NationStates Jolt Archive

No - quite the contrary.

What is being shown is that the 'argument from potential' is a plea to 'special exception'... and insupportable in any circumstance except (you argue) this one.

Which this one? Bank example or baby example? I'm sure you can think countless such examples anyways. More global example, global warming. We are urged to change our policies based on what might happen in *future*.

Strangely, many people might feel the same about your political/religious bias, when it comes to THEIR right to abortion, no?

Strangely, many people might feel the same about your political/religious bias, when it comes to BABIES' rights to survive, no?

Strangely, many people might feel the same about your political/religious bias, when it comes to BABIES' rights to survive, no?

Wait, so a fetus is now a baby? Sorry, I mean a BABY?

For those who oppose both the death penalty and abortion, I suppose you've never met someone whose mother tried a DIY abortion. I have. And after the baby was born, deformed and brain damaged from the poisons her mother ingested, her mother tried to kill her again. And again. Despite this, the child grew up. When I met her, she was a young adult, and had 3-5 more years to live before her heart would finally give out. She was mentally and physically disabled, but smart enough to understand what her mother had done and why. Most painfully, she also understood why people avoided looking at her. But she forgave her mother and didn't blame her for her condition. She blamed abortion being illegal.
Even an idiot can see that making abortion illegal results in tragedy.

Because some 'members of humanity' are not using 'appeals to emotion' as the sole basis of their argument?

hmm

Wait, so a fetus is now a baby? Sorry, I mean a BABY?

Fundies have the power to change words :p

How can I? Your argument is flawed from conception.

you have yet to demonstrate how. everything in my scenario is both physically and logically possible. if i was evil, i could actually cause this experiment to happen to you in real life. the mere fact that a situation is unlikely cannot get you off the hook. it's typically in unlikely scenarios that we can best discover some facts about our philosophical claims or moral intuitions that are not obvious and are actually among the most important. that is just how the game is played.

But, as you insist, I would go after the kindergartener. Especially considering that the blastocysts will not grow into human beings (being in a petri dish and all).

i thought i'd mentioned already that the blastocysts are all set to be implanted and will be if rescued. well, i have now.

still going with the actual person, right?

Thats more Dawinian theory, IE that to survive is to reproduce.

agreed. abortion slows down evolution.

agreed. abortion slows down evolution.

no it doesn't

no it doesn't

there is no point saying that it doesnt. because it does. i have studied evolution and i can tell that not having children slow downs evolution. if say it doesnt again, you are being too much of a troll.

Thats more Dawinian theory, IE that to survive is to reproduce.

You can't extrapolate a philosophical doctrine from a scientific theory.

there is no point saying that it doesnt. because it does. i have studied evolution and i can tell that not having children slow downs evolution. if say it doesnt again, you are being too much of a troll.

No it doesn't, clearly you should study more. If anything, abortion would speed up evolution as it would introduce selection pressure at the cost of genetic diversity.

No it doesn't, clearly you should study more. If anything, abortion would speed up evolution as it would introduce selection pressure at the cost of genetic diversity.

mechanically oppose to naturally removing the weak would be social darwinism, which was something he himself was against. hitler was infavour though.

there is no point saying that it doesnt. because it does. i have studied evolution and i can tell that not having children slow downs evolution. if say it doesnt again, you are being too much of a troll.

apparently you need a bit of a refresher course on the subject. your claim doesn't even make sense - how could abortion 'slow down evolution'? are you thinking that larger populations make for faster changes in allele frequencies over time?

mechanically oppose to naturally removing the weak would be social darwinism, which was something he himself was against. hitler was infavour though.

So, rather than admitting that you were wrong and don't understand evolution you compare me to a Nazi eugenicist? Come back when you've got an argument. :rolleyes:

apparently you need a bit of a refresher course on the subject. your claim doesn't even make sense - how could abortion 'slow down evolution'? are you thinking that larger populations make for faster changes in allele frequencies over time?

Exactly. Smaller populations tend to change faster because new genes are more likely to spread to every member of the population and become 'fixed'.

Exactly. Smaller populations tend to change faster because new genes are more likely to spread to every member of the population and become 'fixed'.

yup. though having the large population size first allows you to build up some useful levels of genetic diversity for evolution to work with. and if it gets too small, then the population might just go extinct entirely.

for our friend gorias' benefit, these are the conditions that must be met to really prevent evolution:

1. no mutation
2. no selection
3. no migration
4. (effectively) infinitely large population
5. random mating
6. everybody reproduces
7. everybody has equal number of offspring

i'm interested to hear how some people having abortions satisfies any of them. it looks to me like it explicitly violates at least 2 or 3 of them.

people frequently say "cannot do this", when they mean "you cannot do this and be in the right". i am well aware that at times a minority has dictated over a majority. would you agree they should not? or does voting mean nothing to you?

Indeed, voting DOES mean nothing to me, in any system that does not allow Proportional Representation.

again i am not cancer. i'm only concernd humans and living human cells that eventually become human.

And a foetus is not 'a human', and a foetus that is aborted is not 'human cells that eventually become a human'.

people do give thier lives to save others. there are at least a few people in the world that are not selfish.

You didn't answer the question.

Your flippant pretense that you would die for another fails to impress.

I have been shot at. I have known what it feels like to be on that dividing line - maybe I'll live, maybe I won't.

Unless you also have, please avoid making stupid statements about what you might 'die for'.

I'll not be lectured on being civilized by someone who considers unborn children non-Human Parasites. Doesn't a Parasite by definition have to be from a different species than the creature to which it is attached?

No.

So - like it or not, you WILL be lectured.

Of course, you misrepresent my arguments - I didn't sy a foetus was a non-human parasite... but it IS a parasite, and it is NOT synonymous with 'a human life'.

I personally don't care if its human or not. If situation came up I'd kill it. Not murder it. I believe that it is a justified killing, similar to self defence.

And before anyone says so, Sperm and Ovaries cannot become humans without being combined; If you leave them alone they wont grow into babies, an embryo will.

Actually, if you 'leave an embryo alone', it will denature fairly rapidly. Indeed, they can ONLY survive by NOT being 'left alone'... that's the point of the debate.

par‧a‧site  /ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-sahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite)

Are you saying a Human Fetus is a member of another species?


No. Amd the definition you show is one of very few that would suggest that the species MUST be different... I wonder if you trimmed off other numbers from the same reference, that said something else?

Well - what do you know? Checking your source, you quote one of three references only... and that's just from one text.

You totally ignore other texts it cites, including one that says:

"an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism".

I find that kind of evasion pretty close to dishonesty, my friend.


There is plenty of precedence both in America and Europe, because before the last century it was criminal to give or receive abortions.


That doesn't matter, because we are not talking about the laws of America or Europe before the last century, because we don't LIVE in America or Europe before the last century.


As for establishing whether or not it is a human life, you can't any easier establish that it is not a human life, and since we are potentially dealing with a human life, better not to take chances, no?


No. Unless you use the same argument from potential to justify burying people that are not dead, because they 'potentially' will be.


Evidently, yes, yes I could.


And you aim to prove it?


Appeals to emotion like talking about their College roommate's friend who hung herself because she had a baby?

I cited an example that contradicted another example. I didn't say anything should or shouldn't be allowed on the basis of that example - I merely showed that the other posters 'testimony' was only one side of the debate.

I think its pretty cold to settle the debate over abortion based on whether or not its eugenically beneficial. As to the argument about "when life starts", it seems sort of ridiculous to set a date (or trimester) as the time when a fetus suddenly becomes a living thing, as from conception it is constantly developing into a human. If you look at it that way, then the fetus is always a person as, assuming that it continues living, it is going to become a fully developed human, and as (almost) no one believes abortion is right in the very late stages of pregnancy, then everyone must see the potential for person hood as sufficient for possessing the right to life, which would also be why we don't bury people alive (see above post) as it would kill them. Also, in response to the organ transplant argument on the 1st page, refusing to give someone your kidneys is not the same as having an abortion as not saving someones life when they're dying for reasons other than you is different than killing them.

If any of these arguments have been stated before then I apologize as I didn't read all 35 pages of this, but I'd still appreciate it if my argument wasn't criticised based solely on this fact

He is still punished; the degree of punishment is what varies according to the judges and the husband. Thus, there is still sin in abortion--the degree of a penance is to be determined by the judges and with the consent of the husband.

Not at all - quote the reference in context or don't cite it.

He shall be punished... "according as the woman's husband will lay upon him".

Thus, if the husband says 'no punishment', there is no transgression.

And, of course, if there IS no husband...

Impossible in humans.

So is flight... yet we do it - with science.

(Plus, of course, the religious might argue that, with God, ALL things are possible... I don't need that religious angel - I feel safe enough saying that 'hasn't happened YET' is not equal to 'can't happen'.)

Strangely, many people might feel the same about your political/religious bias, when it comes to BABIES' rights to survive, no?

I have no 'political or religious bias' on the issue. I approach the issue entirely pragmatically.

I don't want people telling me what can happen in MY body, so I don't think I should try to impose my will on someone else in that way.

Plus - of course - a foetus is not a baby.

Plus, of course - a foetus HAS no rights... to survive, or otherwise.

there is no point saying that it doesnt. because it does. i have studied evolution and i can tell that not having children slow downs evolution. if say it doesnt again, you are being too much of a troll.

And if you say it does again....

As to the argument about "when life starts", it seems sort of ridiculous to set a date (or trimester) as the time when a fetus suddenly becomes a living thing, as from conception it is constantly developing into a human. If you look at it that way, then the fetus is always a person as, assuming that it continues living, it is going to become a fully developed human, and as (almost) no one believes abortion is right in the very late stages of pregnancy, then everyone must see the potential for person hood as sufficient for possessing the right to life,

Everyone alive is developing towards becoming an old age pensioner and so they are a potential OAP. If we shouldn't draw an arbitrary date when one becomes a pensioner, does that mean that everyone should be allowed to draw a pension regardless of age?

which would also be why we don't bury people alive (see above post) as it would kill them.

Actually if we're working on potential then we should bury people alive; everyone's potentially dead you see. Personally I think arguments from potential are silly, so I don't have to deal with this problem; you, on the other hand, believe that potential=actuality so I'd be interested to know why you don't advocate live burial.

As to the argument about "when life starts", it seems sort of ridiculous to set a date (or trimester) as the time when a fetus suddenly becomes a living thing, as from conception it is constantly developing into a human. If you look at it that way, then the fetus is always a person as, assuming that it continues living, it is going to become a fully developed human, and as (almost) no one believes abortion is right in the very late stages of pregnancy, then everyone must see the potential for person hood as sufficient for possessing the right to life.

except that it's also fairly clear that nobody thinks blastocysts have the same level of personhood as kindergarteners - and we would actually think that someone who did believe that in a situation where it actually mattered (see my burning building counterexample) would be something of an ethical monster. therefore mere potential does not grant full personhood. they might still be worthy of some amount of moral consideration, but in the early stages of a embryonic development it appears that that consideration would be essentially insignificant.

Also, in response to the organ transplant argument on the 1st page, refusing to give someone your kidneys is not the same as having an abortion as not saving someones life when they're dying for reasons other than you is different than killing them.

except that you either do or do not have a moral obligation to allow other beings to use your body and resources to keep them alive. in both cases, refusing to grant such use results in their death.

Is it right, however, to slit his friend's throat, and dump the body in a trash-can? What if evicting this unwanted guest will cause him to die? Would the government say it was alright because it was your house, or would it be voluntary manslaughter?
I'm not slitting his throat, I'm kicking him out of my house.
If he dies because I kicked him out of the hosue I never invited him to come into, then that's not my problem. He shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's not manslaughter, if it was then people wouldn't be able to kick squatters out of their property, but they can.

I am afraid this is simply not true. Why should you be allowed to commit murder because you don't like the person, and don't think he or she should exist? If you were married and your spouse lost their legs, would you kill them because they were an inconvenient burden?
I'm not commiting murder. Like I said, if someone came up with a way to suction the hypothetical embryo from my uterus and implant it in someone else to adopt out, then fine. However, it does not have the right to exist in my body and use my body as a life support device if I do not want it there.

You don't have a uterus, do you? You haven't looked into the physical rammifications of pregnancy at all, have you? No, of course not, what are those women bitching about. It's just a mild inconvenience, clearly.

My premise is thus: The individual is in certain cases subjected to non-optional responsibility(ies); Next, pregnancy is the result of a consensual action, but Responsibility for consensual actions is not reliant on consensus; Thus, consent to sex is fine and dandy, but you don't get to pick and choose what responsibilities you consent to, you have those responsibilities regardless of whether you want them or not.
And I contend that having an abortion is acting responsably.

Take a born child, for instance. You have some options, like putting him or her up for adoption, but it is your responsibility to make sure that he or she is fed and cared for as long as they are in your custody, whether you want to or not, because society and it's strong right arm the government say that it is the child's right to exist, and you are responsible for maintaining that existence.
Yes, but I can also adopt out a child, I can leave it at a friend's house to baby sit it for a couple of hours. I do not have any such responsabilities towards an unwanted embryo. If I do not want it there and do not want the result of pregnancy to be a child then I can go get it the fuck out of me.

So, we have established: A) Responsibility is non-Negotiable; B) Responsibility can result from a consensual action, but does not require consensus to be applicable to an individual; C) Society at large has the right to dictate that one own up to one's responsibility; D) The Rights of Individuals incapable of caring for themselves can infringe on the rights of other Individuals.
You established this? Seriously? Where?

(note: for the sake of clarity, this is what is meant above by the word "Responsibility":
re‧spon‧si‧bil‧i‧ty  /rɪˌspɒnsəˈbɪlɪti/ [ri-spon-suh-bil-i-tee]
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or fact of being responsible.
2. an instance of being responsible

re·spon·si·ble (r-spns-bl)
responsible, answerable, liable, accountable, amenable
These adjectives share the meaning obliged to answer, as for one's actions, to an authority that may impose a penalty for failure.)
Yes, and having an abortion can be acting responsably, you haven't proved otherwise. What's your point?

Yes, but you don't have a right to kill Joe.
It's not my intent to kill Joe. If he happens to die when he leaves my house then that's his problem, he should have squatted in someone else's house.

This is why we need education. I get the feeling that there are still some people who fail to see the direct connection to (unprotected) sex and pregnancy.
Who the fuck was talking about unprotected sex? Besides, if someone's dumb enough to have unprotected sex, why the fuck do we want more of them running around?

The difference between an embryo, or foetus, and a water parasite is obvious.
Not from the perspective of the body...

I'm not slitting his throat, I'm kicking him out of my house.

All abortion destroys the fetus, then removes the dead body.

If he dies because I kicked him out of the hosue I never invited him to come into, then that's not my problem. He shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's not manslaughter, if it was then people wouldn't be able to kick squatters out of their property, but they can.

If someone you don't want in you house is hooked up to a machine plugged into your wall, and you unplug him to throw him out, laughing and drinking wine as you watch him slowly fade away from your window, then it is manslaughter.


I'm not commiting murder. Like I said, if someone came up with a way to suction the hypothetical embryo from my uterus and implant it in someone else to adopt out, then fine. However, it does not have the right to exist in my body and use my body as a life support device if I do not want it there.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Roe v Wade is constitutionally illegal, therefore if one can prove a fetus is human, abortion is murder. An unborn child of three months age will not change in any way except size, and is blatantly human. Younger than that it gets a bit more difficult, but essentially, an Embryo will become a human if not tampered with, and this sets it apart from sperm or an ovary, so it is beyond single-celled organisms that will never become human.

So, how can you argue that something that will become human when untampered with is not human?

You don't have a uterus, do you? You haven't looked into the physical rammifications of pregnancy at all, have you? No, of course not, what are those women bitching about. It's just a mild inconvenience, clearly.


"Oh, it's so terrible giving birth, the human race should just die out so us Wymyn never have to go through that chauvanistic inconvenience."

If I had to crawl naked over broken glass so that a toddler doesn't get shot in the face, I think I'd go for a few hours or days of excrutiation to save a human life.

Anyone so selfish as to say otherwise shouldn't be taken seriously.


And I contend that having an abortion is acting responsably.

No, you are obliged to answer to the law for failing to save the life of your grown children, and getting an abortion is failing to save the life of your unborn children, and therefore irresponsible.

