NationStates Jolt Archive

Now people disagree on when an unborn child becomes life, but they all share one opinion - it's not a life until after fertilisation.

We could, after all, rescue unfertilised ova and sperm for later fertilisation, and they would become children, yet we don't, and no-one has a problem with this.

I'm not sure how fertilisation (or passing a certain amount of time in gestation) can make something more or less a potential child.

Yay! Biology class!

oh geez... i'm a mass murderer then.

Even if an ejaculation does fertilise an ovum, that is only one sperm that gets used. Millions of "potential children" are lost.

Now people disagree on when an unborn child becomes life, but they all share one opinion - it's not a life until after fertilisation.

We could, after all, rescue unfertilised ova and sperm for later fertilisation, and they would become children, yet we don't, and no-one has a problem with this.

I'm not sure how fertilisation (or passing a certain amount of time in gestation) can make something more or less a potential child.


*shurgs* Welcome to the crux of the abortion/birth control debate. Some people take one extreme and say that life begins at conception/ferilization/whatever; others take the position that life doesn't really begin until the fetus is actually born. Kind of a moot point, though, as neither side is interested in a discussion, only a shrill screaming match to see who believes strongly enough to fend off boredom and outlast their opponent.

The discussion bores me. The concept bores me. The constant trolling to whip up a fight about it in every public forum on earth annoys me.

I'm not sure how fertilisation (or passing a certain amount of time in gestation) can make something more or less a potential child.

I'm not sure how passing from inside the womb to outside can make something more or less of a human being either. We have to draw the line somewhere, and it doesn't seem like conception is a bad spot.

My bedroom is more than a crime scene...it's the sight of nightly genocide!

Even if an ejaculation does fertilise an ovum, that is only one sperm that gets used. Millions of "potential children" are lost.
And millions more after that - I think something like 50% of fertilized eggs fail to go to full term, but most of these natural abortions occur very early, before the woman is aware she's pregnant.

If abortion of any potential human being is murder, then nature/god is the biggest murderer of them all!

Now people disagree on when an unborn child becomes life, but they all share one opinion - it's not a life until after fertilisation.

Bull. A sperm is life, just like the cells in your body are life. What people are arguing about is when an embryo/foetus/child becomes life worth respecting. There are 4 main positions on this:

1. At the moment of conception. Main arguments for this view are the theory that the soul then enters the body, and that it is the minimal thing one could consider calling "human". Both arguments are of course hotly debated.

2. At the moment it develops a neural net, and can therefor experience things. This view often centers around the argument that you can only be said to hurt something if the victim loses something through the hurting action. If something can experience nothing, and one does not consider a chance of a life as such as something which is by definition positive (which it isn't - imagine life in pain 24/7 due to a genetic defect for instance) killing it causes no loss from the foetus "point of view". This view is of course hotly debated also, especially by religious people.

3. At the first heartbeat. A rather random choice, but romantic and appealing. And of course the foetus would be quite well developed by then. Not really taken seriously though.

4. When it is capable of surviving outside the mothers body. Arguments are obvious.

Bull. A sperm is life, just like the cells in your body are life. What people are arguing about is when an embryo/foetus/child becomes life worth respecting.
Actually, that's not really what people are arguing either...because there are plenty of living, breathing, human adults that I don't believe are worth respecting, but that does not mean I condone killing them...while I'm a little more liberal on the abortion end of the stick.

That post about being a mass murder reminds me of that song from Monty Python's Meaning Of Life.

"Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate"

oh geez... i'm a mass murderer then.
It's ok, I commited genocide against my own kids yesterday...

oh geez... i'm a mass murderer then.
It's ok, I commited genocide against my own kids yesterday...

oh geez... i'm a mass murderer then.
It's ok, I commited genocide against my own kids yesterday...

oh geez... i'm a mass murderer then.
It's ok, I commited genocide against my own kids yesterday...

I think we got in your first post, rotovia

I'm not sure how passing from inside the womb to outside can make something more or less of a human being either. We have to draw the line somewhere, and it doesn't seem like conception is a bad spot.

Draw the line for what? What does it matter what it is before it's born, when the only person it's of any social significance to is it's mother?

Draw the line for what? What does it matter what it is before it's born, when the only person it's of any social significance to is it's mother?

Surely the unborn baby is socially significant to the father, the grandparents, etc...

Eh, if it respirates, digests like a human, makes expressions like a human, sucks its thumb like a human, smiles like a human… I reckon it's probably a living human. Haven't seen too many corpses that can do that.

O'course, a law against abortion is not going to be put in place in many democracies in the near future… but freedom is slavery, and mob rule is a sham. Sorry, am in cynical mode today.

Now people disagree on when an unborn child becomes life, but they all share one opinion - it's not a life until after fertilisation.

We could, after all, rescue unfertilised ova and sperm for later fertilisation, and they would become children, yet we don't, and no-one has a problem with this.

