; things like pulse, synapses, movement indicate life. Again development, but only a months worth.

But I digress, politcally I am pro-choice. The way I see it, I can't make anyone see it my way, so I must be accomodating. Not everyone sees it the way I do. Besides, better it done in a clean, sanitary medical facility than a filithy back alley. There's my logic.

I am pro-life. Personally, I see a human fetus as being human and for the following reasons; none of them religous:

1. The human fetus posesses human DNA. You posess human DNA. Ipso Facto.
2. It was concieved in a human womb by human sperm and human egg cells.
3. Once the cells divide enough, it looks human enough to me.
4. Life signs can be read early on; things like pulse, synapses, movement indicate life. Again development, but only a months worth.

But I digress, politcally I am pro-choice. The way I see it, I can't make anyone see it my way, so I must be accomodating. Not everyone sees it the way I do. Besides, better it done in a clean, sanitary medical facility than a filithy back alley. There's my logic.

I don't entirely agree with the reasons you gave for being pro-life, but as long as you're not pushing it to become The Law, I'm happy. Hi! :D

Says who? I'm lazy. I'm taking the easiest possible argument because of how lazy I am.
UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
don't make me do it....

UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
don't make me do it....

I won't. I'll leave you completely free to make the personal choice of doing it or not. :D

I don't entirely agree with the reasons you gave for being pro-life, but as long as you're not pushing it to become The Law, I'm happy. Hi!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To tell the truth I wasn't really expecting anyone to agree; so I'm cool. I think that we should roleplay (NationStates...not cyber. For all I know you're a scary old man) together; this may be the begining of a beautiful alliance.

I am pro-life. Personally, I see a human fetus as being human and for the following reasons; none of them religous:

1. The human fetus posesses human DNA. You posess human DNA. Ipso Facto.
2. It was concieved in a human womb by human sperm and human egg cells.
3. Once the cells divide enough, it looks human enough to me.
4. Life signs can be read early on; things like pulse, synapses, movement indicate life. Again development, but only a months worth.

But I digress, politcally I am pro-choice. The way I see it, I can't make anyone see it my way, so I must be accomodating. Not everyone sees it the way I do. Besides, better it done in a clean, sanitary medical facility than a filithy back alley. There's my logic.
I have a problem with that logic, as common and popular it is as it satisfies pro-choicers and makes one seem liberal. You can't be personally pro-life and socially pro-choice.

If you think the fetus is human but do not think it deserves legal status as a human, than you do not think all humans equally deserve the same legal status.

Consider this (granted I am paraphrasing but I don't think my wording is biased)

- I do not support/would never perform X, but I respect another's right to perform X.

I think most individuals who use this language don't consider it a universal maxim: If X = owning a black slave, decapitating the homeless, or assaulting random strangers, for instance, most people today would not believe this statement to be true. On the other hand, something like X = getting a tattoo, sleeping until noon, or owning jeans, fits more generally and would be agreed upon. The statement hinges on whether "X" should be done at all, and the extent to which the state should forbid/allow it. X = punching myself in the face, gambling all of my money away or remaining perpetually unemployed and the like, are actions one likely considers undesirable, harmful or silly, but should not considered illegal.

It boils down to whether you consider the fetus/embryo deserving of legal protection and status equal to that of someone who has been born. If you don't, you are not pro-life. "I am personally pro-life but support choice" is a pro-choice position that has nothing to do with being pro-life.

I don't entirely agree with the reasons you gave for being pro-life, but as long as you're not pushing it to become The Law, I'm happy. Hi!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To tell the truth I wasn't really expecting anyone to agree; so I'm cool. I think that we should roleplay (NationStates...not cyber. For all I know you're a scary old man) together; this may be the begining of a beautiful alliance.

An alliance! I like that. :D

Furthermore the way the body treats the embryo proves it is not an attack. If it were a biolgical agent, an infection or other injury the body would do its best to deal with it by destroying the embryo or expelling it as it does with other forigen bodies. The body clearly allows for it to exist. Thus it cannot be considered an attack.