Yes, but I can also adopt out a child, I can leave it at a friend's house to baby sit it for a couple of hours. I do not have any such responsabilities towards an unwanted embryo. If I do not want it there and do not want the result of pregnancy to be a child then I can go get it the fuck out of me.

Your argument basically, throughout this post, is that since abortion is legal it is right. That is fallacious thinking. Was slavery right? It was most certainly legal. Is legal Genocide right because it's legal? Was the Holocaust right? It was totally legal! So was Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, and the Turks gassing of the Armenians, all legal as you like.

As a matter of fact, any tinpot dictator can declare anything legal, and poof it is. Legality is not equivalent to Morality, and you are claiming that since the act of abortion is legal, that you have a moral right to it.

All abortion destroys the fetus, then removes the dead body.
Actually 90% of abortions don't involve fetuses at all. Please do try to use the proper terminology.

If someone you don't want in you house is hooked up to a machine plugged into your wall, and you unplug him to throw him out, laughing and drinking wine as you watch him slowly fade away from your window, then it is manslaughter.
If someone breaks into my house (ok, I left the back door open) and plugs his dialysis machine into my wall, I have every right to kick him the fuck out of my house. He had no right to be there in the first place. It's not manslaughter if someone breaks into your house and you make them leave.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
And abortion is legal in Canada, where I live, which is really what matters for the purpose of my argument.

Roe v Wade is constitutionally illegal, therefore if one can prove a fetus is human, abortion is murder.
Abortion rights in my country weren't granted by Roe vs Wade. I also don't think that it was constitutionally illegal. And until abortion is actually illegal, it will never be murder, the unlawful killing of a human being by another.

Furthermore, most abortions do not occur to fetuses, they occur to embryos.

An unborn child of three months age will not change in any way except size, and is blatantly human.
This statement it complete bullshit.
1. It's a fetus, not an unborn child.
2. A whole hell of a lot goes on over the next six months other than just getting bigger. Only a complete imbecile with no knowledge of fetal development would claim otherwise.
3. It's not blatantly human.

Younger than that it gets a bit more difficult, but essentially, an Embryo will become a human if not tampered with, and this sets it apart from sperm or an ovary, so it is beyond single-celled organisms that will never become human.
Not all embryos become human, some become chickens. I'll assume you said "human embryos" there though and still argue that many pregnancies end in miscarriage, so they won't necessarily become humans if left to their own devices.

So, how can you argue that something that will become human when untampered with is not human?
Is an acorn an oak tree? If you plant an acorn in the ground and don't tamper with it, it will become an oak tree, so why not call it an oak tree from the time it's an acorn?

"Oh, it's so terrible giving birth, the human race should just die out so us Wymyn never have to go through that chauvanistic inconvenience."
I didn't say it was just giving birth that was hard, I've read about pregnancies as I do want kids eventually.... and they're not just an "inconvenience" as you so put it.

If I had to crawl naked over broken glass so that a toddler doesn't get shot in the face, I think I'd go for a few hours or days of excrutiation to save a human life.
Ok, so you'd donate your body as a life support machine for 9 months to save someone's life too then?

No, you are obliged to answer to the law for failing to save the life of your grown children, and getting an abortion is failing to save the life of your unborn children, and therefore irresponsible.
It's not a life, it's a potential life. And it is acting responsably. Rather than pushing the result of pregnancy down the line for someone else to deal with, you're taking charge, going through a tough medical procedure and making a tough decision that you consider to be right for you and those in your life.

Your argument basically, throughout this post, is that since abortion is legal it is right.
No, my argument was that since abortion is legal it can't be murder by the definition of the word murder.

Was slavery right?
You're the one arguing in favour of making women into slaves, not me.

Legality is not equivalent to Morality, and you are claiming that since the act of abortion is legal, that you have a moral right to it.
Actually, that wasn't at all my argument, thanks for playing "build a strawman" we're all out of prizes unfortunately as this game has been overplayed today.

So is flight... yet we do it - with science.

(Plus, of course, the religious might argue that, with God, ALL things are possible... I don't need that religious angel - I feel safe enough saying that 'hasn't happened YET' is not equal to 'can't happen'.)

When I see humans being born from a single sperm (and only a single sperm, no egg or additional elements added) or a single egg (same deal), I will acquiesce that it can happen. Since that isn't going to happen, it can't. Simple. And humans don't actually fly in the literal sense of the word. We use an external airframe that does the actual "flying"--we are only passengers. Any real pilot will tell you that. Although it is quite fun...

you have yet to demonstrate how. everything in my scenario is both physically and logically possible. if i was evil, i could actually cause this experiment to happen to you in real life. the mere fact that a situation is unlikely cannot get you off the hook. it's typically in unlikely scenarios that we can best discover some facts about our philosophical claims or moral intuitions that are not obvious and are actually among the most important. that is just how the game is played.



i thought i'd mentioned already that the blastocysts are all set to be implanted and will be if rescued. well, i have now.

still going with the actual person, right?


Yes.

Not at all - quote the reference in context or don't cite it.

He shall be punished... "according as the woman's husband will lay upon him".

Thus, if the husband says 'no punishment', there is no transgression.

And, of course, if there IS no husband...

And the judges still decide how much the man shall pay. The basic idea behind this is that there is a recourse to punishment--indicating that it (abotion) is not, therefore an acceptable practice. If it were accepted, or allowed, there would be any amount of punishment. Whether or not the husband or judges decide to punish does nothing to alleviate the fact that this is an act that is punishable, and therefore not condoned.

And the judges still decide how much the man shall pay. The basic idea behind this is that there is a recourse to punishment--indicating that it (abotion) is not, therefore an acceptable practice. If it were accepted, or allowed, there would be any amount of punishment. Whether or not the husband or judges decide to punish does nothing to alleviate the fact that this is an act that is punishable, and therefore not condoned.
But it's not the same punishment as for murder... the case of causing miscarriage is more akin to damaging the man's property.

But it's not the same punishment as for murder... the case of causing miscarriage is more akin to damaging the man's property.

It still indicates that it is unnacceptable. This particular debate centered around whether the Bible supports abortion, and considering this verse, it does not.

It still indicates that it is unnacceptable. This particular debate centered around whether the Bible supports abortion, and considering this verse, it does not.
This particular verse isn't really about abortion. It's about one man hitting a woman and causing her to miscarry and then having to pay retribution to the father for damaging his property (i.e. denying him a child). It's not at all the same as a woman choosing to not be pregnant.

It does, however, show that an embryo or fetus isn't the same as a human being according to the bible.

This particular verse isn't really about abortion. It's about one man hitting a woman and causing her to miscarry and then having to pay retribution to the father for damaging his property (i.e. denying him a child). It's not at all the same as a woman choosing to not be pregnant.

I don't disagree with you. It was brought up by Grave_n_Idle (I believe) when I asked to be shown where in the Bible it supports abortion, which was a question I posed after someone else mentioned that the Bible supported abortion.

I don't disagree with you. It was brought up by Grave_n_Idle (I believe) when I asked to be shown where in the Bible it supports abortion, which was a question I posed after someone else mentioned that the Bible supported abortion.

Well, I don't think it's possible to say that the bible says abortion is MURDER considering that verse, which is all that's really in debate here.

Well, I don't think it's possible to say that the bible says abortion is MURDER considering that verse, which is all that's really in debate here.

No, it doesn't say it's murder. But the original post specifically said that the Bible supported abortion--which it does not--and which, coincidentally, was all that's really in debate here, and not whether or not the Bible said it was murder.

hmm

Thanks for addressing only one of my arguments when I presented two, and quoting someone else out of context as a counter. You've clearly mastered bullshit artistry.

No, it doesn't say it's murder. But the original post specifically said that the Bible supported abortion--which it does not--and which, coincidentally, was all that's really in debate here, and not whether or not the Bible said it was murder.

Well, nobody on NS is going to care if abortion is a sin anymore then they care if eating shrimp is a sin.
It's whether it's murder that's in debate here, and as we can see, even the document that's most on your side says that it isn't.
Might be a lesser sin, but nobody cares about those anymore.

When I see humans being born from a single sperm (and only a single sperm, no egg or additional elements added) or a single egg (same deal), I will acquiesce that it can happen. Since that isn't going to happen, it can't. Simple. And humans don't actually fly in the literal sense of the word. We use an external airframe that does the actual "flying"--we are only passengers. Any real pilot will tell you that. Although it is quite fun...

Actually - November 25th 2001, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worchester, Mass announced they had produced human embryoes via both cloning and parthenogenesis.


The procedure was documented in the November 26th "Science Daily".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011126000857.htm


My advice - if you are going to claim that something CANNOT happen, you are going to look pretty silly if someone can prove it already has...

And the judges still decide how much the man shall pay. The basic idea behind this is that there is a recourse to punishment--indicating that it (abotion) is not, therefore an acceptable practice. If it were accepted, or allowed, there would be any amount of punishment. Whether or not the husband or judges decide to punish does nothing to alleviate the fact that this is an act that is punishable, and therefore not condoned.

The judges are only required if the husband determines a punishment is necessary. Like in our modern courts - the sentence for a crime only matters if the alleged 'criminal' is declared to be 'guilty'.

Obviously, this is a 'possession' law - the foetus is something considered to 'belong' to the 'husband' (which is fairly typical in the Hebrew laws... they apparently had no qualms about the 'ownership' of human beings, or anything else). Thus - there is ONLY a 'crime' if the 'husband' determines that there was one.

Which means - if there IS no husband, or if the husband does not object, there is no 'crime'. Which means, by Hebrew law, abortion is an acceptable practise - UNLESS there is specific opposition to it by the 'husband'.

It still indicates that it is unnacceptable. This particular debate centered around whether the Bible supports abortion, and considering this verse, it does not.

It indicates nothing of the sort - it just illustrates the recourse available to the husband IF he decides that he was somehow 'deprived'.

No, it doesn't say it's murder. But the original post specifically said that the Bible supported abortion--which it does not--and which, coincidentally, was all that's really in debate here, and not whether or not the Bible said it was murder.

It doesn't actually debate abortion at all, but it does make clear that artificially induced miscarriages are a matter of property - and thus entirely at the disposal of the injured party (which, in Hebrew law, would be the 'husband' in the relationship, because he 'owns' his wife, children, fetus, etc).

Does it CONDONE abortion in that verse? No. But it does allow it, if there are no objections.

That which is not DENIED, is allowed. Thus, the Bible supports the right to abort - except in the exceptional circumstances of a husband that objects.

Fetuses are not people until they are born. Until then, in my opinion, they are more along the lines of a finger. You could get your finger removed if you want to. Why not a fetus? If we laid eggs, the mother could just skoosh the babies she doesn't want. Since we don't, we just have to go with surgery.


Also, show me in the bible where it says "Lo, for jesus spoke unto the world 'hey y'all, if by some twist of fate there comes a way to cut open a woman wi'out killing her, and removing a baby, it ain't cool, y'dig?'

Indeed, voting DOES mean nothing to me, in any system that does not allow Proportional Representation.

we do actually have proportional representation. the majority are disgusted by abortion so we dont have it. there is no point saying other wise.
ireland is the anti-china.
in china one doesnt vote. one doesnt have freedom of speech. one has restrictions on the internet. china also promotes abortions. so you can fuck off and ride your bike in china.

And a foetus is not 'a human', and a foetus that is aborted is not 'human cells that eventually become a human'.

you complain i dont answer your questions but at the same time you come up with point less statements. do you really think i would only find abortion ok only in situations were it has been fully carried out? do you really think aborted foetuses can be put back in after an abortion? what is this statement suppose to mean?

Actually - November 25th 2001, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worchester, Mass announced they had produced human embryoes via both cloning and parthenogenesis.


The procedure was documented in the November 26th "Science Daily".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011126000857.htm


My advice - if you are going to claim that something CANNOT happen, you are going to look pretty silly if someone can prove it already has...

Except that they have lost their chief researcher and can't seem to be able to reproduce their results.....which in the science world means that it doesn't count as being 'proven', even in the scientific sense of the word.

Meanwhile, the best examples we have of eggs being stimulated to grow into adults is a dog and a couple sheep. Since we do have animal examples, it appears that a human version is simply a matter of time.

ireland is the anti-china.
in china one doesnt vote. one doesnt have freedom of speech. one has restrictions on the internet. china also promotes abortions. so you can fuck off and ride your bike in china.
No one is talking about wanting forced abortions, that's as bad as being forced to carry pregnancies to term. Everyone is talking about wanting a choice in the matter.

Fetuses are not people until they are born. Until then, in my opinion, they are more along the lines of a finger. You could get your finger removed if you want to. Why not a fetus? If we laid eggs, the mother could just skoosh the babies she doesn't want. Since we don't, we just have to go with surgery.


So, according to you, a six month old fetus is not a human, because it is not yet born, while another six month old fetus was cut from its mother early, because of complications, and yet it is a human, because it survived.

I reckon your argument needs reviewing. There is a contradiction there.

No one is talking about wanting forced abortions, that's as bad as being forced to carry pregnancies to term. Everyone is talking about wanting a choice in the matter.

Even the choice of the unborn?

Even the choice of the unborn?
The unborn have the same rights as everyone else, they even lack the right to use someone else's body as a life support machine, like everyone else.

No one is talking about wanting forced abortions, that's as bad as being forced to carry pregnancies to term. Everyone is talking about wanting a choice in the matter.

abortion is being forced on to *the unborn potential being.

*using this as term in order to avoid another few pages of, is or is not a human.

abortion is being forced on to *the unborn potential being.

*using this as term in order to avoid another few pages of, is or is not a human.
Actually, unless the unborn potential being is also pregnant inside the uterus, no one's talking about forcing it to have an abortion.

As much as that does produce an interesting mental image, that's not the topic of discussion.

The unborn have the same rights as everyone else, they even lack the right to use someone else's body as a life support machine, like everyone else.

they do in my country. rights are given and taken away via the will of the masses.

they do in my country. rights are given and taken away via the will of the masses.
Well, again, that's because your country sucks.

Actually, unless the unborn potential being is also pregnant inside the uterus, no one's talking about forcing it to have an abortion.

As much as that does produce an interesting mental image, that's not the topic of discussion.

the abortion is being forced on to the upb. hence it is being aborted. like most extreme pro-choicers, you try to win an arguement by trying to change its coarse to a warped idea.

Well, again, that's because your country sucks.

yeah cause america is popular right now.

yeah cause america is popular right now.
I don't live in america. I specifically stated that earlier in this very thread when someone said that Roe v Wade was unconstitutional (they never justified that statement later either) and I said that it was irrelevant because I don't live in the US.

Oh, and by the way, Ireland isn't topping any lists for best countries to live in... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html it topped one list for highest GDP, but that's not an absolute indication of quality of life. Oh, and I'll give you a hint, my country beat yours on this list, sucka. The only things that make ireland better than other places are the hot accents and cute, usually charming boys. You apparantly missed the charming bit.

The unborn have the same rights as everyone else, they even lack the right to use someone else's body as a life support machine, like everyone else.

Sex is biologically speaking, for procreation. And although we humans (at least) see it as much more, it remains the vehicle of procreation. Adult humans have the choice to have sex or not. Thus people engaging in sex are making a choice. By killing another human that comes from that sexual encounter, they are taking away that person's choice. The unborn don't have any other alternative.

Thus, in order to be strictly pro-choice, there should be no abortions at all, even of the sick or deformed fetuses, or from cases of rape.

Sex is biologically speaking, for procreation.
It's also for pair-bonding. And not all sex can result in procreation.

And although we humans (at least) see it as much more,
So do most apes.

Adult humans have the choice to have sex or not. Thus people engaging in sex are making a choice.
Yes, they're choosing to have sex.

By killing another human that comes from that sexual encounter, they are taking away that person's choice. The unborn don't have any other alternative.
We're not talking about infanticide, we're talking about abortion. In an abortion, there is never a human being killed. There is never anything that can make a choice killed.

Thus, in order to be strictly pro-choice, there should be no abortions at all, even of the sick or deformed fetuses, or from cases of rape.
Not at all the case, we're allowing people to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or terminate it. If you don't allow that then you're not pro-choice.

the majority are disgusted by abortion so we dont have it.

i've got $20 that says nearly everyone in your country would save the kindergartener rather than the petri dishes.

