Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


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).

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.

In that case I would argue that killing an embryo is self-mutilation. Not as horrid an offense as murder. but still an offense- is suicide not illegal?

A person is not allowed to abuse themselves by cutting off their arms,legs,etc. They would be put in jail or in a mental institute.

And, if you argue that the embryo is a body part- then how can you explain how it is "born" and leaves its owner... "metamorphasis"?

And killing the child when it is in the womb is not prevention of procreation... "begetting offspring"... the offspring is already begat but not yet born.

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.

Well... they have DNA that will form into human DNA, and thus they can be considered a type of human being. (Sadly I have to argue for sperm and egg cells to make the more important argument plain.)

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by loinburger
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...

Loin, if we took the risk of allowing incested children to be born, this world would soon become full of retarded people!

[loinburger]

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

Possible? Yes, if it were impossible then there'd be no point in arguing whether or not the zygote is a body part or a separate organism. However, this hardly constitutes proof.

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

Sorry, I was interchanging terms. By "independent organism" I meant "separate organism."

I'm pretty sure the sole goal of the sperm cell is to meet with the egg cell.

Agreed.

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 zygote must implant itself on the wall of the uterus, then it must grow into an embryo, then the embryo must grow into a separate organism (a fetus/newborn). Only then is the process of procreation completed.

The DNA has been exchanged... that's all that is necessary to start the life cycle.

The life cycle begins when a separate organism has been created, which would be the fetus/newborn. Prior to this the sperm/egg/zygote/embryo are mere parts of their host.

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

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

No, the life cycle is:

fetus>infant>child>young adult> adult.... dead,

with the "fetal" stage as a gray area (it might be part of the life cycle, it might not). Prior to this stage there is no separate organism, therefore the life cycle has not begun.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Loin, if we took the risk of allowing incested children to be born, this world would soon become full of retarded people!

You avoided the question. Is the life of a retarded person worth less than the life of a non-retarded person? If not, then how do you justify abortion only when there is a possibility of a retarded person being born?

[DarkCloud]

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.

No... Not really.

In other cases where the birth threatens the mother's life, the life of the unborn should be decided by the mother, for it is a case of medical emergency. For example: if a child was threatening its mother with a gun, I would have no problem if the mother killed it. I consider the case where a birth would kill a mother the same way. Except I do not consider the unborn being malignant purposefully.

However, the fact that the woman is more important than the newborn obviously (because society has already educated her) makes it true that she is more of an asset to the society and should not be killed to give birth to a baby if she does not wish to and it threatens her life.

I dont expect them to also support the killing of a newborn if the father has raped the woman.

Not really, which Is why I have a problem with it. But the fact is I believe in better early than late. I value human life very very very little. But technically if the child is already born and the woman does not want it and did not want an abortion- the state should take it and prosecute the rapist to death or something of the sort.

I dislike sexual crimes extremely....

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

Embryo- always equal to a newborn which is always equal to a human which has very very few rights.

ONly a society has rights.
individual humans should have very little.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Tom201


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

Both correct.

Sadly, (a) is necessary for population control
and that is the only case it is necessary.

However, I would have no qualms about using one because I am a selfish ******* and would rather not deal with children- though if an accident happened, I would stoically care for my children.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by loinburger
You avoided the question. Is the life of a retarded person worth less than the life of a non-retarded person? If not, then how do you justify abortion only when there is a possibility of a retarded person being born?

I've already given you my answer.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


You avoided the question. Is the life of a retarded person worth less than the life of a non-retarded person? If not, then how do you justify abortion only when there is a possibility of a retarded person being born?

I for one would say yes. With reservations. A retarded person *can sometimes* accomplish things. But I would support abortion in that case if the mother had a 50-60% chance that the child would be retarded. For life would be horrid for both

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
In that case I would argue that killing an embryo is self-mutilation. Not as horrid an offense as murder. but still an offense- is suicide not illegal?

Is it self-mutilitation to have a tumor removed?

And, if you argue that the embryo is a body part- then how can you explain how it is "born" and leaves its owner... "metamorphasis"?

It matures into a fetus/newborn, a separate entity, thereby completing the process of procreation. So I suppose "metamorphosis" might be an apt description.