Again, complete lack of understanding of biology. The only reason the mother's body does not attack the emrbyo is that the embryo (and moreso the placenta, once it is formed) gives off chemicals that prevent it from doing so. Interestingly enough, some bacteria do this as well. Anthrax is an example of a bacteria that gives off cytokines so that the body does not attack it at first. It is only when the anthrax have multiplied to the point that, even with their "blockers", the body cannot ignore them that the immune system begins to attack them.

I have a problem with that logic, as common and popular it is as it satisfies pro-choicers and makes one seem liberal. You can't be personally pro-life and socially pro-choice.

If you think the fetus is human but do not think it deserves legal status as a human, than you do not think all humans equally deserve the same legal status.

Consider this (granted I am paraphrasing but I don't think my wording is biased)

- I do not support/would never perform X, but I respect another's right to perform X.

I think most individuals who use this language don't consider it a universal maxim: If X = owning a black slave, decapitating the homeless, or assaulting random strangers, for instance, most people today would not believe this statement to be true. On the other hand, something like X = getting a tattoo, sleeping until noon, or owning jeans, fits more generally and would be agreed upon. The statement hinges on whether "X" should be done at all, and the extent to which the state should forbid/allow it. X = punching myself in the face, gambling all of my money away or remaining perpetually unemployed and the like, are actions one likely considers undesirable, harmful or silly, but should not considered illegal.

It boils down to whether you consider the fetus/embryo deserving of legal protection and status equal to that of someone who has been born. If you don't, you are not pro-life. "I am personally pro-life but support choice" is a pro-choice position that has nothing to do with being pro-life.

Is liberal a dirty word now?
I would not support/would not perform analingus but I respect another person's right to perform analingus.
What is your reasoning anyway? That if I somehow supported pro-life then I could no longer consider myself liberal?
As far as your last statement, yes. That is what pro-choice is all about. The arguments for pro-life hurt women and are based mostly on religious beliefs and the idea of a soul. You cannot prove your point using scientific evidence any more than I can prove my points to you. So unless you want to be grumpy about this for the rest of your life, run your life your way and I'll run my life mine.

Again, complete lack of understanding of biology. The only reason the mother's body does not attack the emrbyo is that the embryo (and moreso the placenta, once it is formed) gives off chemicals that prevent it from doing so. Interestingly enough, some bacteria do this as well. Anthrax is an example of a bacteria that gives off cytokines so that the body does not attack it at first. It is only when the anthrax have multiplied to the point that, even with their "blockers", the body cannot ignore them that the immune system begins to attack them.

OMG embryos are teh ev0l!! :eek:

I have said it now several times. Unique from the mothers DNA. If there is a process here where the fertalisation occurs without sperm and creates a clone of the woman then the mother of the clone would be the same as the mother of the woman being cloned.

You need to remember why you started making this argument in the first place, because you are severely losing it.

The reason you started saying, "Different DNA from the mother," is the fact that it was part of your "separate entity" argument. In this case, the mother is the person who is pregnant - the person carrying the embryo within their body. If an embryo with the exact same DNA as the pregnant woman is inside of her, the DNA is not different from the mother -the pregnant woman - the person who has to decide whether or not to abort.

Again you miss the point. If that is the case (clone) then the mother is not the woman who is incubating the baby but the person who created that sequence of DNA to begin with. The mother of the person being cloned.

*Mother is defined in this case as the female whose egg was fertialised to create that DNA

Ok, look. These two statements are clearly contradictory. And they are on the same exact page!

You really need to have a clear argument before you start to try.

As I see it, parthenogenic reproduction produces a clone, yes? Then the woman who incubated the child is not the biological mother of that child. Merely the maternal mother. The biological mother would be the mother of the woman who was cloned.

Surely you realize how illogical this is? The mother of the woman who was cloned has absolutely no input whatsoever into the clone. All of the genetic information comes directly from the woman being cloned. Thus, the only logical "mother" in this case is the woman being cloned.

If you would say life stops when the heart stops beating than one might say life starts when the heart comences its beating. If you made it illegal to abort a baby after the heart began to beat you would make all abortions done in america illegal. They are all done after the heart starts.

We don't say that life ends when the heart stops beating. We say that life ends when the person is brain-dead. A person can be dead (ie. brain-dead) but still have a beating heart. A person's heart can stop, but they can still be alive (unless it is never restarted).