It's also for pair-bonding. And not all sex can result in procreation.

It is uncertain whether sex would still exist if it wasn't for it's powers to procreate. Thus, sex, primarily, is about procreation. Pair-bonding is simply a part of the process, sometimes.


So do most apes.

Irrelevant.


We're not talking about infanticide, we're talking about abortion. In an abortion, there is never a human being killed. There is never anything that can make a choice killed.


There is no good way to distinguish between abortion from infanticide. Anyone making that choice on what 'looks' human and what doesn't is hardly making an objective choice. Dodgey.

Secondly, the fetus is developing towards a state where it can make a choice. Newly born babies don't really make that many more choices than the unborn. So the currently existing power of choice is hardly a justifyable criteria.



Not at all the case, we're allowing people to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or terminate it. If you don't allow that then you're not pro-choice.

If you don't allow the unborn a choice in living or not, you are not pro-choice.

It is uncertain whether sex would still exist if it wasn't for it's powers to procreate. Thus, sex, primarily, is about procreation. Pair-bonding is simply a part of the process, sometimes.
Explain the existence of homosexual sex then.

Irrelevant.
But interesting.

There is no good way to distinguish between abortion from infanticide.
Yes there is. One is preformed to infants, which one cannot argue as not individual lives, one is preformed to embryos, which first of all, do not fit all the requirements of life and secondly are using the body of another as a life support machine.

Anyone making that choice on what 'looks' human and what doesn't is hardly making an objective choice. Dodgey.
I'm not basing it on looks.

Secondly, the fetus is developing towards a state where it can make a choice.
Not if it's aborted as an embryo it isn't.

Newly born babies don't really make that many more choices than the unborn. So the currently existing power of choice is hardly a justifyable criteria.
Except that when it comes to medical procedures, parents make all the consents before the age of majority. In this case, the embryo is clearly not old enough to make its own medical decisions, so the parents, or more properly the pregnant woman is left to deceide for the embryo. If you're not bitching about parents consenting to having their children's tonsils removed against the will of the child, you don't get to bitch about potential parents consenting to have their embryos removed.

If you don't allow the unborn a choice in living or not, you are not pro-choice.
Nope. Sorry, you failed. No one chooses to be born or not.

abortion is being forced on to *the unborn potential being.

*using this as term in order to avoid another few pages of, is or is not a human.
Perhaps you don't understand what the word "abortion" refers to. The correct usage of the term refers to aborting a PREGNANCY. One does not abort a fetus or an embryo, one aborts a pregnancy. Unless a fetus is pregnant somehow, it cannot undergo an abortion.

A fetus may die as a result of aborting a woman's pregnancy, but then we're right back where Dakini started.

I don't live in america. I specifically stated that earlier in this very thread when someone said that Roe v Wade was unconstitutional (they never justified that statement later either) and I said that it was irrelevant because I don't live in the US.

Oh, and by the way, Ireland isn't topping any lists for best countries to live in... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html it topped one list for highest GDP, but that's not an absolute indication of quality of life. Oh, and I'll give you a hint, my country beat yours on this list, sucka. The only things that make ireland better than other places are the hot accents and cute, usually charming boys. You apparantly missed the charming bit.

oh canada how impressive. i'm not going to start slagging off canada cause that would be lowering myself to your level.
thats taken from 2003. in 2005 we were no.1. but probably in 2006 we are starting to slip. 8th is still pretty dam high.

Perhaps you don't understand what the word "abortion" refers to. The correct usage of the term refers to aborting a PREGNANCY. One does not abort a fetus or an embryo, one aborts a pregnancy. Unless a fetus is pregnant somehow, it cannot undergo an abortion.

A fetus may die as a result of aborting a woman's pregnancy, but then we're right back where Dakini started.

again changing topic. doesnt matter if you call it an union it is still the same thing.
"rose by any other name would still smell as sweet".

There is no good way to distinguish between abortion from infanticide.

Sure there is. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, while infanticide is the killing of a born infant.

Seriously, are all men this bad at distinguishing "pregnant" from "not pregnant" and "born" from "not yet born"? I find it quite easy to tell the difference, but perhaps there's some magical powers that come with having a uterus...


Anyone making that choice on what 'looks' human and what doesn't is hardly making an objective choice. Dodgey.

True. Which is why the right to abortion shouldn't be based at all on whether or not a fetus is a human. Personally, I support abortion whether or not a fetus is a human person. I don't happen to believe fetuses are people, but even if you want me to assume they are then I will still conclude that all individuals have the right to end their physical participation in pregnancy at any time and for any reason.


Secondly, the fetus is developing towards a state where it can make a choice. Newly born babies don't really make that many more choices than the unborn. So the currently existing power of choice is hardly a justifyable criteria.

If somebody claims that a fetus' "right to choice" is being violated, then it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to point out that fetuses lack the capacity for choice in the first place. Whether or not a fetus may eventually have the capacity for choice is beside the point. My kid brother will one day have the right to vote, and he is developing toward that eventual state. However, the fact that he is currently prohibited from voting does not remotely constitute a violation of his right to vote.


If you don't allow the unborn a choice in living or not, you are not pro-choice.
I allow "the unborn" the same "choice" in living as I allow all other humans. No human has the right to "choose" to live using my tissue or organs against my wishes. No human has the right to choose to use my body to sustain their own life. No human has the right to choose to dwell inside my body or attach themselves to my body against my wishes. Why should I allow a fetus to make a "choice" which no human being may make? Why should the life of a fetus be considered both more important than my own and also more important than the life of any born human being?

Except that when it comes to medical procedures, parents make all the consents before the age of majority. In this case, the embryo is clearly not old enough to make its own medical decisions, so the parents, or more properly the pregnant woman is left to deceide for the embryo. If you're not bitching about parents consenting to having their children's tonsils removed against the will of the child, you don't get to bitch about potential parents consenting to have their embryos removed.


we are putting more laws into our consitution to restrict the control parents have over children getting medical procedures. as in, children will to have blood transfusions even if the parent odjects. the un encouraged us to do so. i'm all infavour of government telling parents how to raise thier children.

again changing topic. doesnt matter if you call it an union it is still the same thing.
"rose by any other name would still smell as sweet".
It's not a change in topic, it is a clarification. Your wording was meaningless because you seem to not understand what the terms actually refer to. I was trying to make sure everybody was clear on what we are talking about.

Clarifying the current topic does not constitute a change in topic, in other words.

It's not a change in topic, it is a clarification. Your wording was meaningless because you seem to not understand what the terms actually refer to. I was trying to make sure everybody was clear on what we are talking about.

Clarifying the current topic does not constitute a change in topic, in other words.

people frequently say "the baby is being aborted" instead of the pregnacy is being aborted. stop confusing the issue. people understand what aborting the baby means.
what you do is like talking about stamp collecting when i'm trying to post a letter.

It is uncertain whether sex would still exist if it wasn't for it's powers to procreate. Thus, sex, primarily, is about procreation. Pair-bonding is simply a part of the process, sometimes.

That's an interesting theory. Have anything to back it up?

The overwhelming majority of human sexual contact is, and always has been, non-procreative. That's simple historical fact. We are biologically designed in such a way that the overwhelming majority of our sexual contact will not result in production of offspring. The overwhelming majority of human beings do not seek to procreate every time they have sexual contact. I see absolutely no reason to conclude that "the purpose" of sex is procreation. Procreation is but one of many purposes for human sexual contact.

people frequently say "the baby is being aborted" instead of the pregnacy is being aborted.

Yes, they do. They are incorrect. It is important to clarify this term, because it has very significant impact on the discussion itself. The PREGNANCY, occuring in the woman's body, is what is being aborted. It is important to focus the debate on what is actually relevant, instead of diverting onto the pointless non-issue of fetal personhood. Whether or not a fetus is a person is utterly irrelevant and a waste of time.


stop confusing the issue.
Incorrect terminology is what clouds the issue. Just because you want to use emotive language to try to muddy the waters doesn't mean that everybody will be stupid enough to fall for it. If you actually have valid points then you won't need such tactics anyhow.

Explain the existence of homosexual sex then.
The perception of greater sexual fulfillment in a member of the same sex--just a guess. But a behavourial aspect. Homosexuality, however, does not mean that sex exists primarily for procreation, from a biological perspective. It just means that many people, perhaps most, are not used to looking at sex from the biological perspective. But I would have already guessed that, homosexuality aside.


But interesting.


Yes, but so is bacterial conjugation.


Yes there is. One is preformed to infants, which one cannot argue as not individual lives, one is preformed to embryos, which first of all, do not fit all the requirements of life and secondly are using the body of another as a life support machine.


Whose requirements to life are we talking about here---yours?

And what is it about relying on someone else's body that makes it so much less human?

Just what is the difference between the born and the unborn, apart from location and time? The choices they are capable of? That's pretty hard to prove.


I'm not basing it on looks.


Then what is the difference? Why protect the rights of a day old infant, and not that of one unborn?


Not if it's aborted as an embryo it isn't.


But abortion brings on a new set of conditions. It's like saying that a deceased adult cannot make choices. Quite obvious, really. The point is that we are dealing with life prior to abortion, not afterwards.


Except that when it comes to medical procedures, parents make all the consents before the age of majority. In this case, the embryo is clearly not old enough to make its own medical decisions, so the parents, or more properly the pregnant woman is left to deceide for the embryo. If you're not bitching about parents consenting to having their children's tonsils removed against the will of the child, you don't get to bitch about potential parents consenting to have their embryos removed.


But no parent is allowed to kill a child already born, thus parents do NOT make ALL the consents before the age of majority. The one day old child also cannot make very many choices, if any, thus the parents have to decide what is best for the child. But this does not include drowning it in the bath. Why, because we recognise that while it is not capable of exercising choice, it will, one day. So where is the difference? What right do you have to take away the right of someone smaller than yourself?

I see a big difference between tonsils and fetuses. One will remain a tonsil, the other will be an adult human with choice.



Nope. Sorry, you failed. No one chooses to be born or not.

Fair enough. But some people do choose to keep living. Isn't that their right?

Yes, they do. They are incorrect. It is important to clarify this term, because it has very significant impact on the discussion itself. The PREGNANCY, occuring in the woman's body, is what is being aborted. It is important to focus the debate on what is actually relevant, instead of diverting onto the pointless non-issue of fetal personhood. Whether or not a fetus is a person is utterly irrelevant and a waste of time.


Incorrect terminology is what clouds the issue. Just because you want to use emotive language to try to muddy the waters doesn't mean that everybody will be stupid enough to fall for it. If you actually have valid points then you won't need such tactics anyhow.

what term should we use then? for now on would you like to use the word 'kill'?
since abort means to stop. does thid mean i am against the idea of stoping things in general?
you are being childish.

That's an interesting theory. Have anything to back it up?

The overwhelming majority of human sexual contact is, and always has been, non-procreative. That's simple historical fact. We are biologically designed in such a way that the overwhelming majority of our sexual contact will not result in production of offspring. The overwhelming majority of human beings do not seek to procreate every time they have sexual contact. I see absolutely no reason to conclude that "the purpose" of sex is procreation. Procreation is but one of many purposes for human sexual contact.

I deliberately specified 'biologically speaking', not that which humans are thinking of every time they engage in the sex act. I certainly am not arguing that we have sex mostly in order to have children. I do not, and I suspect the majority of others are like me. However, my argument is that we also know that sex is how more humans come into the world. Thus, when we engage in sex, we know (apart from some very ignorant) that there is a potential to procreate. If we wish to not procreate, then we have the choice to go ahead, abstain, or some other appropriate alternative. That is our choice.

And then the choice of the unborn child to live should be assumed (since it is reasonable to assume that everyone wants to live, and that those who don't want to live are the exception) and protected. Only then can we call ourselves 'pro-choice', in the fullest sense of the word.

I deliberately specified 'biologically speaking', not that which humans are thinking of every time they engage in the sex act. I certainly am not arguing that we have sex mostly in order to have children. I do not, and I suspect the majority of others are like me. However, my argument is that we also know that sex is how more humans come into the world. Thus, when we engage in sex, we know (apart from some very ignorant) that there is a potential to procreate. If we wish to not procreate, then we have the choice to go ahead, abstain, or some other appropriate alternative. That is our choice.

We also know sex is how two people can give each other a mutually satisfying and pleasurable intimate experience. So maybe that's the Purpose you are not subtly alluding to.

And then the choice of the unborn child to live should be assumed (since it is reasonable to assume that everyone wants to live, and that those who don't want to live are the exception) and protected. Only then can we call ourselves 'pro-choice', in the fullest sense of the word.

"Unborn child?" Oh, you mean a fetus.

It's odd how you talk about biology but mis-use biological terms constantly.

what term should we use then? for now on would you like to use the word 'kill'?
since abort means to stop. does thid mean i am against the idea of stoping things in general?
you are being childish.
I don't understand what you are asking.

The word "abortion" is perfectly fine. We are discussing the aborting of pregnancies. That's not troublesome at all. It is only troublesome to say that one aborts a fetus, since that is not the correct use of the term and directs the action at the wrong subject.

It's like the difference between saying that you threw the ball to me, versus that you threw me to the ball. Or the difference between saying "I throw the ball" and "the ball throws itself at me." Same words, but the subject and action are related differently, and the phrases gain entirely different meanings. Can you see why this is problematic?

We also know sex is how two people can give each other a mutually satisfying and pleasurable intimate experience. So maybe that's the Purpose you are not subtly alluding to.

Of course sex can be mutually satisfying and a pleasurable intimate experience. But it comes at a cost. There is a potential of another human to come about because of that encounter. If you cannot choose not to have sex, why take away the choice of the unborn child. If you are too weak to avoid sex, don't punish the children for it.



"Unborn child?" Oh, you mean a fetus.

It's odd how you talk about biology but mis-use biological terms constantly.

What is the difference between an unborn child and a fetus?

I don't understand what you are asking.

The word "abortion" is perfectly fine. We are discussing the aborting of pregnancies. That's not troublesome at all. It is only troublesome to say that one aborts a fetus, since that is not the correct use of the term and directs the action at the wrong subject.

It's like the difference between saying that you threw the ball to me, versus that you threw me to the ball. Or the difference between saying "I throw the ball" and "the ball throws itself at me." Same words, but the subject and action are related differently, and the phrases gain entirely different meanings. Can you see why this is problematic?

in the sense that when playing football, we kick the ball. during an abortion, what are we doing to the *unborn?

*i'm using the using the word unborn, cause it is something that is not born.

I deliberately specified 'biologically speaking', not that which humans are thinking of every time they engage in the sex act. I certainly am not arguing that we have sex mostly in order to have children. I do not, and I suspect the majority of others are like me.

Again, biologically speaking, the overwhelming majority of human sexual contact does not result in procreation. Our bodies simply do not work that way. Indeed, our bodies are specifically designed in such a way that we will experience sexual urges, sexual pleasure, and sexual drives even when we are biologically unable to procreate. We will experience the desire to engage in sexual acts even when such acts have absolutely no chance whatsoever of producing offspring.

Our instinctive urges and biological makeup are not consistent with your theory that the purpose of human sexual contact is procreation.


However, my argument is that we also know that sex is how more humans come into the world. Thus, when we engage in sex, we know (apart from some very ignorant) that there is a potential to procreate. If we wish to not procreate, then we have the choice to go ahead, abstain, or some other appropriate alternative. That is our choice.

1) You are assuming all "sex" is heterosexual.
2) You are assuming all "sex" is those acts which have a reasonable chance of resulting in pregnancy.
3) You are assuming that all such "sex" is occuring between individuals who are fertile (i.e. women who are past menopause are clearly not included in your sample, despite the fact that many post-menopausal women report significant increases in their sex drives).

Yes, biological reproduction is typically achieved through sexual contact. I have never denied that this is one of the many purposes that can be served by sexual contact. All I am saying is that it is a totally unreasonable leap to then conclude that the purpose of sex is procreation.


And then the choice of the unborn child to live should be assumed (since it is reasonable to assume that everyone wants to live, and that those who don't want to live are the exception) and protected. Only then can we call ourselves 'pro-choice', in the fullest sense of the word.
And this is, of course, yet another leap.

