Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Kay so if we can hammer out whether the embryo is seperate or not we can move on to an actual discussion regarding abortion. Otherwise it is a mute point.

I'd say that the only discussion is whether or not the embryo is separate.

The embryo exists after the act of procreation, it is not there before, unlike sperm, eggs testies, or ovaries.

...which doesn't counter the argument that an embryo is a body part that exists for the purpose of procreation.

[November Adam]

Oh.. good point Cloud..

how could the embryo be a part of the mother? It has different DNA. Anything that belongs to the mother has the same DNA.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger

...which doesn't counter the argument that an embryo is a body part that exists for the purpose of procreation.

Sure it counters it... the act of procreation creates the embryo, mission accomplished.

[DarkCloud]

Urban Ragner

Existing as formed creatures do not count since Western societies do not accord the same rights to creatures as they to humans.

A non-issue.

Not really, because spontaneous abortions are quite common

Another, and more obvious non-issue. Spontaneous abortions do happen, and I acknowledged it, however the natural process is for a baby to be born. It even makes sense! You would not be here if you were not born!

If the birth rate=0 and people die, then there will soon be no more people.

Thus, birth, being natural is correct.

Unfortunately for you, [3] does not logically follow [1] and [2]. As a matter of fact, [1] and [2] have very little to do with [3]

How so?

To kill a child before he becomes an adult and can reason is murder
To kill a baby before he becomes a child and can think is murder
Thus, to kill the unborn before they can breathe is murder.

Merely becuase the unborn lack the ability to breathe,think, or reason is not a good reason to kill them.
One could even argue that they can feed themselves since they are "parasites" and suck in the nutrients. Thus, that defeats an argument down that path.

Breathing is done by the embryo at a certain stage, in fact they are breathing water, etc. (see a random Scientific American tv show)


Tom201

Originally posted by Tom201

The problem is that u could say the same about sperm and egg (the earliest develpment stages of humans). But I dont expect anyone to opose killing sperms and eggs.
What makes a cell just created by the sperm and egg any diffrent from them being seperate (moral speaking)?

Ah, but you see-
technically the sperm and egg cells should not be killed, for the same reason that you listed.
(And it also gives credit to why the bible says that Mastrubation is wrong) example: The sperm are technically human beings that will be allowed to form when given a vessel from which to flow into.

A parasite is: "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

This matches the description of an embryo. It does not match the description of a newborn, an invalid, or any of the multitude of useless misguided sociological examples you have brought up.

Ah, but Loinburger, when they are born they then provide for their families; or at least that is the logical thing for them to do- thus This "Natural Parisitism" reverses full force when in their old age, the old are cared for by the children.

So without a human brain its an animal. There is no problem in killing animals for the profit of humans. Or do you opose killing animals (for example to eat them), too?
Sperm also contains human DNA and could form a child. Thus the DNA reasoning when defining a human is flawed.

Ah, but yet, the embryo forms into a human brain and preventing the formation is murder, etc.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
how could the embryo be a part of the mother? It has different DNA. Anything that belongs to the mother has the same DNA.

Parts of the body that are designed solely for procreation do not have the same DNA as their host, meaning eggs, sperm, and embryos.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Sure it counters it... the act of procreation creates the embryo, mission accomplished.

The act of a sperm fusing with an egg creates the zygote, which may form into an embryo, which, finally, may form into an independent organism (either a fetus or a newborn, depending on where the line is drawn), thereby accomplishing procreation. The embryo would therefore be a body part that is utilized in procreation by possibly developing into a separate entity from its host mother.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Ah, but Loinburger, when they are born they then provide for their families; or at least that is the logical thing for them to do- thus This "Natural Parisitism" reverses full force when in their old age, the old are cared for by the children.

First off, I have been using the biological definition of "parasitism," not any sociological definition. Secondly and more importantly, I have already conceded to November Adam that if it is determined that the embryo is a separate entity from its mother that it is therefore human, and have abandoned the "embryo as non-human parasite" argument in favor of the (preferred) "embryo as body part" argument (that, in hindsight, I should have been following all along).

Ah, but yet, the embryo forms into a human brain and preventing the formation is murder, etc.

How so? Murder is "wrongful killing", not "prevention of procreation." Unless all forms of birth control are murder because they prevent the formation of a human, then to remain consistent it would not be murder to abort an embryo.