And killing the child when it is in the womb is not prevention of procreation... "begetting offspring"... the offspring is already begat but not yet born.

The zygote and embryo are not yet separate organisms.

Well... they have DNA that will form into human DNA, and thus they can be considered a type of human being.

Our sperm have a limited life span, after which they die and are replaced. Does this mean that failure to frequently have sex, i.e. failure to make use of our sperm, amounts to murder? Similarly, an egg is ejected during the menstruation cycle. Does this mean that failure to get pregnant during every ovulation, i.e. failure to make use of eggs, amounts to murder? These are matters that are under our control (unlike, for example, the frequent failure of the zygote to implant itself on the uterine wall), and so we are culpable for our wasted sperm/eggs.

(Sadly I have to argue for sperm and egg cells to make the more important argument plain.)

Curse the need for consistency!

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


Possible? Yes, if it were impossible then there'd be no point in arguing whether or not the zygote is a body part or a separate organism. However, this hardly constitutes proof.



Sorry, I was interchanging terms. By "independent organism" I meant "separate organism."



Agreed.



The zygote must implant itself on the wall of the uterus, then it must grow into an embryo, then the embryo must grow into a separate organism (a fetus/newborn). Only then is the process of procreation completed.



The life cycle begins when a separate organism has been created, which would be the fetus/newborn. Prior to this the sperm/egg/zygote/embryo are mere parts of their host.



No, the life cycle is:

fetus>infant>child>young adult> adult.... dead,

with the "fetal" stage as a gray area (it might be part of the life cycle, it might not). Prior to this stage there is no separate organism, therefore the life cycle has not begun.

Loin you aren't a host to your body parts.

uhmm... I have to check but I believe that the life cylce starts at zygote.

If a zygote is created by the exchange of DNA from 2 seperate organisms, and no other body part is I would be hesitant to call it a body part. As this doesn't fit the pattern.

Also a body part is created by that organism, your heart is created by you own cells when you are forming in the womb.. if it was formed by your mother your DNA would be the same as hers. Same goes for every other body part or biological system in your body. The zygote is the beggining of the creation of all of your cells that you have now. Thus it is seperate from the mother biologically. It is dependent for it's development, but that doesn't mean it is the same.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Cloud9
I've already given you my answer.

You said that "if we took the risk of allowing incested children to be born, this world would soon become full of retarded people!" I would interpret this to mean that "retarded people have less of a right to live than non-retarded people," but I wanted to be absolutely certain that this is what you meant.

So, yes or no, do retarded people have the same right to life as non-retarded people?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Loin you aren't a host to your body parts.

My body parts cannot survive separate from me, just like the zygote and embryo cannot survive separate from a host mother.

If a zygote is created by the exchange of DNA from 2 seperate organisms, and no other body part is I would be hesitant to call it a body part. As this doesn't fit the pattern.

At the same time, if a "separate organism" behaves in all ways like an integrated body part, then I would hesitate to call it a separate organism and would instead call it a body part.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by loinburger
You said that "if we took the risk of allowing incested children to be born, this world would soon become full of retarded people!" I would interpret this to mean that "retarded people have less of a right to live than non-retarded people," but I wanted to be absolutely certain that this is what you meant.

So, yes or no, do retarded people have the same right to life as non-retarded people?

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I for one would say yes. With reservations. A retarded person *can sometimes* accomplish things. But I would support abortion in that case if the mother had a 50-60% chance that the child would be retarded. For life would be horrid for both

I'm sticking with DarkCloud's opinion on this matter.

[DinoDoc]

This is why I don't usually read these threads anymore

Originally posted by loinburger
My body parts cannot survive separate from me, just like the zygote and embryo cannot survive separate from a host mother.

Just for my own understanding, you do realize the biological differences between your appendix and an embryo, right?

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger
My body parts cannot survive separate from me, just like the zygote and embryo cannot survive separate from a host mother.

That's irrelevant to being classified as a host, if the mother is a host than the embryo is a parasite, thus a seperate creature.

At the same time, if a "separate organism" behaves in all ways like an integrated body part, then I would hesitate to call it a separate organism and would instead call it a body part.

The seperate organism does not behave like other body parts.

For one it's DNA is totaly different.
Second this "body part" is developing it's own body parts. My kidney does not do this.