Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[The Mad Viking]

To all those opposed to choice:

I cannot understand why you bother the poor souls who are trying to abort their 1st trimester fetuses.

If you truly believe that life begins at conception, you must begin by attacking Bristol-Meyers and all the pharmaceuticals who manufacture birth control pills, and rather than targetting abortionists, target any doctor who prescribes birth control pills.

If destroying a zygote is murder, than abortions are a miniscule fraction of the "murder" that is going on.

Because contrary to the name "contraceptive" birth control pills do NOT prevent conception. They prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine lining.

So, for each year a woman is on BCP, there are probably an average of four "murders". Do the math.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
If destroying a zygote is murder, than abortions are a miniscule fraction of the "murder" that is going on.

Because contrary to the name "contraceptive" birth control pills do NOT prevent conception. They prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine lining.

So, for each year a woman is on BCP, there are probably an average of four "murders". Do the math.

Partially incorrect, some birth control "pills", create a mucusy lining that the sperm cannot get through to get to the egg.

Also other forms of birth control include a rubber... no sperm getting out there.

Besides what make you think that someone who thinks the zygote is human doesn't have problems with birth control that prevents the zygote from attaching to the lining?

[The Mad Viking]

Besides what make you think that someone who thinks the zygote is human doesn't have problems with birth control that prevents the zygote from attaching to the lining?

Well, maybe that the REACTION to this is ZERO, whereas the reaction to D&C abortion is, well, nuclear.

Maybe most of them are too stupid to understand...

Or maybe their "belief" that life begins at conception is simply posturing to bolseter their stance opposing D&C abortions; and they really know that a zygote is not a human.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Or maybe their "belief" that life begins at conception is simply posturing to bolseter their stance opposing D&C abortions; and they really know that a zygote is not a human.

You seem to be mixing concepts here. Life obviously begins at conception. I was under the impression that the debate was over whether or not that life qualifies as human.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
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?

Yes.

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.

Fair enough, I was just explaining how something with human DNA (or fish DNA) can be a "separate organism" (living outside of its parent) and yet still not be "human" (or a "fish"). The obvious parallel between external fertilization is in vitro fertilization, and I wanted to put a preemptive end to any argument that attempted to exploit this.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger
Fair enough, I was just explaining how something with human DNA (or fish DNA) can be a "separate organism" (living outside of its parent) and yet still not be "human" (or a "fish"). The obvious parallel between external fertilization is in vitro fertilization, and I wanted to put a preemptive end to any argument that attempted to exploit this.

If the zygote is a seperate organism when outside the body, it shows that it's environment is not necessary, to distinguish it's individual nature.

Virus' are an integral part of their host, are not considered "alive" yet are distinct organisms.

[November Adam]

sha na na na, na na na, na na... bump, bump.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

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.

Urban Ranger- natural birthrate is around 5 or so... How else do you explain the expansion of the human race and the populations in Chihna and india and durign the dark ages in Europe! People had 4 or more children!

The averages in birth have been going down because of contraception since the turn of the century. Natural birthrate is extremely high!

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger

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.

Yes?
I thought that was waht I sadi- if the retarded want to commit suicide- or anyone for that matter- they should be allowed to- the world would be better off.
-
And yes, abortion of convienence, it helps society to eliminate people who, through no fault of their own, will leech off it. (Until a cure for retardation is found )

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


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.

Ah, but the baby leaves naturally and the womans health is frequently restored. The Tumor will not leave naturally.

When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation

Um, whoever said this missed the point. That is natural. The woman would not be pregnant if sperm did not meet egg.
And all that you 'proved' was that the government said that killing sperm was wrong- it said nothing about killing 'life' such as the embryo- which is clearly alive inside the mothers womb.

Now as to whether it is 'human', probably not in the early stages, but I maintain- since It forms INTO a human without outside influence (It does not need to be impregnated again) it has all that it needs INSIDE the body, then it should be counted as Human...

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.

I don't think that I was incorrect agbout the lawsuits, but since I cannot prove that and your explanation makes more sense- I shall cede you the point on this

[November Adam]

lets play the word game!

life cycle
n.
1.The course of developmental changes through which an organism passes from its inception as a fertilized zygote to the mature state in which another zygote may be produced.
2.A progression through a series of differing stages of development.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


hu·man Pronunciation Key (hymn)
n.
1.A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2.A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

zygote

n : the cell resulting from the union of an ovum and a spermatozoon (including the organism that develops from that cell) [syn: fertilized cell]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

em·bry·o Pronunciation Key (mbr-)
n. pl. em·bry·os

1. a) An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
b) An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.

2. a) The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
b) In humans, the prefetal product of conception implantation through the eighth week of development.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
And yes, abortion of convienence, it helps society to eliminate people who, through no fault of their own, will leech off it.

Or, more to the point, murder of convenience; if you believe that an embryo is human, then you aren't merely advocating assisted suicide for the retarded, but murder of the retarded.

Also, be aware that quite a few retarded people contribute to society. One of my professors here has two retarded children, both of whom have a great deal of independence and ability to contribute to society (i.e. "work," not "leech").

And all that you 'proved' was that the government said that killing sperm was wrong- it said nothing about killing 'life' such as the embryo- which is clearly alive inside the mothers womb.

"When sperm meets egg" does not refer to the sperm and egg, but to their product (the zygote/embryo).

Now as to whether it is 'human', probably not in the early stages

Then it is not murder to abort the embryo. If something isn't a human, then killing it isn't murder.

but I maintain- since It forms INTO a human without outside influence (It does not need to be impregnated again) it has all that it needs INSIDE the body, then it should be counted as Human

But you just said that it isn't a human yet. Therefore, it isn't a human during its embryonic stage, regardless of what it might develop into during a later growth stage.

[loinburger]

Re: lets play the word game!

Originally posted by November Adam
life cycle...

You've already posted your life cycle diagram.

hu·man...

This definition contributes nothing to your argument.

zygote...

This definition was never under contention, IIRC. I'm no biologist, but I remember enough from AP Biology to get by.

em·bry·o...

I don't believe this definition was under contention, either.

[The Mad Viking]

Dinodoc:

You seem to be mixing concepts here. Life obviously begins at conception. I was under the impression that the debate was over whether or not that life qualifies as human.

No mixing. When I say "life" in this instance, I mean "human life".

The point here is, if you believe that human life begins at conception, then it is illogical to focus on the thousands of D&C abortions, when millions of pharmaceutical abortions are performed every year.

Ergo, anti-abortionists KNOW that a zygote is NOT a human life. They FAKE that position, to avoid the slippery slope of debating when a fetus becomes human.

If anti-abortionists really believed that a zygote was a human life, they would be protesting birth control pills.

[November Adam]

Re: Re: lets play the word game!

Originally posted by loinburger


You've already posted your life cycle diagram.



This definition contributes nothing to your argument.



This definition was never under contention, IIRC. I'm no biologist, but I remember enough from AP Biology to get by.



I don't believe this definition was under contention, either.

okay, so we have:

1. A seperate organism
2. That is not a part of the mother (no more than a host/parasite relationship)
3. That is begining it's life cycle.
4. That is a homo sapien, (look at it's DNA)

when all are put together, you have a human.