Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[loinburger]

Substantial problems for precise definition of this view [that life begins at conception] are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning- after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs.

From this site, which has the expedited opinions of the supreme court in the Roe vs. Wade decision. Emphasis is my own.

[November Adam]

Loin, what did you think of the diagram I provided?

What exactly is this embryological data?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Loin, what did you think of the diagram I provided?

It's an oversimplification.

What exactly is this embryological data?

I'm wondering that too. I'm looking around for it, but only half-heartedly; I'm busy looking for a simplification on partial summations for the harmonic series, which takes top priority at the moment.

[November Adam]

I'm kinda pettering out on this one... wanna pick it up later?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
I'm kinda pettering out on this one... wanna pick it up later?

Works for me.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


Is it self-mutilitation to have a tumor removed?

A tumor is going to kill the body. A baby is not. IN the cases when a baby IS then I fully support abortion.

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

Thus, it is going to become a baby anyway- thus if nature is allowed to proceed it will become a breathing human- why can you not understand that stopping it by killing it equals killing a future human.
If someone is willing to sue people for destroying the environment by radiation killing the next generation, then people whould be able to sue abortion advocates for killing the next generation as well.

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? , 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.[/

No, because that is natural.
I am arguing against unnatural abortions.

And I am being consistent.
Humans do not cause those problems.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


I'm speaking in favor of consistency. I consistently believe that abortion of an embryo is fine and dandy since an embryo is not a human.

You, on the other hand, believe that abortion of an embryo is murder, but that it's okay to abort (i.e. murder) an embryo that resulted from an incestuous relationship, since the embryo might develop into a retarded child and that retarded children have less of a right to live than non-retarded children.

It is the last of your beliefs given above, the belief that retarded people have less of a right to live than non-retarded people, that I find to be, unequivocally, morally repugnant. It is this belief of yours that I hope that you reconsider and revise. Whether you believe abortion to be right or wrong is of little concern to your everyday life, but whether you consider an entire class of humans to be inherently inferior is of great concern in your everyday life.

Yes, well, I am consistnt- I belive in a Master Race of Humans- devoid of defects due to sceince- I am hoping for a day when all ailments and retardations are cured- until that day, I will support suicide for the retarded if they wish suicide!

And it is horrid and punishing to cause more of them to live and to cause mothers to suffer for caring for them if the mothers do not wish to- thus they should be allowed to abort in that case.

I consider my argument incontrovertible (not the one above, but the 3 step one I cited earlier) and this does not bridge it, but merely legislates on it.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
A tumor is going to kill the body.

Not all tumors are terminal. However, both the tumor and the embryo take nutrients from the human they are integrated with, and the excision of either would benefit the health of the human being harmed by their presence.

why can you not understand that stopping it by killing it equals killing a future human.

From Douglas's opinion in Roe vs. Wade:

To say that life is present at conception is to give recognition to the potential, rather than the actual. The unfertilized egg has life, and if fertilized, it takes on human proportions. But the law deals in reality, not obscurity -- the known, rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation. The phenomenon of life takes time to develop, and, until it is actually present, it cannot be destroyed. Its interruption prior to formation would hardly be homicide, and as we have seen, society does not regard it as such.

There you have it, "killing a future human" is not equivalent to "killing a human." Castrating somebody does not amount to murder any more than aborting an embryo amounts to murder.

If someone is willing to sue people for destroying the environment by radiation killing the next generation, then people whould be able to sue abortion advocates for killing the next generation as well.

I have heard of lawsuits in which polluters are sued for contaminating this generation, but never have I heard of a lawsuit in which polluters are sued for contaminating an as-yet-unborn generation.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
...until that day, I will support suicide for the retarded if they wish suicide!

You're not talking about suicide. If you believe that an embryo is a human, then you're talking about murder.

And it is horrid and punishing to cause more of them to live and to cause mothers to suffer for caring for them if the mothers do not wish to- thus they should be allowed to abort in that case.

This isn't even a matter of placing a higher value on the life of a non-retarded person than on the life of a retarded person, since in the example you're talking about the life of a non-retarded person is not being threatened. What you're advocating is murder out of convenience; the life of a retarded person has so little value in your example that you would advocate the wholesale murder of the retarded if their deaths are convenient for the non-retarded.

[November Adam]

I'm back!

Hey Loin, did you know that fish perform external reproduction?
Meaning that the female lays her eggs in the water, and the male sprays the eggs with sperm, thus the egg and sperm fuse to create a zygote, which is external. Now is this zygote, which is a fish (from previous discussions), be a body part of the mother, or the father, or it's own?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Hey Loin, did you know that fish perform external reproduction?

I suspected it, since I knew that frogs did...

Now is this zygote, which is a fish (from previous discussions), be a body part of the mother, or the father, or it's own?

Well, it couldn't be a body part of the mother or father since it is completely detached from both. Therefore it would have to be its own.

[November Adam]

okay, so if the zygote is it's own organism in fish, why is it not in humans?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
okay, so if the zygote is it's own organism in fish, why is it not in humans?

Humans aren't externally fertilized.

Regardless, I would say that the zygote in fish is not its own organism in the same sense that a hatched egg in fish is its own organism. Until the zygote is independent of its egg, I would still classify it as "not alive as a fish," but only "alive as a fertilized egg." It is an integrated part of the egg, and not a "fish."

Similarly, if a human embryo is grown in vitro, it is not "alive" by virtue of the fact that it is existing independently of another living organism. It is "alive as a fertilized egg" just as it would be if it were maturing inside of a womb, not "alive as a human." It is an integrated part of the apparatus used to keep it alive, and not a "human."

Another example is a brain-dead human being kept "alive" on a machine. Such a human is "alive as an integrated part of a machine," but is no longer "alive as a human," which is why I see nothing immoral about "pulling the plug" on someone who is braindead.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
A non-issue.

How's that a non-issue? That is the issue. Human zygotes and embryoes most definitely do not exist as humans, and my previous point follows from there.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
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!

Hm? I was saying that is is not certain that a fertilised egg will become a baby DC. Please read what I was responding to before just waving your hands.

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

This is a strawman. I have never indicated the natural birthrate is 0. My contention is it is less than 1 as you have implied. Maybe around 60% or so IIRC.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger
Regardless, I would say that the zygote in fish is not its own organism in the same sense that a hatched egg in fish is its own organism. Until the zygote is independent of its egg, I would still classify it as "not alive as a fish," but only "alive as a fertilized egg." It is an integrated part of the egg, and not a "fish."

Similarly, if a human embryo is grown in vitro, it is not "alive" by virtue of the fact that it is existing independently of another living organism. It is "alive as a fertilized egg" just as it would be if it were maturing inside of a womb, not "alive as a human." It is an integrated part of the apparatus used to keep it alive, and not a "human."

Another example is a brain-dead human being kept "alive" on a machine. Such a human is "alive as an integrated part of a machine," but is no longer "alive as a human," which is why I see nothing immoral about "pulling the plug" on someone who is braindead.

So do I understand that you are saying that there is an individual organism. I'm not talking about "alive", rather a distinct organism that is not it's parent?

I'm going to disregard your statement regarding brain-dead adults, at this point as it is not directly relevant to what we are discussing.