I'm not sure how fertilisation (or passing a certain amount of time in gestation) can make something more or less a potential child.
Choosing conception as the moment "personhood" begins is nothing more or less than an outgrowth of a system designed to devalue female human beings. See, conception is the point at which the man's contribution is made, when the sperm fuses with the egg and donates its genetic material. However, a human child is the product of a female body, and is built over a series of months through the labor of her organs, tissues, and energy.

Claiming that a person exists at conception is a neat way of robbing the woman of all credit...sort of like claiming that packet of seeds is a harvested crop, in order to avoid giving any credit to the farmer who labored for a season to grow the produce.

Biology is not equal. Sorry, lads. The male body contributes less than half of the seed (male gametes being significantly smaller than female gametes), while the woman contributes most of the seed, the field, the water, the sunlight, the fertilizer, the farmer, and all the various husbandry and skill needed to grow the crop. Claiming that the crops are grown the moment you're done sprinkling a couple of seeds is not just arrogant...it's bloody silly! :)

Eh, if it respirates, digests like a human, makes expressions like a human, sucks its thumb like a human, smiles like a human… I reckon it's probably a living human. Haven't seen too many corpses that can do that.
I've seen lemurs that do. Guess we'd better start a Lemur Suffrage Movement, ASAP!

Bull. A sperm is life, just like the cells in your body are life. What people are arguing about is when an embryo/foetus/child becomes life worth respecting. There are 4 main positions on this:

1. At the moment of conception. Main arguments for this view are the theory that the soul then enters the body, and that it is the minimal thing one could consider calling "human". Both arguments are of course hotly debated.

I don't think many people try and place it at conception, although some do. There are quite a few who try and place it at fertilization, which many people think happens immediately at fertilization. The truth is that the embryo may not implant in the uterus (conception) for up to 2 weeks after fertilization.

3. At the first heartbeat. A rather random choice, but romantic and appealing. And of course the foetus would be quite well developed by then. Not really taken seriously though.

Actually, there is no fetus at all at this point. The heartbeat begins at ~ week 3, and the embryo does not develop into a fetus until week 8. The heart is the first working organ to form.

I would add to your list that some people believe in kind of a sliding scale of respect for the developing embryo/fetus. This is evident in our laws, as the restrictions placed on abortion ramp up with increasing development.

Eh, if it respirates, digests like a human, makes expressions like a human, sucks its thumb like a human, smiles like a human… I reckon it's probably a living human. Haven't seen too many corpses that can do that.

Respirates like a human? So it has to be out of the womb to be alive?

As for everything else you listed, you're looking at no earlier than 8-10 weeks. Does that mean you are ok with all of the 60% or so of abortions that occur before then?

Surely the unborn baby is socially significant to the father, the grandparents, etc...

How could it be? No one but the mother is capable of forming any real relationship to the fetus. Any bond they claimed to have to it would be purely mental and one-sided, which doesn't fit into a social framework.

I've seen lemurs that do. Guess we'd better start a Lemur Suffrage Movement, ASAP! I'm a little hazy on animal rights laws, but as far as I know, one cannot arbitrarily kill a lemur, nor can one practise cruelty to animals.
There's also the fact that humans tend to have more rights within the law than lemurs.
Respirates like a human? So it has to be out of the womb to be alive?

As for everything else you listed, you're looking at no earlier than 8-10 weeks. Does that mean you are ok with all of the 60% or so of abortions that occur before then? No, I'm not okay with them. I was providing reasoning why late abortions were wrong, not early abortions - which I am not okay with either, but let's face facts, it's a lot harder to argue against them.

Respiration is not just the act of breathing, but what happens inside the body. Plenty of mature adults respirate without breathing in - usually temporarily due to injuries or biological problems (ie in hospitals), but they're not "less alive".

EDIT: They also have human DNA, making them part of the human species. Human rights are supposed to apply to humans.

I'm a little hazy on animal rights laws, but as far as I know, one cannot arbitrarily kill a lemur, nor can one practise cruelty to animals.
There's also the fact that humans tend to have more rights within the law than lemurs.
But you said, "if it respirates, digests like a human, makes expressions like a human, sucks its thumb like a human, smiles like a human… I reckon it's probably a living human." Pretty much all primates do these things. Why, then, are you content with laws that do not recognize the humanity of these living beings?

But you said, "if it respirates, digests like a human, makes expressions like a human, sucks its thumb like a human, smiles like a human… I reckon it's probably a living human." Pretty much all primates do these things. Why, then, are you content with laws that do not recognize the humanity of these living beings? First of all, those animals don't do those things like a human does. A fœtus is recognisably human (NOT an embryo). If it respirates, digests like a monkey, makes expressions like a monkey (not that monkeys do that much), sucks its thumb like a monkey… I reckon it's probably a living monkey.
I neglected to mention that the fœtus is part of the human species. Primates are not.