Edit: Upon further reading your post, it appears that you do grant the same "rights as humans" to sperm and eggs as to newborns. I can't even begin to fathom this, seeing as how sperm and eggs don't even have human DNA.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


Parts of the body that are designed solely for procreation do not have the same DNA as their host, meaning eggs, sperm, and embryos.

I'm going to do some reasearch on this statement later this evening.

[Tom201]

Ok here a new point:

Most pro-life activists, or posters in this thread agree that abortion should be granted in special cases like rape.

This implys that an embryo is a lesser being than a newborn.
I dont expect them to also support the killing of a newborn if the father has raped the woman.

When the embryo is equal to a newborn, why make diffrences in special cases?

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


The act of a sperm fusing with an egg creates the zygote, which may form into an embryo, which, finally, may form into an independent organism (either a fetus or a newborn, depending on where the line is drawn), thereby accomplishing procreation. The embryo would therefore be a body part that is utilized in procreation by possibly developing into a separate entity from its host mother.

How many body parts require the DNA of another organism to form?

Your right the zygote is the goal of procreation (the act of having sex), the exchange of DNA from two organisms to create a new organism with the combined DNA of the 2.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Ah, but you see-
technically the sperm and egg cells should not be killed, for the same reason that you listed.
(And it also gives credit to why the bible says that Mastrubation is wrong) example: The sperm are technically human beings that will be allowed to form when given a vessel from which to flow into.

Hm, ok so what u saying is:
a) When I use a condom when having sex I kill children?
b) there is no moral diffrence between a sperm and an embryo

I agree with b

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
How many body parts require the DNA of another organism to form?

Not counting any parts of the immune system, I'm pretty sure that it's just the zygote.

Your right the zygote is the goal of procreation (the act of having sex), the exchange of DNA from two organisms to create a new organism with the combined DNA of the 2.

Don't put words in my mouth, I said:

"The act of a sperm fusing with an egg creates the zygote, which may form into an embryo, which, finally, may form into an independent organism (either a fetus or a newborn, depending on where the line is drawn), thereby accomplishing procreation."

The "fetus" or "newborn" is the independent organism, not the zygote or embryo. Thus procreation is not accomplished until the fetus/newborn is formed.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Tom201
Ok here a new point:
Most pro-life activists, or posters in this thread agree that abortion should be granted in special cases like rape.

This implys that an embryo is a lesser being than a newborn.
I dont expect them to also support the killing of a newborn if the father has raped the woman.

When the embryo is equal to a newborn, why make diffrences in special cases?

It has to do with the of the health of the unborn and the mother.

Personally, I don't agree with allowing an abortion in the case of rape because there's no way that having that baby can affect the health of the baby and/or the mother. If the mother doesn't want the baby after it is born then she has every right in the world to give up that baby for adoption.

Now in the case of incest or the life of the mother being endangered by the pregnancy, then I support abortion in that respect. A child who is born in incest stands a high chance of being born mentally retarded.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


Not counting any parts of the immune system, I'm pretty sure that it's just the zygote.

The DNA of an outside force is required to activate the cells, or to tell the body to create more of the immune cells, not to actually be involved in the creation of that body part.

So just the zygote... if it is the only one than it is could be possible that it isn't a body part.

Don't put words in my mouth, I said:

"The act of a sperm fusing with an egg creates the zygote, which may form into an embryo, which, finally, may form into an independent organism (either a fetus or a newborn, depending on where the line is drawn), thereby accomplishing procreation."

The "fetus" or "newborn" is the independent organism, not the zygote or embryo. Thus procreation is not accomplished until the fetus/newborn is formed.

I'm not arguing about an independent organism rather a seperate organism.

I'm pretty sure the sole goal of the sperm cell is to meet with the egg cell. THIS is the act of procreation, it creates a cell that is not native to the womens body, thus it is seperate. Once the zygote is created what further act of procreation is required? The DNA has been exchanged... that's all that is necessary to start the life cycle.

Do you agree that this is the life cylce for a human:

zygote>embryo>fetus>infant>child>young adult> adult.... dead.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Now in the case of incest or the life of the mother being endangered by the pregnancy, then I support abortion in that respect. A child who is born in incest stands a high chance of being born mentally retarded.

So the value of life of the mentally retarded is less than the value of life of the non-mentally retarded? That seems to be what you are arguing here, since you're in favor of abortion if the child might be born mentally retarded...