No human life has the "right" to choose to live by sacrificing another's body. No human being has the "right" to harvest another person's body to prolong their own existence. We do not recognize that "right" for any born human being, so I see no reason to extend it to "unborn" human beings. Well, no reason beyond a desire to control the reproductive organs of human females, anyhow.

What is the difference between an unborn child and a fetus?

one sounds like we are doing soemthing to a member of the human group. people like to ignor that.

What is the difference between an unborn child and a fetus?
If you want to call fetuses "unborn children," then I hope you will also refer to all living humans as "undead corpses."

No human life has the "right" to choose to live by sacrificing another's body. No human being has the "right" to harvest another person's body to prolong their own existence. We do not recognize that "right" for any born human being, so I see no reason to extend it to "unborn" human beings. Well, no reason beyond a desire to control the reproductive organs of human females, anyhow.

sacrificing implies giving up. dont worry you'll get your bady back. those might evil children of destruction wont take it away.

Of course sex can be mutually satisfying and a pleasurable intimate experience. But it comes at a cost. There is a potential of another human to come about because of that encounter. If you cannot choose not to have sex, why take away the choice of the unborn child. If you are too weak to avoid sex, don't punish the children for it.

Can you prove to me that a fetus has the capacity to make a conscious choice about anything?


What is the difference between an unborn child and a fetus?

A fetus is the biologically correct term.

A child is "a young person especially between infancy and youth." (Therefore not a fetus.)

Therefore calling a fetus, or an embryo as you are wont to do, an "unborn child" is an appeal to emotion because it uses biologically incorrect terminology to draw sympathy for one group (children) and apply it to another (fetuses) purely by word association.

It's more or less like me calling a Doberman that just ripped some guy's throat out, a "poor little puppy." It's intellectually dishonest, or perhaps just ignorant.

If you want to call fetuses "unborn children," then I hope you will also refer to all living humans as "undead corpses."

you could if you want. but leave out the corpse bit cause we are not corpses. even if we are "undead". i am "un-standing".

Can you prove to me that a fetus has the capacity to make a conscious choice about anything?


sleeping people cant make a conscious decision about anything. can i kill them in thier sleep?

sleeping people cant make a conscious decision about anything. can i kill them in thier sleep?

Well, no, because a sleeping person is in fact, a person. Unlike for example, a fetus. ;)

The point is, Bru here is asserting we need to respect the fetus's "choice." Well, I am questioning whether a fetus can make a choice at all. If it can't, then what exactly are we talking about.

Again, biologically speaking, the overwhelming majority of human sexual contact does not result in procreation. Our bodies simply do not work that way. Indeed, our bodies are specifically designed in such a way that we will experience sexual urges, sexual pleasure, and sexual drives even when we are biologically unable to procreate. We will experience the desire to engage in sexual acts even when such acts have absolutely no chance whatsoever of producing offspring.

But why? I'll tell you. Because it is our procreative act. If it wasn't, our bodies probably wouldn't be so affected by sexual urges.


Our instinctive urges and biological makeup are not consistent with your theory that the purpose of human sexual contact is procreation.


I don't mean 'purpose' in the sense that comes from God, but purpose in the sense that sex is important to us because our bodies invest a good deal of energy making sure that it is important to us--perhaps because if it didn't, we would probably procreate a good deal less. I mean 'purpose' in the sense that comes from quantifying the chemical compounds.

Biologically speaking, humans don't really need sex to survive as a species (aside from sex as means of procreation). It's not like we need our sex just to get us through the day. Thus I argue that it is important to us because of it's function, biologically speaking.


1) You are assuming all "sex" is heterosexual.
2) You are assuming all "sex" is those acts which have a reasonable chance of resulting in pregnancy.
3) You are assuming that all such "sex" is occuring between individuals who are fertile (i.e. women who are past menopause are clearly not included in your sample, despite the fact that many post-menopausal women report significant increases in their sex drives).

I meant relevant sex. I'm not assuming that all 'sex' that occurs is between fertile people, but I was simply referring to all sex between fertile people. I thought that was obvious.


Yes, biological reproduction is typically achieved through sexual contact. I have never denied that this is one of the many purposes that can be served by sexual contact. All I am saying is that it is a totally unreasonable leap to then conclude that the purpose of sex is procreation.

Just think, for a moment, Bottle. Why is sex so pleasurable? In order to increase our chances of procreating. Of course it doesn't lose it's pleasure the moment the woman is no longer fertile. What is the advantage in that?

Sure, it can help stabilize relationships, and help us to enjoy life generally--perhaps as an additional help towards procreation.

But would the body invest so much into sex if it wasn't the means of procreation? I don't think so.

I did not say that the purpose of sex was only procreation. But I would say that it is the biggest factor.


No human life has the "right" to choose to live by sacrificing another's body. No human being has the "right" to harvest another person's body to prolong their own existence. We do not recognize that "right" for any born human being, so I see no reason to extend it to "unborn" human beings. Well, no reason beyond a desire to control the reproductive organs of human females, anyhow.

How does having a baby sacrifice the life of the mother? Are you saying that pregnancies are generally unhealthy for a woman? Because if you are, I strongly disagree.

And what is this about 'harvesting' another's body? There is no 'harvesting' occurring. There is a dependency, sure, but everyone benefits, in a normal healthy case. For example, women with children are less likely to get some forms of cancer. And women to tend to live longer than men. Perhaps that's because of pregnancy. Who knows?

The trouble with your argument is that because you will not give the unborn any 'more rights' then the born, it means that the unborn loses their choice to live. Thus the choice of the woman to be free of the unborn comes at the price of taking away the choice of the unborn to live. There isn't any other alternative. It is a life or death issue for the unborn. The woman, however, had a choice to have sex or not to. She gets to have her choice. So should the unborn. Only with such a position can we truly consider ourselves 'pro-choice'.

Does your old parents have the right to expect you to care for them when they are too old to care for themselves? Or even when they are too old to make any more choices? Would you consider it 'harvesting' on their part if they asked you to feed them and clean them when they were no longer capable of communicating their desires to you in their extreme old age?

sacrificing implies giving up.

Not necessarily. A person who sacrifices their body (ie. their health) for their job never actually hands over their body. They do, however, lose out in the deal. Even if someone who has worked themselves to the point of being unhealthy does stop doing so, there are likely long-term repercussions of that action.

The same is true with pregnancy. Pregnancy makes irreversible changes to the physiology of a woman. It makes her more susceptible to various disorders. It puts strains on her body that would otherwise not be there. It can possibly kill her.

If you want to call fetuses "unborn children," then I hope you will also refer to all living humans as "undead corpses."

It is normal to speak of things and people in the context of their potential. An adult human is generally thought to be the human that has reached its greatest potential. Thus it is more normal to refer to a dead person as just that, a dead person, rather than to refer to a living person as a not-yet-dead body consisting of mostly hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen in complex molecules. I have merely applied the same logic to the case of an unborn child, recognising that all unborn children reach a greater potential after birth.

I guess people take "Unborn Child" more seriously than "Embryo," even if one is correct and the other stupid emotive terminology.

Like, "Unborn Children's Rights." That actually winds up sounding important and meaningful.

But who could possibly take "Embryonic Rights" seriously? No one.

Actually - November 25th 2001, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worchester, Mass announced they had produced human embryoes via both cloning and parthenogenesis.

The procedure was documented in the November 26th "Science Daily".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011126000857.htm

My advice - if you are going to claim that something CANNOT happen, you are going to look pretty silly if someone can prove it already has...

Wish I could get my hands on the actual article, but the journal doesn't seem to be well-known or easy to get to. =(

Of course, being corporate research, it is unlikely that there'd be much more information in the paper anyways. Corporate researchers are notorious for giving absolutely no detail since it's all "proprietary". =(

It is normal to speak of things and people in the context of their potential.

But it isn't normal to treat things as if they have reached that potential before they do.

An adult human is generally thought to be the human that has reached its greatest potential.

Not necessarily.

I have merely applied the same logic to the case of an unborn child, recognising that all unborn children reach a greater potential after birth.

Many "unborn children" won't even reach birth. Many will be dead at or soon after birth.

Can you prove to me that a fetus has the capacity to make a conscious choice about anything?

What about a one day old baby? Would you like to prove to me that it can make a conscious choice about anything? If you can, then I could probably do the something similar about a child that is two days younger (ie not born).



A fetus is the biologically correct term.

A child is "a young person especially between infancy and youth." (Therefore not a fetus.)


Rather, a fetus is a more specific term, while a child is the more general term. It's like you getting offended at me calling you human rather than man (or woman). I don't see why you are so offended at my reference to the unborn child, rather than a fetus. If you go back among my posts, you might see that I have actually used the term fetus also. It's not like I'm trying to avoid the term, or be offensive to all the pro-choicers. Neither do I see any particular reason to conform to your particular preference of terms.




Therefore calling a fetus, or an embryo as you are wont to do, an "unborn child" is an appeal to emotion because it uses biologically incorrect terminology to draw sympathy for one group (children) and apply it to another (fetuses) purely by word association.


Forget the emotional appeal using selected terms, I have quite openly been pointing out that there is no clear distinction between child and fetus, since there are plenty of cases where fetuses are born at six months and survive to be adults.

And you can take your idea of 'biologically incorrect terminology' and preach to someone else. Sorry. That doesn't make a slightest difference to the argument.


It's more or less like me calling a Doberman that just ripped some guy's throat out, a "poor little puppy." It's intellectually dishonest, or perhaps just ignorant.

Not necessarily. My wife is 8 months pregnant, and we are eagerly expecting the arrival of our first child in a few weeks. The child in my wife womb is just that, a child. I made no commitment to having a biological discussion about this issue. We are talking about a real person here. Imagine my wife and I using biological terminology to discuss our loved one. How inappropriate!

I'm not against biological terminology, but I also recognise that much can be hidden behind clever terms. I would rather avoid that. Thus, as honestly as I can be, the unborn is a child to me.

But it isn't normal to treat things as if they have reached that potential before they do.

Perhaps, but that is a separate point. I am not arguing that we should treat the unborn like an adult (how inappropriate). I am simply arguing that is isn't right to treat the unborn as if they are not human, on the basis that they are not independent (who is), or that they look different (doesn't everyone), or that they cannot currently make their own choices (somewhat like newly born babies).



Not necessarily.


What! Are you going to argue that babies have a greater potential than adults? Perhaps to write a book, or drive a truck?


Many "unborn children" won't even reach birth. Many will be dead at or soon after birth.

Quite so, but at least we won't have taken away their choice to live from them.

What about a one day old baby? Would you like to prove to me that it can make a conscious choice about anything?

It almost certainly has the necessary physiological components and mechanisms (unless it has anencephaly, in which case survival to one day old is unlikely). The same cannot be said of embryos/early fetuses, when elective abortion is legal.

What about a one day old baby? Would you like to prove to me that it can make a conscious choice about anything? If you can, then I could probably do the something similar about a child that is two days younger (ie not born).

The issue is not a one day old baby, nor is it a sleeping person. You are saying a fetus - and embryo and zygot - can and should be allowed to make a choice. Well, if it can't make a choice, then WTF are you arguing for? And if it can make a choice, do show how.

Rather, a fetus is a more specific term, while a child is the more general term. It's like you getting offended at me calling you human rather than man (or woman). I don't see why you are so offended at my reference to the unborn child, rather than a fetus. If you go back among my posts, you might see that I have actually used the term fetus also. It's not like I'm trying to avoid the term, or be offensive to all the pro-choicers. Neither do I see any particular reason to conform to your particular preference of terms.

A child is an incorrect term, as has already been said.

You use it for emotive arguments. To confuse the issue. To draw support from people who are against abortion and who probably don't even KNOW what a "fetus" is. Preying on ignorance in other words.


And you can take your idea of 'biologically incorrect terminology' and preach to someone else. Sorry. That doesn't make a slightest difference to the argument.

It does when you repeat "unborn child" so many times that the emotive appeal IS the crux of your argument.

And your repetitive use of that term is what I would call preaching.

Not necessarily. My wife is 8 months pregnant, and we are eagerly expecting the arrival of our first child in a few weeks. The child in my wife womb is just that, a child.

Well, you've just said you don't care for using correct terminology, so I guess I'm just going to assert that what you call a child is in fact, a zebra. YES!

I'm not against biological terminology, but I also recognise that much can be hidden behind clever terms. I would rather avoid that. Thus, as honestly as I can be, the unborn is a child to me.

It's a zebra to me, pal.

Perhaps, but that is a separate point. I am not arguing that we should treat the unborn like an adult (how inappropriate).

Who said anything about adults? Nothing like creating a clear strawman.

The problem here is that you are trying to treat something which meets neither the biological nor the medical requirements to be a living human being as if it already meets those requirements, why? Because maybe it will one day?

Sure, it's easy to jump to the 5 or 6 month mark and argue about that. There is a reason that abortions at those time points are very heavily regulated, and generally restricted to medical reasons or necessity. To have an honest discussion about abortion, we have to discuss those points at which elective abortion is legal.

What! Are you going to argue that babies have a greater potential than adults? Perhaps to write a book, or drive a truck?

No, I am arguing that adults are not necessarily those who have met their full potential. In fact, we quite often lament that someone did not meet their full potential at any point during their lifetime. That's the thing about potential.

Quite so, but at least we won't have taken away their choice to live from them.

It is impossible to take away choice from something that cannot make a choice. If there is an objective reason for making all abortion illegal, choice is not going to be the reasoning.

Not entirelly. The blacks were entered into slavery against their own will, however, unless the woman has been raped, or incest, the woman consented to sex, so she's not being held hostage when she becomes pregant due to her actions. Now rape or incest, that is another story.

See, this is what I don't get: Unless it was rape, or incest, then it was consensual.

Excuse me? Forgive me if this has already been mentioned but incest can only be either rape or consensual. It's not unheard of for a woman to consent to incestual sex, and if she didn't consent, then it's rape. Is there some sort of obscure middle-ground I'm unaware of? Some sort of non-rape, non-consensual situation?

Actually - November 25th 2001, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worchester, Mass announced they had produced human embryoes via both cloning and parthenogenesis.


The procedure was documented in the November 26th "Science Daily".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011126000857.htm


My advice - if you are going to claim that something CANNOT happen, you are going to look pretty silly if someone can prove it already has...

I'll grant you, the article is compelling, and I definitely learned something. But what strikes me most is this:

Quoted from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011126000857.htm: "...the activated egg cell forms a preimplantation embryo, and the resulting stem cells are differentiated into the type of tissue the patient needs."

You're an intelligent guy (girl?). Take what you want from it, but I see a step in the right direction. Not the complete result. Also considering the statement by Jose B. Cibelli :"Our preliminary results add to the weight of evidence that human cell reprogramming is possible," we have the development of differnetiated stem cells at an embryonic (not blastocystic) stage of development. For parthenogenesis to have occurred completely would require the completer development of a human being from this embryo [achieved through parthenogenic processes].

I stand by my statement: parthenogenesis cannot occur in humans. And this is especially true through natural processes.

It doesn't actually debate abortion at all, but it does make clear that artificially induced miscarriages are a matter of property - and thus entirely at the disposal of the injured party (which, in Hebrew law, would be the 'husband' in the relationship, because he 'owns' his wife, children, fetus, etc).

Does it CONDONE abortion in that verse? No. But it does allow it, if there are no objections.

That which is not DENIED, is allowed. Thus, the Bible supports the right to abort - except in the exceptional circumstances of a husband that objects.

That's a tough bit to swallow. I'm working around it, but it seems I'll have to live with that. I concede the point.

we do actually have proportional representation.


I don't live in a nation that has proportional representation... and it could be argued that Ireland is only nominally a 'proportional representation', since Fianna Fail typically occupies about half the vote, and half the remainder of the vote tends to go to the other 'rightwing' candidate. The result is 'colation government', which isn't TRULY a proportional representation.


the majority are disgusted by abortion so we dont have it. there is no point saying other wise.
ireland is the anti-china.
in china one doesnt vote. one doesnt have freedom of speech. one has restrictions on the internet.


China has nothing to do with the discussion. Perhaps you don't like the Chinese - but it is irrelevent to this matter.


china also promotes abortions. so you can fuck off and ride your bike in china.