No, I'm not okay with them. I was providing reasoning why late abortions were wrong, not early abortions - which I am not okay with either, but let's face facts, it's a lot harder to argue against them.

You very rarely, if ever, need an argument against late-term abortion, as most people don't agree with them except in the case of the life of the mother being in danger/other medical reasons/etc.

Respiration is not just the act of breathing, but what happens inside the body.

Ok, you were talking about cellular respiration then. Cool.

EDIT: They also have human DNA, making them part of the human species. Human rights are supposed to apply to humans.

You have to be careful with this one. My feces have human DNA, as does my hair when it falls out, but neither would be considered members of the human species.

You very rarely, if ever, need an argument against late-term abortion, as most people don't agree with them except in the case of the life of the mother being in danger/other medical reasons/etc. News to me.
You have to be careful with this one. My feces have human DNA, as does my hair when it falls out, but neither would be considered members of the human species. True, but they don't display any of the characteristics that life has - whatever that weird acronym is… movement, respiration, reproduction, nutrition, etc. Empirically, it is apparent that they are not part of the human race. DNA alone is not proof of belonging to the human race.

You have to be careful with this one. My feces have human DNA, as does my hair when it falls out, but neither would be considered members of the human species.
I don't know...
There are quite a few members of the human species I know who would consider other members of the human species to be pieces of feces. :p

News to me.

I've met one - count them - one person who approves of abortion throughout pregnancy. The vast majority do not. Most people seem to agree with a sliding degree of restriction as development occurs, such that, say, third-trimester abortions would only be accessible in the case of medical necessity.

True, but they don't display any of the characteristics that life has

This is just the problem. Displaying *any* characteristics isn't enough. In order to be considered a life, all of the characteristics must be displayed. Feces and hair can both involve living cells, as does an embryo, but none of them display *all* of the characteristics.

If you go by those, then an embryo is not a life either, although a fetus is.

Now people disagree on when an unborn child becomes life, but they all share one opinion - it's not a life until after fertilisation.

We could, after all, rescue unfertilised ova and sperm for later fertilisation, and they would become children, yet we don't, and no-one has a problem with this.

I'm not sure how fertilisation (or passing a certain amount of time in gestation) can make something more or less a potential child.

What's your point? You need a sperm and an egg to form life. Basic biology. Seperate they will not form a person.

This is just the problem. Displaying *any* characteristics isn't enough. In order to be considered a life, all of the characteristics must be displayed. Feces and hair can both involve living cells, as does an embryo, but none of them display *all* of the characteristics.

If you go by those, then an embryo is not a life either, although a fetus is. I'm sorry to trot out the old canard, but if all of the characteristics are required, then neither the mule nor the liger are alive. Unless it is the potential for having these characteristics, in which case an embryo has the potential for even reproduction, as it is set to grow that way.

I'm sorry to trot out the old canard, but if all of the characteristics are required, then neither the mule nor the liger are alive. Unless it is the potential for having these characteristics, in which case an embryo has the potential for even reproduction, as it is set to grow that way.

(a) Most of the time, the reproduction criterion is applied to species, not to individual organisms.

(b) Neither mules nor ligers (except for the rare few that are not sterile) have the potential for reproduction, so you point means nothing.

(c) If all you need is the potential to meet the definition of a word, then a child is an adult, an adult is a senior, and we are all dead.

(d) If you don't like the criteria currently applied to life, then create your own. Just be sure that they apply to all things that are living organisms, and don't apply to things that aren't.

Biology is not equal. Sorry, lads. The male body contributes less than half of the seed (male gametes being significantly smaller than female gametes), while the woman contributes most of the seed, the field, the water, the sunlight, the fertilizer, the farmer, and all the various husbandry and skill needed to grow the crop. Claiming that the crops are grown the moment you're done sprinkling a couple of seeds is not just arrogant...it's bloody silly! :)
The size of the gamete is irrelevant - the number of chromosomes given by each parent is identical. The reason for choosing conception as the point at which a human life begins is that that is the point at which the strands of DNA from each parent pair up and create the genetic pattern of a unique individual.

really in my view your only a person when your able to survive without machines helping you when your born if its not possible for you to survive without them then you shouldn't be artificially kept alive

The size of the gamete is irrelevant - the number of chromosomes given by each parent is identical. The reason for choosing conception as the point at which a human life begins is that that is the point at which the strands of DNA from each parent pair up and create the genetic pattern of a unique individual.

Actually, the mother provides the mitochondrial DNA, a plasmid DNA that could be labeled as a "chromosome". She provides more genetic material, as well as the organelles that will actually fuel the metabolism of the zygote (mitochondria).

I don't know what you learned in biology, but there is more to a cell (and thus a zygote) than chromosomes.

You need a sperm and an egg to form life. Basic biology. Seperate they will not form a person.

Nor will they form a person if they do not implant in the uterine lining. You can fertilize all the eggs you want - if they don't implant, no baby results.