Surely you realize how illogical this is? The mother of the woman who was cloned has absolutely no input whatsoever into the clone. All of the genetic information comes directly from the woman being cloned. Thus, the only logical "mother" in this case is the woman being cloned.



We don't say that life ends when the heart stops beating. We say that life ends when the person is brain-dead. A person can be dead (ie. brain-dead) but still have a beating heart. A person's heart can stop, but they can still be alive (unless it is never restarted).

I congratulate you on your stamina. <bows>

Yes it has. I have shown you a link explaining it.

Your link said that the cloned embryo is not a cell line, not that the woman being cloned is not the mother.

The biological mother of a clone is the same as the biological mother of the person being cloned, since they share the same DNA.

You realize what you just said, right? You just said, "This is true because my argument doesn't work otherwise."

According to the laws of humanity the one who is less able to protect him or her self is in most need of our protection. For example I am walking down a back street in New York I see 2 seperate muggings simultaneously I can only help one of these 2 people. Who do I help?

Person 1
A young woman age 15 who is in a wheel chair.
Or
Person 2
Lenox Lewis a heavy weight champion boxer

Please don't say it was more moral for me to help a man who could knock me out in one hit rather than helping a young lady in a wheel chair.

It doesn't really matter which is more moral. You are not legally required to help either of them. You could keep walking and, if you felt like it, call the police. No one is forcing you to help them, but you can if you want.

That would be a fair comparision if we did not have pretty definitive evidence that the baby will grow up to be a person just like the mother and a parisite will never be human. Don't lose track of the real issue. That baby was you at one point and me Thank God your and my mothers chose life.

Actually, every human being exists as a parasite at one time. Thus, a parasite can be grow up to be a person - it happens every time a human being is born.

Whose fault is it that it's not wanted? Apparently not being ‘wanted’ has the ability to change the very individual of a pre-born from ‘baby’ to ‘parasite.’

Actually, it's a parasite whether it is wanted or not. It lives within a host (the mother) and derives all nourishment from her, excretes wastes into her, etc.

However, if the woman is willing to continue the pregnancy, she is willing to provide that nourishment, get rid of those wastes (other than the urine that goes into the amniotic fluid and doesn't come out until birth), and bear the physical consequences associated with pregnancy.

Originally Posted by http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler/reproduction.html
A human zygote is no less a unicellular organism than a paramecium. Simultaneously, a human zygote is no less a member of the species homo sapien than you are. Thus humans are capable of reproduction by mitosis, albeit only for a few seconds. This, of course, is how identical twins are formed. Also, individual cells of multicellular organisms replicate by mitosis

Hmm, apparently your source is not aware that all twinning does not occur by mitosis. Twinning can occur up to day 12. (It can actually occur after day 12, but conjoined tiwns then usually occur).

And if your source is not aware that twins do not always (or even usually) occur by mitosis, what else is it unaware of?

I have a problem with that logic, as common and popular it is as it satisfies pro-choicers and makes one seem liberal. You can't be personally pro-life and socially pro-choice.

Yes, actually, you can. Many, many pro-choice people are, for a variety of reasons.

If you think the fetus is human but do not think it deserves legal status as a human, than you do not think all humans equally deserve the same legal status.

Nobody thinks that all humans deserve the same legal status. After all, we don't allow infants to vote. We don't pay out social security to 20-somethings. We don't let you drink before 21. Minors are charged with crimes differently, if at all. And so on....

And then there is the fact that one can believe that something is a human person, but not be able to objectively prove it. For instance, if one believes that a human person is a being with human DNA that has a soul, one may believe that the embryo/fetus is a human person. However, the existence of the soul, much less when it is formed, is completely faith-based. Thus, one cannot empirically prove it to others and thus has no basis with which to legislate it....

And then there is the fact that one does not have to think that the embryo/fetus is a human person to be anti-abortion. One can attach a value to its potential.

I congratulate you on your stamina. <bows>

Stamina? I like that! Thanks!

((Most people would call it stubborness)) =)

Stamina? I like that! Thanks!

((Most people would call it stubborness)) =)

That too. But stubborness/stamina/perseverance is the only way to "win" this thread, it seems. The pro-lifers won't concede, so the team with the last word gets the prize.