I'm sorry? There is no excuse for your bad-mannered use of gutter-language, for a start... but - perhaps more importantly - I don't see what my support for the Pro-Choice platform (in the US) has to do with either Chinese politics, or your rightwing leanings in Ireland?

I'd say you are forced to resort to vitriol because you have no argument.

you complain i dont answer your questions but at the same time you come up with point less statements. do you really think i would only find abortion ok only in situations were it has been fully carried out? do you really think aborted foetuses can be put back in after an abortion? what is this statement suppose to mean?

It means that your statement about 'cells that will become a human' might be very pretty - but has no relevence in an ABORTION debate.

I have no 'political or religious bias' on the issue. I approach the issue entirely pragmatically.

I don't want people telling me what can happen in MY body, so I don't think I should try to impose my will on someone else in that way.

Plus - of course - a foetus is not a baby.

Plus, of course - a foetus HAS no rights... to survive, or otherwise.

So if I kill you and when they put me in jail, I should be able to say, they have no right on my body, including prisoning my body.

So if I kill you and when they put me in jail, I should be able to say, they have no right on my body, including prisoning my body.

I love this post, not just because it completely ignores the one it's supposed to be responding too, but it alludes at a death threat, and then compares murder with abortion. Another classic.

oh canada how impressive. i'm not going to start slagging off canada cause that would be lowering myself to your level.
thats taken from 2003. in 2005 we were no.1. but probably in 2006 we are starting to slip. 8th is still pretty dam high.
I'm not slagging Ireland because it's not #1, I'm slagging it because it takes an antiquated approach to reproductive rights.

I meant relevant sex. I'm not assuming that all 'sex' that occurs is between fertile people, but I was simply referring to all sex between fertile people. I thought that was obvious.
No, it really isn't obvious. And non-procreative sex is relevant.

How does having a baby sacrifice the life of the mother? Are you saying that pregnancies are generally unhealthy for a woman? Because if you are, I strongly disagree.
Then you haven't looked into it much...

For example, women with children are less likely to get some forms of cancer. And women to tend to live longer than men. Perhaps that's because of pregnancy. Who knows?
Women with more than two children die younger than women with fewer children. A lack of a period can also lead to osteoperosis.

If anything, women live longer than men because estrogen protects from heart disease to some degree.

Is it just me, or has this turned into a thread about how to debate, rather than a debate thread regarding abortion?

Abortion is murder.

In Christianity, all humans without wrong-doing of the ten commandments deserve life, born, or unborn.

So, in truth, if you don't want a child, then the best birth control is... DON'T DO IT.

Abortion is murder.

In Christianity, all humans without wrong-doing of the ten commandments deserve life, born, or unborn.

So, in truth, if you don't want a child, then the best birth control is... DON'T DO IT.
But sex is fun, or so I'm told.
You eat cows I'm sure. Fetuses are even less self-aware than them. The little buggers don't feel a thing, and I assure you that a life unlived is better than a life lived unwanted.

sacrificing implies giving up. dont worry you'll get your bady back. those might evil children of destruction wont take it away.

But for nine months of my life, I am expected to give up my body for the use of another life-form. A human being does not have the right to use another's body for it's survival, why should a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/foetus be afforded this right?

Not necessarily. My wife is 8 months pregnant, and we are eagerly expecting the arrival of our first child in a few weeks. The child in my wife womb is just that, a child. I made no commitment to having a biological discussion about this issue. We are talking about a real person here. Imagine my wife and I using biological terminology to discuss our loved one. How inappropriate!
I'm not against biological terminology, but I also recognise that much can be hidden behind clever terms. I would rather avoid that. Thus, as honestly as I can be, the unborn is a child to me.

But obviously, this is a child you (and presumably your wife) want. It would be inappropriate for you to discuss a child which you want and desire in strictly biological terms. However, we are not talking about your child; we are talking about the issue of abortion and therefore should use biologically correct terminology which allows us to detach ourselves from our personal emotions and consider the facts.

But obviously, this is a child you (and presumably your wife) want. It would be inappropriate for you to discuss a child which you want and desire in strictly biological terms. However, we are not talking about your child; we are talking about the issue of abortion and therefore should use biologically correct terminology which allows us to detach ourselves from our personal emotions and consider the facts.

Desire and 'want' make biologoical words inappropriate descriptions? Interesting.


If I want it, it'a a baby.

If I don't want it, it's a parasite.

If I want it, it's a child.

If I don't want it, it's a brainless cluster of cells, like a cancer growth...


Can a thing have worth because of another's desire for it? Apparently Yes.
Can a thing have worth because it shows a self protective and active effort for growth of self? Apparently not.

Again, interesting. But I think I disagree.

Desire and 'want' make biologoical words inappropriate descriptions? Interesting.


If I want it, it'a a baby.

If I don't want it, it's a parasite.

If I want it, it's a child.

If I don't want it, it's a brainless cluster of cells, like a cancer growth...


Can a thing have worth because of another's desire for it? Apparently Yes.
Can a thing have worth because it shows a self protective and active effort for growth of self? Apparently not.

Again, interesting. But I think I disagree.
Well, whether you want it or not doesn't change what it is, however no one's talking about a desired pregnancy, so really they can be called whatever one wants.

But sex is fun, or so I'm told.
You eat cows I'm sure. Fetuses are even less self-aware than them. The little buggers don't feel a thing, and I assure you that a life unlived is better than a life lived unwanted.

another pointless statement from the pro-choicers.
i am not a cow. it is not my job to protect them.

another pointless statement from the pro-choicers.
i am not a cow. it is not my job to protect them.

Speaking of pointless.....

Speaking of pointless.....

how so? just because you disagree with something, doesnt make it pointless. i am not a cow. the fate of cows does not concern me, unless i'm eating it. i am human. issues involving humans concern me. explain whats wrong with that? should i feel sad when people eat cows? i think that would bw worthy of a separate thread.

how so? just because you disagree with something, doesnt make it pointless. i am not a cow. the fate of cows does not concern me, unless i'm eating it. i am human. issues involving humans concern me. explain whats wrong with that? should i feel sad when people eat cows? i think that would bw worthy of a separate thread.

The fact that we are not talking about humans here, but about cluster of cells with the possibility (not even the certainty) to become human some day.

The fact that we are not talking about humans here, but about cluster of cells with the possibility (not even the certainty) to become human some day.

it may not be a full human, but it is partly human. it has the 'blue prints' to be human. for alot of us, that is very important. also not allowing a life to fully develope effects the rest of us humans. you go go out kill some random adult guy that isnt me. it may not effect me directly, so why should i care? i care cause effects society on some level. you may be randomly killing a doctor or a scientist working on a cure that may save a disease that i may catch in the future.

it may not be a full human, but it is partly human. it has the 'blue prints' to be human. for alot of us, that is very important. also not allowing a life to fully develope effects the rest of us humans. you go go out kill some random adult guy that isnt me. it may not effect me directly, so why should i care? i care cause effects society on some level. you may be randomly killing a doctor or a scientist working on a cure that may save a disease that i may catch in the future.

A random adult is a person and a human being. A foetus is neither. Allowing it to develop is on the whole much more likely to affect you negatively some day in the future than not allowing it to develop if the mother doesn't want it.

Oh dear, the good old "you might be killing a future Nobel laureate" argument. You could just as well prevent a second Hitler from being born. Or a second Marx. Or a second Bush.

A random adult is a person and a human being. A foetus is neither. Allowing it to develop is on the whole much more likely to affect you negatively some day in the future than not allowing it to develop if the mother doesn't want it.

Oh dear, the good old "you might be killing a future Nobel laureate" argument. You could just as well prevent a second Hitler from being born. Or a second Marx. Or a second Bush.

people arnt born 'hitlers'. society makes them. the unborn are human enough for me to care.

so it seems the main arguement in this discusion is were are not it will effect society negatively or positive? we should keep it to that. argueing about rights is annoying.

people arnt born 'hitlers'. society makes them. the unborn are human enough for me to care.

so it seems the main arguement in this discusion is were are not it will effect society negatively or positive? we should keep it to that. argueing about rights is annoying.

Neither are people born to become doctors and Nobel laureates. Thanks for debunking your own argument.

No, the discussion is about rights. You just decided to get side-tracked by claiming that the possible future humans could possibly be a benefit for society.

Neither are people born to become doctors and Nobel laureates. Thanks for debunking your own argument.


The book Freakenomics has some interesting things to say about the trends those aborted foetuses would have followed.

The trend is NOT that they become Doctors.

The book Freakenomics has some interesting things to say about the trends those aborted foetuses would have followed.

The trend is NOT that they become Doctors.

*lol
I guess you only need a little common sense and a basic understanding of psychology and mental development to suspect that already ;)

The issue is not a one day old baby, nor is it a sleeping person. You are saying a fetus - and embryo and zygot - can and should be allowed to make a choice. Well, if it can't make a choice, then WTF are you arguing for? And if it can make a choice, do show how.

The point has already been made that even though it might not be able to make a choice, it is on the way to developing those capabilities. Killing it is preventing that development, thus taking away the possibility of it ever making a choice.

A one day old baby probably can't make choices also. Thus the issue cannot be over whether a baby or a fetus can make a choice or not. That's not how we decide whether we are allowed to kill it or not.


You use it for emotive arguments. To confuse the issue. To draw support from people who are against abortion and who probably don't even KNOW what a "fetus" is. Preying on ignorance in other words.

No, I'm not using emotive arguments. I have simply used the term 'fetus' interchangeably with 'unborn child', because that is how I see the fetus--an unborn child. And I would be surprised if anyone on this thread was ignorant regarding the meaning of a fetus and an unborn child.

I suggest that you are blowing smoke over that point.



It does when you repeat "unborn child" so many times that the emotive appeal IS the crux of your argument.

And your repetitive use of that term is what I would call preaching.


Just because I happen to not use your favourite term, you are accusing me of preaching and preying on ignorance and using emotive arguments. You would be right if I didn't legitimately think of a fetus as an unborn child. The honest truth is that I do, and thus your accusations don't stick. You have no right to insist that everyone uses your particular choice of terminology--otherwise they are using emotive arguments. That is quite false.


Well, you've just said you don't care for using correct terminology, so I guess I'm just going to assert that what you call a child is in fact, a zebra. YES!


I didn't say that I didn't care for correct terminology, just that I didn't care for your version of correct terminology. I didn't claim to enter this discussion on the basis of correct scientific terminology, whatever that is (in this case anyway). And I definitely do not think that all discussions are better off taking place using scientific terminology.


It's a zebra to me, pal.

Looks like you are the one that is not even interested in an objective discussion. Rather, you are turning an objective debate into something personal, hardly anything resembling scientific.

Who said anything about adults? Nothing like creating a clear strawman.

No, I wasn't creating a stawman, but making the point that while we do not treat babies and fetuses like adults, neither should we treat them as something less than human. They are simply small humans, regardless of whether they are born or not born. There is nothing 'magic' about birth that confers the human status upon an individual, or is there?


The problem here is that you are trying to treat something which meets neither the biological nor the medical requirements to be a living human being as if it already meets those requirements, why? Because maybe it will one day?


OK, so we are getting closer to the heart of the debate. Just what is a human, and why should we accept the biological or medical requirements as grounds for defining a human? And just what are they, anyway, in your opinion?

I definitely give some consideration to the potential of the fetus to be an adult. I think that is an important factor to take into account.


Sure, it's easy to jump to the 5 or 6 month mark and argue about that. There is a reason that abortions at those time points are very heavily regulated, and generally restricted to medical reasons or necessity. To have an honest discussion about abortion, we have to discuss those points at which elective abortion is legal.


Right. Of course I do recognise this, but in my previous posts, I was replying to points made by people who did not specify the age of the fetus. It did seem as if anything not born was simply treated in proportion to how greatly it was desired. If the fetus was not desired, should it be treated differently to those that are desired? We don't allow this among the humans that are already born. Should we allow it among the unborn?

The issue of *when* a fetus should be recognised as too 'human' to kill is an important one. And it is certainly not clear to me. I am not comfortable with the idea of any killing at all, although I do recognise that many fetuses--perhaps the majority--are terminated naturally. Overall, my conclusion pretty much stands as undecided, and yet I will never be comfortable with the thought that abortions at even the early stages are ok.


No, I am arguing that adults are not necessarily those who have met their full potential. In fact, we quite often lament that someone did not meet their full potential at any point during their lifetime. That's the thing about potential.


Perhaps I should have specified that I referred to 'potential' in the sense of currently capable of performing an act, rather than 'potential' in the sense of one day being able to perform an act. Indeed, the 'current' potential makes much more sense, otherwise we would be running around trying to save every sperm and egg cell because of their future potential to form individuals that might find the cure for cancer.


It is impossible to take away choice from something that cannot make a choice. If there is an objective reason for making all abortion illegal, choice is not going to be the reasoning.

I fully recognise that the unborn may or may not be capable of making choices, and I don't know if we will ever know that. But what we can agree on is that unless we force an abortion, the fetus will be able to make a choice. Therefore, the (future) potential of the ability to make a choice should be considered.

We don't do this for sperm or eggs because the choice that is necessary for fertilization (e.g. consenting adults) is not yet made. And if I say the word 'choice' in yet another sentence, it's going to make me look pro-choice.

Actually, I sort of am. I'm pro-choice for everyone involved, except for where killing is involved. To me, killing a life seems to be the greater of two evils (where the other one is an unwanted pregnancy).

Furthermore, while I don't like the killing, I'm not necessarily arguing for legislation that prevents killing. That is a separate (although related) issue. I'm just terribly glad that I am not a politician. I do have a vote, though, and currently, I cannot bring myself to vote for the killing--even if I don't particularly like that particular representative.

I shall simply repeat how sad it is that you've decided to run away from the point and hide behind a 'OMG you can't say that!!!' defence.


Again, calling you a Nazi is offensive. Highlighting an important historical example of how changing terminology was used to justify actions is not.

Only because it is easier for you to deny it exists than to accept you are killing. It is a standard tactic of all oppressive regimes; the Jews were not, after all, 'people' for the Nazi's to kill.

Do you suck at this so badly that you don't know that you suggested pro-choicers are an oppressive regime? You said she was using euphemisms like oppressive regimes always do. You made a comparison. It's called Godwin's law and it's an internet term because it's one of those things that people generally get punched in the nose for in real life. I've never heard anyone in real life call another person a Nazi or compare their beliefs to that of Nazis, but it happens in every thread here on NSG. You clearly suggest that pro-choicers are an oppressive regime by saying a tactic of all oppressive regimes, rather than "this is also a tactic of oppressive regimes" or even the less clear "this is a tactic of oppressive regimes." The statement clearly communicates that pro-choicers are like every other oppressive regimes in this fashion.

If you're going to use logical fallacies, it's worthwhile to know what they are so you won't be surprised when people dismiss your arguments because of them.

Meanwhile, you've failed here. You make a claim that the line of conception is the obvious point of the beginning of life. Correct? So of course, you can show me that funerals are held for miscarriages, yes? Everyone should have those funerals since that line is so obvious. Oh, wait.

And, of course, we measure how long you've been alive, your age, since conception, no? Oh, wait.

And, of course, since living cells with human DNA qualify for personhood, then of course we've never taken anyone off life support. Oh, wait.

And, of course, we define personhood at every other phase of life as requiring brain activity, so much so that it defines the end of life, but obviously assigning a completely different line and completely different standards to an embry isn't arbitrary. Oh, wait.

Look, you base your entire argument on a claim that is every bit as arbitrary as most claims and more than some. When you've established that we treat conception as the beginning of life for anything other than the abortion debate then you'll have a point that it's pro-choicers trying to change the line.

Of course, you're going to have to change funerals, birthdays, the definition of death, the definition of life and virtually everything relating to life and death OUTSIDE of the abortion debate. Until then, you're just talking out of your arse.

No, it really isn't obvious. And non-procreative sex is relevant.

If you mean by non-procreative sex all the sex that cannot result in pregnancy, like gay sex, or sex between old people, then such sex is obviously not that relevant when considering abortions. That just has to be so obvious, sorry.


Then you haven't looked into it much...


Quite right. I haven't, and I should. But what I have read is that there does seem to be some benefits to having children. You should consider it for yourself sometime. It's healthy, you know.


Women with more than two children die younger than women with fewer children. A lack of a period can also lead to osteoperosis.


That's because they have too many kids to worry about. Stress leads to premature aging. My poor mother had eight, and I was number seven. And no, she wasn't Catholic, just exceptionally fertile--and completely grey haired by age 40. But she is nearly 70, and still works like a man back on the farm. Can't get her to slow down.

I don't quite understand what the lack of a period has got to do with it. Does that mean that having too many children means too few periods, leading to higher chances of osteoperosis? Given that a woman generally has approximately 12 periods per year for about 30 years (rough guess), which is about 360 periods, does it make much difference if she misses a few due to being pregnant, say with two pregnancies?

Anyway, women with no pregnancies or late pregnancies are more likely to get breast cancer--the biggest cancer killer here in Germany.



If anything, women live longer than men because estrogen protects from heart disease to some degree.

That would have to be a guess. My guess is because men eat far too much and exercise far too little and generally have higher metabolisms. No, wait, maybe it really is something to do with hormones and pregnancy? See, everyone can make guesses.

Desire and 'want' make biologoical words inappropriate descriptions? Interesting.


If I want it, it'a a baby.

If I don't want it, it's a parasite.

If I want it, it's a child.

If I don't want it, it's a brainless cluster of cells, like a cancer growth...


Can a thing have worth because of another's desire for it? Apparently Yes.
Can a thing have worth because it shows a self protective and active effort for growth of self? Apparently not.

Again, interesting. But I think I disagree.

Amusing the point is that if we were talking about your child you might call it your little angel, but if we were talking about children in general in relation to whether or not certain activities should be legal it's more legitimate to speak about them using technical terms.

Whether you want the embry or not, it is an embryo. If you're talking about an embryo in your body you can call it what you want, but if you're talking about embryos in general then it's much more appropriate to refer to them in biological terms for which they actually qualify.

Do you suck at this so badly that you don't know that you suggested pro-choicers are an oppressive regime? You said she was using euphemisms like oppressive regimes always do. You made a comparison. It's called Godwin's law and it's an internet term because it's one of those things that people generally get punched in the nose for in real life. I've never heard anyone in real life call another person a Nazi or compare their beliefs to that of Nazis, but it happens in every thread here on NSG.


Pfft. It's not about regime, it's about substituting terminology.

Nazis:

human ---> jews

Jews are parasites (they actually said that), they can be killed.


"Pro-choice" (!!!!) People

human --->fetus, a fetilized egg is genetically a human

killing ----> abortion

fetus is a parasite, it can be killed.


If you're going to use logical fallacies, it's worthwhile to know what they are so you won't be surprised when people dismiss your arguments because of them.

Meanwhile, you've failed here. You make a claim that the line of conception is the obvious point of the beginning of life. Correct? So of course, you can show me that funerals are held for miscarriages, yes? Everyone should have those funerals since that line is so obvious. Oh, wait.


Making a funeral and allowing to live are different concepts. I'm sure some poor people cant make funerals as well. That doesnt mean they should be killed.


And, of course, we measure how long you've been alive, your age, since conception, no? Oh, wait.


Yes, birth is the 0 moment. The moment of completion. We measure time after Jesus, that doesnt meant it's all blank before that.


And, of course, since living cells with human DNA qualify for personhood, then of course we've never taken anyone off life support. Oh, wait.


It's a painful decision and is done if the person doesnt have *tiny* chance of recovery. On the other hand, the fetus will grow into consciousness itself. The analogy is silly.


And, of course, we define personhood at every other phase of life as requiring brain activity, so much so that it defines the end of life, but obviously assigning a completely different line and completely different standards to an embry isn't arbitrary. Oh, wait.


What defines the end of life is when brain activity *finishes*. Fetus will have brain activity itself.


Look, you base your entire argument on a claim that is every bit as arbitrary as most claims and more than some. When you've established that we treat conception as the beginning of life for anything other than the abortion debate then you'll have a point that it's pro-choicers trying to change the line.

Of course, you're going to have to change funerals, birthdays, the definition of death, the definition of life and virtually everything relating to life and death OUTSIDE of the abortion debate. Until then, you're just talking out of your arse.

Subjective. A person might believe that s/he debunked you by mentioning pink mountains. That doesnt mean his/her analogy is relevant or makes sense.

So if I kill you and when they put me in jail, I should be able to say, they have no right on my body, including prisoning my body.

I don't see how you got to that from what I wrote... and it isn't close to the topic - so I'll just ignore it.

If you feel like explaining how you think it's connected, maybe I'll come back and respond, but right now, I'm bored.

another pointless statement from the pro-choicers.
i am not a cow. it is not my job to protect them.

You are also (I assume) not a foetus, right?

Amusing the point is that if we were talking about your child you might call it your little angel, but if we were talking about children in general in relation to whether or not certain activities should be legal it's more legitimate to speak about them using technical terms.

Whether you want the embry or not, it is an embryo. If you're talking about an embryo in your body you can call it what you want, but if you're talking about embryos in general then it's much more appropriate to refer to them in biological terms for which they actually qualify.

Legitimate? I think you mean appropriate. But that is precisely the point. Would you ever talk about a human as a body of reactive tissue? But someone might argue that such terminology is more appropriate, more scientific, more biological. To which I would say that 'appropriate' is quite subjective. What you find appropriate is not necessarily what I find appropriate. I don't find it appropriate to discuss school children, for example, in terms of small bodies of reactive tissue.

Neither do I find it all that necessary to claim that it is more appropriate to use the term 'fetus' rather than 'unborn child'. But it really is up to the individual, in this case, IMO, depending on their point of view. Claims of 'inappropriate' or 'illegitimate' from people on the opposite side of the debate are hardly fair. One's choice of terminology should reflect their point of view, wouldn't you agree?

it may not be a full human, but it is partly human. it has the 'blue prints' to be human. for alot of us, that is very important. also not allowing a life to fully develope effects the rest of us humans. you go go out kill some random adult guy that isnt me. it may not effect me directly, so why should i care? i care cause effects society on some level. you may be randomly killing a doctor or a scientist working on a cure that may save a disease that i may catch in the future.

Sperm has 'blue prints' to 'be human', but will NOT be 'a human' unles it combines with an ovum.

A foetus has 'blue' prints' to 'be human', but will NOT be 'a human' unless is is allowed continued access to someone's uterus.

Every sperm carries code to make a human, so - unless you are collecting every sperm, we are 'killing' way more 'potential humans' every time a guy urinates, than we could hope to 'kill' through abortion.

Legitimate? I think you mean appropriate. But that is precisely the point. Would you ever talk about a human as a body of reactive tissue?

Yes. Would and have.

But someone might argue that such terminology is more appropriate, more scientific, more biological. To which I would say that 'appropriate' is quite subjective. What you find appropriate is not necessarily what I find appropriate. I don't find it appropriate to discuss school children, for example, in terms of small bodies of reactive tissue.

You might not, but it would depend on the context. It's not appropriate to make an argument about school children by calling them angels. It would not be a LEGITIMATE argument. (I didn't use the wrong word, despite your confusion).


Neither do I find it all that necessary to claim that it is more appropriate to use the term 'fetus' rather than 'unborn child'. But it really is up to the individual, in this case, IMO, depending on their point of view. Claims of 'inappropriate' or 'illegitimate' from people on the opposite side of the debate are hardly fair. One's choice of terminology should reflect their point of view, wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't. If you are trying to make an argument for an objective line, then your argument should reflect that. See our argument can be personal because we are arguing for personal choice. One arguing for an objective rule must, of course, prove objectively that their rule is legitimate. You haven't. You instead are relying on personal terminology, reflecting your personal feelings, in order to make rules that other people who do not share those feelings must follow. Worse, you're making a rule that you'll never have to follow yourself using emotive rather than objective terminology.

Meanwhile, when talking about abortions fetus is an incorrect term in most cases. Embryo is more appropriate.

And, since the embry does not meet the requirements for life that we hold for every other stage of life, you've got a TON of work to do. Get started.

"Pro-choice" (!!!!) People

human --->fetus, a fetilized egg is genetically a human


Rubbish. A fertilised egg is genetically 'human'... not A human.

How do you feel about abortions after rape, incest, or combinations of the two?

How do you feel about abortions of 'damaged' foetuses?

The point has already been made that even though it might not be able to make a choice, it is on the way to developing those capabilities. Killing it is preventing that development, thus taking away the possibility of it ever making a choice.

If I go and dig up the seed for an apple tree, I have prevented an apple tree from forming and dropping apples. I have not, however, stolen any apples.

No, I wasn't creating a stawman,

Yes, you were. By presenting my argument as addressing whether or not we treat fetuses or infants as adults, you turned it into a ridiculous and easily debunked piece of nonsense. Thing is, I never made any such comparison.

OK, so we are getting closer to the heart of the debate. Just what is a human, and why should we accept the biological or medical requirements as grounds for defining a human? And just what are they, anyway, in your opinion?

What other requirements do we have? If we do not accept the biological and medical requirements, what are we doing burying people in the ground who might actually be living human beings, since we aren't going to go by the medical definition of living? If a doctor declares someone as dead, that shouldn't matter, right? After all, there's no reason that we should go by the medical definitions to determine this. :rolleyes:

Biological requirements for life, in general, include the ability to obtain and use nutrients, the ability to excrete wastes, growth and development, and response to stimuli. In the broadest sense, the fetus meets these requirements as an entity between 10 and 12 weeks, when a rudimentary nervous system is developed.

However, even at that point, the recognized medical requirements for a person to be deemed alive are not met. A born person with the same stimulus response as a 10-12 week old fetus would be declared brain dead. It would be legal to remove all life support and begin harvesting organs. Thus, unless we are going to irrationally apply different criteria to a fetus than we do to human beings (which would already classify it as something other than a human person, as differen't criteria would be necessary), it is not medically alive. It reaches that point when the brain is sufficiently developed, which generally falls somewhere between 20 and 22 weeks.

I definitely give some consideration to the potential of the fetus to be an adult. I think that is an important factor to take into account.

I do too. But putting value on potential is not an objective consideration. It is subjective. I value that potential. You value that potential. Others do not.

Right. Of course I do recognise this, but in my previous posts, I was replying to points made by people who did not specify the age of the fetus. It did seem as if anything not born was simply treated in proportion to how greatly it was desired. If the fetus was not desired, should it be treated differently to those that are desired? We don't allow this among the humans that are already born. Should we allow it among the unborn?

Of course we allow it among humans that are already born. If I value my mother more than a homeless person on the street, I may give her money or shelter to help her get through the month, but I might deny that money or shelter to a homeless person. Said homeless person might die without that money and shelter, but there is nothing illegal about this. A woman who wants a child will be willing to provide the use of her body to a developing embryo/fetus so that she can have her child. A woman who does not is less likely to be willing to make that sacrifice.

Overall, my conclusion pretty much stands as undecided, and yet I will never be comfortable with the thought that abortions at even the early stages are ok.

You don't have to think they're ok to be pro-choice. I don't, and I would advise against it if anyone asked my advice. I would, however, recognize that it is not my choice to make, and support any friend or relative of mine in any decision she made.

Perhaps I should have specified that I referred to 'potential' in the sense of currently capable of performing an act, rather than 'potential' in the sense of one day being able to perform an act. Indeed, the 'current' potential makes much more sense, otherwise we would be running around trying to save every sperm and egg cell because of their future potential to form individuals that might find the cure for cancer.

With this, your argument ceases to make any sense at all. If "potential" is meant to be the current capabilities, then what an embryo/fetus might become is completely irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is what it is currently capable of.

I fully recognise that the unborn may or may not be capable of making choices, and I don't know if we will ever know that.

How would an embryo/fetus make choices without a brain? While we may never be able to pinpoint a specific instant at which choices can be made, we can most certainly determine before and after states.

But what we can agree on is that unless we force an abortion, the fetus will be able to make a choice.[/qutoe]

We can't agree on any such thing, and you have already admitted as much. Miscarriage, stillbirth, severe birth defects, etc. could all mean that the ability to make choices will never be developed.

[quote]Therefore, the (future) potential of the ability to make a choice should be considered.

Why? When determining who can vote, should we take into account the fact that a 3 year old might one day have the ability to comprehend the issues involved in voting? Or should we look at those who can already do so?

Furthermore, while I don't like the killing, I'm not necessarily arguing for legislation that prevents killing. That is a separate (although related) issue. I'm just terribly glad that I am not a politician. I do have a vote, though, and currently, I cannot bring myself to vote for the killing--even if I don't particularly like that particular representative.

Voting for pro-choice legislators is not voting for "killing." It is perfectly possible to be politically pro-choice and personally anti-abortion. You have contradicted yourself here. If you are not in favor of legislation that prevents abortion, then voting for a pro-choice representative would be no problem for you. There is no reason to believe that such a representative is pro-abortion, simply that he, like you, does not wish to enact legislation that makes abortion illegal.

I don't quite understand what the lack of a period has got to do with it. Does that mean that having too many children means too few periods, leading to higher chances of osteoperosis? Given that a woman generally has approximately 12 periods per year for about 30 years (rough guess), which is about 360 periods, does it make much difference if she misses a few due to being pregnant, say with two pregnancies?

Missed periods from all sorts of problems contribute to the risk factors for osteoporosis. A woman who has two normal pregnancies is going to miss periods for about 18 months. There are very few disease processes that would cause her to miss them for any longer than that, yet all of them seem to be risk factors for osteoporosis.

In addition, pregnancy itself has been linked as a risk factor for osteoporosis, although breastfeeding does seem to help alleviate (although not completely do away with) this particular problem.

Women who develop gestational diabetes, which is quite common, are also at a much higher risk of developing permanent Type II diabetes later in life.


Anyway, women with no pregnancies or late pregnancies are more likely to get breast cancer--the biggest cancer killer here in Germany.

I have seen studies that suggest this.

So, who should make the decision on which risks to take? The government? Or the person who is going to have to deal with the consequences?


Amusing the point is that if we were talking about your child you might call it your little angel, but if we were talking about children in general in relation to whether or not certain activities should be legal it's more legitimate to speak about them using technical terms.

Whether you want the embry or not, it is an embryo. If you're talking about an embryo in your body you can call it what you want, but if you're talking about embryos in general then it's much more appropriate to refer to them in biological terms for which they actually qualify.

Indeed, it's a perception thing. If I were to become pregnant, I would most likely see the developing embryo/fetus as a baby from the minute I knew about it. This isn't because it actually would be a fully formed baby, but because I would be anticipating and looking forward to the time when I would have a baby. It wouldn't be inappropriate for me to refer to it as such, because, as far as I would be concerned, it might as well be. If I were to accidentally find out the sex (I don't plan on knowing ahead of time), I might even refer to it as my son or daughter.

However, when discussing pregnancies in general, technical terms are more appropriate. Why? Because they don't depend on perception - only on the actual level of development. They don't imply anything above and beyond that, as perception-based terms would.

Neither do I find it all that necessary to claim that it is more appropriate to use the term 'fetus' rather than 'unborn child'. But it really is up to the individual, in this case, IMO, depending on their point of view. Claims of 'inappropriate' or 'illegitimate' from people on the opposite side of the debate are hardly fair. One's choice of terminology should reflect their point of view, wouldn't you agree?

That all depends. Are you trying to discuss something that you know is subjective, and therefore should not be forced upon others? In that case, emotive terminology is just fine. You are merely stating your opinion, which you have no intention of forcing upon others.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to argue that your position should be universal, that everyone should adhere to it, that you have some sort of objective backing, the use of inherently subjective terms will undermine your argument.

Pfft. It's not about regime, it's about substituting terminology.

Nazis:

human ---> jews

Jews are parasites (they actually said that), they can be killed.


"Pro-choice" (!!!!) People

human --->fetus, a fetilized egg is genetically a human

killing ----> abortion

fetus is a parasite, it can be killed.

The difference being here that Jews were called parasites emotively, to dehumanize them. They didn't meet any biological definition of a biological term.

Embryos would, in fact, meet the terms for being parasitic except, of course, that they don't qualify as a life. The use of the term actually treats embryos as if they have more qualities for life, not less.

Making a funeral and allowing to live are different concepts. I'm sure some poor people cant make funerals as well. That doesnt mean they should be killed.

Doesn't reply to the argument. The point is not that because they don't have funerals they aren't living. I wasn't talking about a specific case, but that generally we have funerals to mourn a death but not for embryos (generally).

The point is that people don't have funerals for embryos. At all. That's because we don't consider the beginning of life to be conception despite the argument made by the poster I was replying to that conception is the ONLY objective line for the beginning of life. Outside of a fetus or embryo, can you show me ANY other stage of life where we don't have funerals (generally) for humans?



Yes, birth is the 0 moment. The moment of completion. We measure time after Jesus, that doesnt meant it's all blank before that.

No one is claiming it's a blank. Again, you're not replying to the argument. The argument is that we measure the beginning of life at birth for the purpose of age. At birth for the purpose of mourning.

We require brain activity for life at every birth after birth.

It is only the anti-choice arguments that pretend as if conception is an objective line while ignoring that they have to change every view of life we have in place in order to do so.

It's a painful decision and is done if the person doesnt have *tiny* chance of recovery. On the other hand, the fetus will grow into consciousness itself. The analogy is silly.

It's not an analogy. I'm not suggesting a fetus is like a person on life support. I'm suggesting that a fetus does not have brain activity and showed an example of how we view brain activity as a measure for life. Please employ a dictionary, my friend.

Again, you're missing the point. We treat brain activity as a requirement for life. We don't end life support based on the chance of recovery alone. The time of death is at the point where brain activity ceases according to medical requirements.




What defines the end of life is when brain activity *finishes*. Fetus will have brain activity itself.

The embryo won't and the fetus doesn't. That's the point. If death is when it finishes then it could be objectively argued that birth is when it (brain activity) begins. It's a requirement for every other stage of life, but anti-choicers want to ignore it in order to win the debate.

The point AGAIN is that the poster I was replying to claimed that the ONLY objective line for beginning of life is conception, and I've proven that an objective argument could be made for a number of other points. No argument you've made thus far addresses this point. At all.

Subjective. A person might believe that s/he debunked you by mentioning pink mountains. That doesnt mean his/her analogy is relevant or makes sense.

This isn't an analogy. You don't seem to get it. He claimed there are NO objective arguments regarding the beginning of life except for conception. I pointed out that this ignores the obvious FACT that every definition of life we have outside of the abortion debate, in fact, ignores conception almost entirely.

Now, would you care to make an argument that actually addresses my post? I'll wait.

Indeed, it's a perception thing. If I were to become pregnant, I would most likely see the developing embryo/fetus as a baby from the minute I knew about it. This isn't because it actually would be a fully formed baby, but because I would be anticipating and looking forward to the time when I would have a baby. It wouldn't be inappropriate for me to refer to it as such, because, as far as I would be concerned, it might as well be. If I were to accidentally find out the sex (I don't plan on knowing ahead of time), I might even refer to it as my son or daughter.

However, when discussing pregnancies in general, technical terms are more appropriate. Why? Because they don't depend on perception - only on the actual level of development. They don't imply anything above and beyond that, as perception-based terms would.

Indeed. There is a scene in The Last Boyscout where Damon Wayans talks about Alex the astronaut or Alex the lawyer. Alex is his son who died. It's not inappropriate for him to talk about his son as an adult as if his financial success was guaranteed, but it is wholly inappropriate for people to try and make a law based on the concept that children will generally be financially successful and call it objective.

Deciding on whether abortion is right or wrong depends on when an individual believes the foetus becomes a human being ... when its heart beats or when it breathes on its own. There will never be a definite answer so the debate continues!

Actually, many of us believe that a new human being is created at fertilization. The moment the egg is fertilized, you have a cell with DNA that is unique, thus you have a new human being.

Right.
So, everybody who is in need of an organ transplant, say, a kidney, is automatically entitled to one of yours, right? Otherwise you'd be putting your right to determine what happens to your body before the right of another person to live.

That arguments has been debunked so many times, it's really getting kind of boring now.

You are supposing that the fetus is part of the woman's body when it is not. It has it's own unique DNA, seperate from the mother. Ergo, science defines the fetus as a new human being.

To Live - sure.

Tell us oh creator - when does life begin?


Life begins when new DNA comes into existance, i.e., when the egg is fertilized.

Actually, many of us believe that a new human being is created at fertilization. The moment the egg is fertilized, you have a cell with DNA that is unique, thus you have a new human being.

Not according to the definitions of life, which have been discussed at length in this and other threads. Meanwhile, that new human being is perfectly welcome to find sustanence elsewhere.

Actually, many of us believe that a new human being is created at fertilization.

no, you don't. or rather, i strongly doubt that you do. if you do, you would be considered monstrous if you ever acted on that belief.

You are supposing that the fetus is part of the woman's body when it is not. It has it's own unique DNA, seperate from the mother. Ergo, science defines the fetus as a new human being.

No, it isn't supposing the 'fetus' is a part of the woman's body. She is supposing that even if it is a new human being it doesn't have rights to her uterus. Meanwhile, it is not a fetus at the time of the majority of abortions.

I've never heard anyone in real life call another person a Nazi or compare their beliefs to that of Nazis, but it happens in every thread here on NSG.

he made a good comparison. nazi's considered jews parasites. other people didnt. some pro-choicers consider the unborn parasites. others dont.

i take you dont talk alot to other people in a large of mix views then? the word nazi gets thrown around alot. one of my nicknames at discusion group is "xxx the nazi". were as i often call the uber socialists nazi's or any liberal that doesnt like hearing people of different opinion. like the famous(if an irish people here remember two years ago?), chant at a imagration debate in ucd, "no freedom of speech for facists".
i also like to use the phrase "grammar nazi" for those who complain about other peoples grammar when they cant find a better way to argue.

First things first. Lets all be real now; Shall the fetus be 8 months old. It has no feelings, nor pain, nor thoughts. Scientifically, the brain develops thoughts and abilities to fuction the entire body at the moment of birth. Thus meaning it can not feel anything when it is being "aborted". The Theocracy of Judas Worshippers is a pro-slavery nation. Oops. Did I say pro-slavery? I meant "pro-abortion" nation. It should be the choice of the upcoming mother to decide the fate of the fetus.

Thank you & All hail Judas.

-The Theocracy of Judas Worshippers.

You are supposing that the fetus is part of the woman's body when it is not.

no, that misreads the analogy. the analogy is somebody other than yourself having use of your body against your wishes. just to spell it out, other person = fetus, kidney = uterus.

no, you don't. or rather, i strongly doubt that you do. if you do, you would be considered monstrous if you ever acted on that belief.

How so?

Sperm has 'blue prints' to 'be human', but will NOT be 'a human' unles it combines with an ovum.

A foetus has 'blue' prints' to 'be human', but will NOT be 'a human' unless is is allowed continued access to someone's uterus.

Every sperm carries code to make a human, so - unless you are collecting every sperm, we are 'killing' way more 'potential humans' every time a guy urinates, than we could hope to 'kill' through abortion.

this is a silly arguement. my understanding is that sperm had half of what genes that are needed. also sperm dies within three days. so it is posible to use up ll the sperm produced fully productively. if we could set a system were i am having sex with different women continuously, in order to use as much as my sperm as posible, i would be all for that!:D

he made a good comparison. nazi's considered jews parasites. other people didnt. some pro-choicers consider the unborn parasites. others dont.

Which would be useful if we were talking about popular opinion rather than biology. Some people treat their pets as if they are sentient, but by no means will that every be comparable to finding a new species and recognizing it is sentient. We are talking about biological definitions. Something you've openly admitted to being unwilling to bother with learning.

i take you dont talk alot to other people in a large of mix views then? the word nazi gets thrown around alot. one of my nicknames at discusion group is "xxx the nazi". were as i often call the uber socialists nazi's or any liberal that doesnt like hearing people of different opinion. like the famous(if an irish people here remember two years ago?), chant at a imagration debate in ucd, "no freedom of speech for facists".
i also like to use the phrase "grammar nazi" for those who complain about other peoples grammar when they cant find a better way to argue.

These are phrases mostly used on the internet. Nazi is an offensive term and it was intentionally used to compare people who don't allow a pregnancy to continue to an 'oppressive regime' and to the extermination of a race. It's a common fallacy and it occurs a lot. It's always wrong and it's always a fallacy.

Meanwhile, do the guy a favor and don't defend him? I know I think it would hurt the appearance of my position if anyone ever caught you agreeing with me while simultaneously making arguments about how you'd love a system where women had to have sex with you.

this is a silly arguement. my understanding is that sperm had half of what genes that are needed. also sperm dies within three days. so it is posible to use up ll the sperm produced fully productively. if we could set a system were i am having sex with different women continuously, in order to use as much as my sperm as posible, i would be all for that!:D

Your understanding of biology wouldn't fill up a half a page. You admitted in previous discussions to be completely unaware of even the terminology to have this discussion. Let's not pretend like your 'understanding' is a worthy argument when it comes to biology.

Perhaps an argument based on biology itself rather than what you don't know might carry more weight.

life:
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms.

the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.

the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

if the unborn fits into any of these three. it is living. i would agree that the point were one cell splits into two, it is living.

Your understanding of biology wouldn't fill up a half a page. You admitted in previous discussions to be completely unaware of even the terminology to have this discussion. Let's not pretend like your 'understanding' is a worthy argument when it comes to biology.

i rarely use terminology other than basic ones. so you can lick my balls with your attitude. its getting annoying.

Your understanding of biology wouldn't fill up a half a page. You admitted in previous discussions to be completely unaware of even the terminology to have this discussion. Let's not pretend like your 'understanding' is a worthy argument when it comes to biology.

Perhaps an argument based on biology itself rather than what you don't know might carry more weight.

wikipedia would disagree with you.

A zygote is a new organism, such as a human being.
Sperm cells contribute half of the genetic information to the diploid offspring.

i was right.

life:
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms.

the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.

the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

if the unborn fits into any of these three. it is living. i would agree that the point were one cell splits into two, it is living.

So is the heart. That doesn't make it A life. That's the point. Again, you're talking over your head. Also, keep in mind that these are lay definitions of the term.

You'll notice that one of the definitions, the one we're using here require it to be regarded as an animate individual. The point is that in biology there is a list of requirements that help us to tell if an organism is a seperate entity or a part of another organism. Those tests are not met by an embryo. They are met by a fetus but not until after most abortions are already completed.

For human life, we have an even more strict definition, as we consider a human to have died when brain activity ceases even when the biological requirements for life are still met. Personhood by this measure requires brain activity at any stage after birth and objectively should require brain activity before birth as well.

wikipedia would disagree with you.

A zygote is a new organism, such as a human being.
Sperm cells contribute half of the genetic information to the diploid offspring.

i was right.

I didn't say you were wrong. I pointed out that your understanding of biology isn't an argument. You seem to fail in even the basics of recognizing what comprises an argument. "As far as I know" is a less than compelling argument yet you keep making it.


And LINK?

Actually, many of us believe that a new human being is created at fertilization. The moment the egg is fertilized, you have a cell with DNA that is unique, thus you have a new human being.

Does this mean that identical twins are a single human being?

Are chimeras two human beings?

I didn't say you were wrong. I pointed out that your understanding of biology isn't an argument. You seem to fail in even the basics of recognizing what comprises an argument. "As far as I know" is a less than compelling argument yet you keep making it.


And LINK?

i assume you know about wikipedia. (www.wikipedia.org)
look up sperm.
some claim a sperm had all the blue prints for a human life, they were wrong. you tried to insult me. it angered me. you claim to have such a great knowledge of biology, but some you doesnt have enough knowledge "to fill a page", seemed to know something you didnt.
stop being so up yourself.

You are supposing that the fetus is part of the woman's body when it is not. It has it's own unique DNA, seperate from the mother. Ergo, science defines the fetus as a new human being.

Science does no such thing. If it did, twins would have to be defined as a single person, while chimeras would have to be defined as two.

i assume you know about wikipedia. (www.wikipedia.org)
look up sperm.
some claim a sperm had all the blue prints for a human life, they were wrong. you tried to insult me. it angered me. you claim to have such a great knowledge of biology, but some you doesnt have enough knowledge "to fill a page", seemed to know something you didnt.
stop being so up yourself.

I'll try again. I'm well aware of Wikipedia, but I will not do your work for you. Link to the page you are claiming supports your argument.

Meanwhile, anyone with a decent understanding of biology would find that page to absurdly simplistic. The exact same mechanism it claims creates an organism can create either one or two or three or none. It makes an invalid scientific assumption. This is one of the reasons that Wikipedia is farely unreliable when it comes to anything controversial like when something becomes on organism.

As Dem points out your definition and the one you are claiming Wiki has does not recognize the existence of twins or chimeras. Enlighten us. What's a chimera?

life:
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms.

the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.

the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

if the unborn fits into any of these three. it is living. i would agree that the point were one cell splits into two, it is living.

In that case, every cell in my body is a human person. Each individual skin cell must be preserved as its own human being so long as it can divide!

No one disputes that the individual cells of an embryo are living. However, as an entity, it does not meet the definition applied to an organism.


wikipedia would disagree with you.

A zygote is a new organism, such as a human being.
Sperm cells contribute half of the genetic information to the diploid offspring.

i was right.

You are aware, I assume, that anyone can edit wikipedia, even if they have no background in the subject? For all we know, you might have just edited it to say that, and then linked to it.

You are aware, I assume, that anyone can edit wikipedia, even if they have no background in the subject? For all we know, you might have just edited it to say that, and then linked to it.

that is a good point. but changing facts in order to prove my point, does not serve me very well.

I'll try again. I'm well aware of Wikipedia, but I will not do your work for you. Link to the page you are claiming supports your argument.

there you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm)

there you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm)

Thank you. Now as I said in the previous post this is hideously simplistic to the point of being inaccurate.

Quick, if an organism appears at conception, as you claim, then when does the second organism appear when discussing identical twins?

You'll notice that even the link is recognized as being incomplete. From the link - Categories: Articles with sections needing expansion | Male reproductive system | Germ cells | Andrology

How so?

well, i laid out this scenario earlier in the thread, but i suppose putting it together one more time isn't a bad idea.

suppose you found yourself in this situation:

you are in a fertility clinic for some reason. in this fertility clinic there is a petri dish on the table, a petri dish which you know has two blastocysts on it, ready to be implanted. also in the room is a 5 year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one of the two - petri dish or kindergartener.

now if you hold the idea that your statement, "a new human being is created at fertilization", has moral implications such as making abortion wrong, then you must be saying something like "personhood begins at fertilization" (along with a bunch of related moral statements about the rights and obligations of persons). and if that is what you are saying, then in my burning fertility clinic you would be morally obligated to rescue the petri dish rather than the kindergartener as then you would be saving two persons rather than just one. but i strongly doubt that your moral intuition agrees with that - in fact, if it is anything at all like mine it strongly objects to the idea.

now suppose you agree, but think that maybe this only shows that blastocysts do not have full personhood, but still hold moral value - perhaps at slightly lesser levels depending on level of development. in that case i would modify the situation so that now there are 1,000 blastocysts in a convenient stack of petri dishes (luckily, they are very small little guys, so this works out). now the choice is between saving one person or saving 1,000 sorta persons. but the choice is still clear, and i'm sure you can already imagine the loud and public condemnation that would be expressed for a person who would choose to save a stack of petri dishes over a 5 year old child.

in fact, it is difficult to imagine a point at which saving a stack of petri dishes rather than a little kid would ever become morally praiseworthy. it looks to me like the petri dish rescuer would be rightfully blamed and morally condemned for it no matter how many blastocysts they saved. so if it is the case that blastocysts do hold some limited level of moral value as a result of their proto-personhood, that value is apparently so limited when placed in comparison to a full person that it might as well not exist at all. thus they are effectively not persons in any relevant sense.

and, of course, this doesn't get the abortion opponent off the possibly even worse hook that is exemplified in the forced kidney donation example, where the person who benefits is clearly and obviously a person, fully deserving of all relevant moral obligations...

well, i laid out this scenario earlier in the thread, but i suppose putting it together one more time isn't a bad idea.

suppose you found yourself in this situation:

you are in a fertility clinic for some reason. in this fertility clinic there is a petri dish on the table, a petri dish which you know has two blastocysts on it, ready to be implanted. also in the room is a 5 year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one of the two - petri dish or kindergartener.

now if you hold the idea that your statement, "a new human being is created at fertilization", has moral implications such as making abortion wrong, then you must be saying something like "personhood begins at fertilization" (along with a bunch of related moral statements about the rights and obligations of persons). and if that is what you are saying, then in my burning fertility clinic you would be morally obligated to rescue the petri dish rather than the kindergartener as then you would be saving two persons rather than just one. but i strongly doubt that your moral intuition agrees with that - in fact, if it is anything at all like mine it strongly objects to the idea.

now suppose you agree, but think that maybe this only shows that blastocysts do not have full personhood, but still hold moral value - perhaps at slightly lesser levels depending on level of development. in that case i would modify the situation so that now there are 1,000 blastocysts in a convenient stack of petri dishes (luckily, they are very small little guys, so this works out). now the choice is between saving one person or saving 1,000 sorta persons. but the choice is still clear, and i'm sure you can already imagine the loud and public condemnation that would be expressed for a person who would choose to save a stack of petri dishes over a 5 year old child.

in fact, it is difficult to imagine a point at which saving a stack of petri dishes rather than a little kid would ever become morally praiseworthy. it looks to me like the petri dish rescuer would be rightfully blamed and morally condemned for it no matter how many blastocysts they saved. so if it is the case that blastocysts do hold some limited level of moral value as a result of their proto-personhood, that value is apparently so limited when placed in comparison to a full person that it might as well not exist at all. thus they are effectively not persons in any relevant sense.

and, of course, this doesn't get the abortion opponent off the possibly even worse hook that is exemplified in the forced kidney donation example, where the person who benefits is clearly and obviously a person, fully deserving of all relevant moral obligations...

Well, when you come up with an example that could happen in real life, I will answer it. In your example, there is no reason I would not be able to rescue both.

and, of course, this doesn't get the abortion opponent off the possibly even worse hook that is exemplified in the forced kidney donation example, where the person who benefits is clearly and obviously a person, fully deserving of all relevant moral obligations...

No, but unlike your blastocyst example there is an easy way out - arguing on utilitarian grounds that both prohibitions on abortion and compulsory organ donations are morally acceptable when they save lives.

well, i laid out this scenario earlier in the thread, but i suppose putting it together one more time isn't a bad idea.

suppose you found yourself in this situation:

you are in a fertility clinic for some reason. in this fertility clinic there is a petri dish on the table, a petri dish which you know has two blastocysts on it, ready to be implanted. also in the room is a 5 year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one of the two - petri dish or kindergartener.

now if you hold the idea that your statement, "a new human being is created at fertilization", has moral implications such as making abortion wrong, then you must be saying something like "personhood begins at fertilization" (along with a bunch of related moral statements about the rights and obligations of persons). and if that is what you are saying, then in my burning fertility clinic you would be morally obligated to rescue the petri dish rather than the kindergartener as then you would be saving two persons rather than just one. but i strongly doubt that your moral intuition agrees with that - in fact, if it is anything at all like mine it strongly objects to the idea.

now suppose you agree, but think that maybe this only shows that blastocysts do not have full personhood, but still hold moral value - perhaps at slightly lesser levels depending on level of development. in that case i would modify the situation so that now there are 1,000 blastocysts in a convenient stack of petri dishes (luckily, they are very small little guys, so this works out). now the choice is between saving one person or saving 1,000 sorta persons. but the choice is still clear, and i'm sure you can already imagine the loud and public condemnation that would be expressed for a person who would choose to save a stack of petri dishes over a 5 year old child.

in fact, it is difficult to imagine a point at which saving a stack of petri dishes rather than a little kid would ever become morally praiseworthy. it looks to me like the petri dish rescuer would be rightfully blamed and morally condemned for it no matter how many blastocysts they saved. so if it is the case that blastocysts do hold some limited level of moral value as a result of their proto-personhood, that value is apparently so limited when placed in comparison to a full person that it might as well not exist at all. thus they are effectively not persons in any relevant sense.

and, of course, this doesn't get the abortion opponent off the possibly even worse hook that is exemplified in the forced kidney donation example, where the person who benefits is clearly and obviously a person, fully deserving of all relevant moral obligations...

And of course when people mourn the loss of life at the clinic, everyone will be clamoring to the funeral for all the blasocysts.

And ignore the 5-year-old for a minute. How many people would run into a burning building to save the petri dish?

Well, when you come up with an example that could happen in real life, I will answer it. In your example, there is no reason I would not be able to rescue both.

because the building is on fire and you don't have time. these things happen - even firefighters with modern gear can't always save everybody.

Well, when you come up with an example that could happen in real life, I will answer it. In your example, there is no reason I would not be able to rescue both.

It doesn't matter what the actual probability of the circumstance is.

What matters is solely its conceivability - that, theoretically, it could happen somewhere.

To insist that it's "impractical" is to miss the point. You are not being asked for advice. You are being challenged to uphold the implications of your statements in difficult circumstances.

Well, when you come up with an example that could happen in real life, I will answer it. In your example, there is no reason I would not be able to rescue both.

Okay. Would you run into a burning fertility clinic to 'save' all of the blastocysts that would perish?

And certainly there are reasons you might be able to rescue both. They are on opposite sides of the building, and the child will succumb to smoke before you could reach both.

because the building is on fire and you don't have time. these things happen - even firefighters with modern gear can't always save everybody.

I wonder how many people would be outraged if the chief send his firefighters in to bring out the contents of the refrigerator in the fertility clinic. I'm thinking it would be a little greater than those that would be upset if the cheif sent firefighters in to save a kindergarten class.

How many people would run into a burning building to save the petri dish?

my blastocyst! somebody save the petri dish!

No, but unlike your blastocyst example there is an easy way out - arguing on utilitarian grounds that both prohibitions on abortion and compulsory organ donations are morally acceptable when they save lives.

oh, indeed. though one might be able to raise some rule-utilitarian objections to such an argument. and i'd probably want to break out the old hedonistic calculator in at least some circumstances.

Well, when you come up with an example that could happen in real life, I will answer it. In your example, there is no reason I would not be able to rescue both.

Actually, there is. Early embryos at fertility clinics are most often stored in incubators (if they are about the implanted) or frozen (if they are being saved). Removing them from these environments will most likely result in cell death. Thawing cannot be sudden, there is a process that must be followed and a drop in temperature could kill the cells. Either a freezer or an incubator, if unplugged, could still hold its temperature for a time.

The example has been simplifed to "grab some petri dishes," but the reality would actually be more difficult, and would end up meaning that you either pushed the equipment and left the five year old to fend for himself, or you saved the five year old, and the equipment burned up in the fire.

It isn't a likely scenario, but it *could* happen.

Silly people. Everyone knows life doesn't begin until the soul enters the body, and that doesn't happen until baptism. Thus, you can legally abort unbaptised infants and non-Catholics.
:D

Okay. Would you run into a burning fertility clinic to 'save' all of the blastocysts that would perish?

And certainly there are reasons you might be able to rescue both. They are on opposite sides of the building, and the child will succumb to smoke before you could reach both.

Well, I would run into a burning building to save MY blastocysts, even if I thought it was hopeless and would die trying. Those are my children. Now, if none of them are mine, I would try to save them if I thought I would be successfull, and I might not if I would fail.

life:
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms.

the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.

the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

if the unborn fits into any of these three. it is living. i would agree that the point were one cell splits into two, it is living.


Whether or not the tissue is 'living' is irrelevent.

Skin cells, grown in cultured sheets, are 'living'.

A tree is 'living'.

The issue is - what qualifies an entity as 'a human life'?

Actually, many of us believe that a new human being is created at fertilization. The moment the egg is fertilized, you have a cell with DNA that is unique, thus you have a new human being.

Cool. So... twins are actually one person?

Well, I would run into a burning building to save MY blastocysts, even if I thought it was hopeless and would die trying. Those are my children. Now, if none of them are mine, I would try to save them if I thought I would be successfull, and I might not if I would fail.

Would you run into a burning orphanage to try and save actual born children, even if none of them were yours? What if you thought you might die trying?

The terrorists win if we let people have the freedom to choose whether they want an abortion or not.

Because it hurts freedom in other ways... like... urmm... in all of the child's possible decisions in later life, or something.

I dunno...

this is a silly arguement. my understanding is that sperm had half of what genes that are needed. also sperm dies within three days. so it is posible to use up ll the sperm produced fully productively. if we could set a system were i am having sex with different women continuously, in order to use as much as my sperm as posible, i would be all for that!:D

First - I didn't say one sperm carries ALL the required data.

Second - If you could force two sperms to combine, you WOULD have a complete set of data.

Third - Yes, sperm die within three days - UNLESS the fertilisation process occurs. You must realise, this is similarly true of the fertilised egg? It, too, 'dies' within a few days if it fails to implant.

Fourth - No - it is NOT possible to use up all the sperm produced, even by one male, unless you have some revolutionary new filtering technology, and extremely efficient artificial insemination technology. As I pointed out, ejaculation isn't the ONLY time sperm leaves the body (although you will be wasting about 100,000 sperms each time that occurs anyway).


As for setting up a system whereby you could be mechanicalistically inseminating as many women as possible? I'm not sure you would top many people's list, I'm afraid.

The terrorists win if we let people have the freedom to choose whether they want an abortion or not.

Because it hurts freedom in other ways... like... urmm... in all of the child's possible decisions in later life, or something.

I dunno...

It's because it makes gayzombiebaby Jesus cry.

Well, I would run into a burning building to save MY blastocysts, even if I thought it was hopeless and would die trying. Those are my children. Now, if none of them are mine, I would try to save them if I thought I would be successfull, and I might not if I would fail.

That is such an internet load of crap. You would not risk your life to save your blastocysts unless you're just nuts. Seriously. That is just dumb.

I'll tell you if any child was inside of a burning building, I wouldn't think twice. And, personally, I wouldn't want my girlfriend to get an abortion, but I wouldn't run into a burning building to save her blastocysts. Unlike me, a blastocyst has a very small chance of survival even without a fire.

Second - If you could force two sperms to combine, you WOULD have a complete set of data.


I thought I ought to correct you on this... its not strictly true.

A) you would have to ensure that at least one of the sperm had an X chromosome (female sex chromosome) otherwise you would not have a full set of genes.

B) you can not simply take the DNA from 2 sperm (or 2 eggs for that matter) and combine them as there is a lot more to the DNA machinery than the DNA itself. In fact in animal studies where they have done this kind of thing they have found that producing a baby is not nearly as harmonious a system as we are led to believe. It really is a battle between parasite and host.

If you take the DNA from 2 egg cells and combine it you end up with a great big placenta and no blastocyst .. if you take the DNA from 2 sperm and combine it you end up with a rapidly growing blastocyst and no placenta... in either case the pregnancy is rapidly terminated as the blastocyst is unable to survive.

You need a balance between the invading DNA (sperm) and the host DNA (egg) and a whole heap of supression for it to survive. Which is very close to the model found with completely foreign parasites who supress immune responses to survive in our bodies.

Cool. So... twins are actually one person?

Well they were one .. at least for a while :)

Just the same as everyone is a girl for the first 6 weeks of the pregnancy until for the boys our girly genitals all fuse up and reform and make that organ we are all so proud of ;)

Sorry for some reason I am feeling pedantic today.

I thought I ought to correct you on this... its not strictly true.

A) you would have to ensure that at least one of the sperm had an X chromosome (female sex chromosome) otherwise you would not have a full set of genes.

B) you can not simply take the DNA from 2 sperm (or 2 eggs for that matter) and combine them as there is a lot more to the DNA machinery than the DNA itself. In fact in animal studies where they have done this kind of thing they have found that producing a baby is not nearly as harmonious a system as we are led to believe. It really is a battle between parasite and host.

If you take the DNA from 2 egg cells and combine it you end up with a great big placenta and no blastocyst .. if you take the DNA from 2 sperm and combine it you end up with a rapidly growing blastocyst and no placenta... in either case the pregnancy is rapidly terminated as the blastocyst is unable to survive.

You need a balance between the invading DNA (sperm) and the host DNA (egg) and a whole heap of supression for it to survive. Which is very close to the model found with completely foreign parasites who supress immune responses to survive in our bodies.

Aw, shucks, you mean we're going to have to keep men around after all? :(

Well they were one .. at least for a while :)

Just the same as everyone is a girl for the first 6 weeks of the pregnancy until for the boys our girly genitals all fuse up and reform and make that organ we are all so proud of ;)

Sorry for some reason I am feeling pedantic today.

If the developed genitalia is what determines biological sex, wouldn't that mean that a pre-genitalia embryo is actually sexless?

Well, I would run into a burning building to save MY blastocysts, even if I thought it was hopeless and would die trying. Those are my children. Now, if none of them are mine, I would try to save them if I thought I would be successfull, and I might not if I would fail.

at this point i have to say that you either don't know what a blastocyst is, or you haven't actually examined your moral intuitions on the subject. because the above is fucking ludicrous.


http://www.kumc.edu/stemcell/images/howbig.jpg

Desire and 'want' make biologoical words inappropriate descriptions? Interesting.


If I want it, it'a a baby.

If I don't want it, it's a parasite.

If I want it, it's a child.

If I don't want it, it's a brainless cluster of cells, like a cancer growth...


Can a thing have worth because of another's desire for it? Apparently Yes.
Can a thing have worth because it shows a self protective and active effort for growth of self? Apparently not.

Again, interesting. But I think I disagree.

Its a parasitic clump of cells, no matter what. But the value a person attaches to a specific clump makes it a child. If you have eagerly anticipated this moment and have been looking forward to it, then obviously you desire it, and would utilise appropriate terminology to refer to that parasitic clump of cells.

However, if you don't want it, or desire it and place no sentimental values on it, then obviously you are not going to utilise the same terminology.

No, it is a calculated risk. And, like all calculated risks, you must live with the consequences if the bet doesn't pay off.

Like I said, it can, but does not kill to correct stupidity. I don't know what 'wuite' means.

Or, "I have taken the only objective point for the start of life, conception, and replaced it with an arbitrary one that is more convenient to me."

It is the solution of a coward.


I would help him repair the house in the same way society should help mothers raise children. I would not help him to deny the fact that it is his own fault.
I am sorry, coward?

What you said here, it angers me, a great deal. Have you ever had an abortion? Let me tell you, there is nothing cowardly about it. Its an experience most people will NOT EVER want to repeat. And as for society helping mothers, Oh please shut up. Society DOES NOT offer that much help to mothers. Abortion is never an option I would repeat, however, I will not deny someones right to it.

As for all your complaining, lets fact it, people are immature, they make mistakes, especially when they are young. Do you know what it feels like to be born knowing you are mommys little mistake? Not to mention the fact that mommy cant get a good job, or feed you and clothe you as adequately as she should.

Abortion is legal for good reasons. And to illegitamize it now is stupid, for several reasons.

1) Its beneficial to women, and children, not only in concerns to womens rights, but also, that a women will only bring a child into the world when she is financially, mentally, and emotionally ready to do so.
2) To make it illegal would simply move it to back alley abortions. Henceforth creating a bigger risk for women who need abortions.

I find that the "pro lifers" are usually the immature people incapable of taking responsibility. Abortion is NOT an easy way out. Its expensive, and its very emotionally taxing. All these pro lifers say "Keep the baby alive" but when it comes to feeding it, they say "Oh dont be raising MY taxes for her welfare/workfare." After all, minimum wage is MORE then enough for raising a kid on, right?

Ugg. Thats all I have to say tonight. Goodnight.

Aw, shucks, you mean we're going to have to keep men around after all? :(
Well for the moment.. but us crazy scientists are always learning new stuff, so you never know.

If the developed genitalia is what determines biological sex, wouldn't that mean that a pre-genitalia embryo is actually sexless?

We all have girlie bits just some of us turn our girlie bits into manly bits.

But yeah your right if I was being pedantic I should have at least been accurate.

Your absolutely correct genitalia doesn't determine sex, so I recant the "everyone was a girl for the first 6 weeks bit" and replace it with everyone has girly bits before they have manly bits (if they ever get manly bits) :)

Your absolutely correct genitalia doesn't determine sex, so I recant the "everyone was a girl for the first 6 weeks bit" and replace it with everyone has girly bits before they have manly bits (if they ever get manly bits) :)

And some folks develope bits they shouldn't have, and vice versa. But we're getting way off the subject here.