I just realized something about abortion...

[Hydey]

if woman do not want to fall pregnant they should stick to oral sex to satify their man.

[KrazyHorse]

The egg is separate from the chicken physically. It requires no contribution from a separate entity to survive in the world. It becomes a separate entity when its yolk-sac and eggshell have developed sufficiently to allow it to hatch safely after more time has passed.

Unlike, for instance, a parasite, an embryo requires a lot more than just warmth or nourishment that it can steal from another organism; it requires a complex and active cooperation on the part of a parent it cannot choose in order to survive and develop. Until it becomes viable, it is a part of the parent's own body.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Mihai


And in this case the woman should make a cezarian (sp?), not an abourtion.

Yes. Third trimester abortions should not be practiced except in the case of medical necessity.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Frogger
It becomes a separate entity when its yolk-sac and eggshell have developed sufficiently to allow it to hatch safely after more time has passed.

It's still an embryo, though. The chicken is at the same stage in its life cycle as the human, the only difference is that the human is developing inside the uterus during this part of its life cycle while the chicken is developing inside of an egg. Unless mammals have completely different life cycles than practically every other creature (i.e. unless a mammal's life cycle doesn't begin until birth, even though most animals' life cycles begin well before then), then there's no reason to conclude that a chicken is an independent entity in its embryonic stage but that a human is not, and every life-cycle diagram I've ever seen starts at the zygote.

[KrazyHorse]

the only difference is that the human is developing inside the uterus during this part of its life cycle while the chicken is developing inside of an egg

That makes all the difference in the world. One is self-sufficient, the other is not.

[KrazyHorse]

every life-cycle diagram I've ever seen starts at the zygote

Only if you define it (organism) in a particular way (genetic). I would start life-cycle with baby and end it with pregnant-woman-and-child.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by joseph1944

If the fetus is left along for 9 months it will be borne.

Not necessarily - a very high of pregnancies don't make it to term, often without the mother knowing she's pregnant.

What about the Jewish idea that human life begins when you draw breath?

[Docfeelgood]

Men debating abortion makes about as much sence to me as an anti-abortionist who is for the death penalty.



How can someone claim to be be anti-abortion and still eat eggs?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Frogger
That makes all the difference in the world. One is self-sufficient, the other is not.

So you're saying that even though every non-mammal that reproduces through meiosis is a separate entity in the embryonic stage (being inside of an egg that is not part of its mother's body), a mammal is not.

Problem being, if a human embryo isn't a separate entity from its mother, then why does it have vastly different DNA from its mother? No other "organ" in the mother's body (with the exception of eggs, which clearly aren't separate human entities by virtue of the fact that they've only got half the number of required chromosomes) have such radically different DNA from the rest of the body.

So in order to conclude that a human embryo is just another organ, we'd have to assume a. that the same life cycle that applies to all non-mammals somehow doesn't apply to mammals, and b. that the embryo is part of the mother's body despite the fact that it's got a vastly different set of genes than the rest of the mother's body.

Only if you define it (organism) in a particular way (genetic). I would start life-cycle with baby and end it with pregnant-woman-and-child.

How do you define an organism without using genetics?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Second moral of the story : your previous avatar was much better than the new one

Yeah, I know. But at least this way, people don't think of me as a hot chick. If I had left Lexa as my avatar for long enough, I'm sure someone here would have hit on me . This way, at least if I get hit on, it will be because of the way I really look. Even if it is a guy, it's still a compliment. I'm one of those straight guys that doesn't mind getting hit on by gay guys. In most cases, they care more about appearance than the ladies. Higher Standards = Yes, I'm a Sex0R beast!

[Sava]

I consider the life-form to be complete when it can medically survive outside the womb (or eggshell for birds and stuff). I would accept the medical interpretation of a human being (with rights and such) being defined at the point of its ability to survive in the outside world (I'm not including the ability to feed).

[November Adam]

The problem with that definition "the ability to survive outside the womb", is that it is based on our technological capabilities of the day. Fetus' of the past that were born at 26 weeks had no chance of surviving, while now a days they have a small chance of doin so. So in the future when we are capable of developing without a womb, are we then going to chage the definition?

Frogger, you keep saying independent, which you are correct, the embryo isn't an independent biological entity, rather it is a unique biological entity that relies on the body that created it to use as a home until it developes.

Well Loin it looks like I really did convince you of the biological portion of our debate.

[Sava]

I'm talking about surviving naturally, without the help of incubation hoopajoobs and stuff. Natural survival... without the help of machines.

[November Adam]

What does that have to do with anything? (Meaning assistance with machines?)

Are you trying to tell me that if you have a baby on a respirator it really isn't by your definition a human?

[Sava]

I'm just using the popular Pro-Life argument against you. I.E. Humans perpetrate the killing of babies (abortion) which is interfering with "god's" natural will. On the flipside, medicine and technology interfere's with god's natural will. It's only logical to assume that the natural definition of a human being be the state in which a human being can survive and live on its own without the aid of medicine and technology.

IMO, souls aren't simply created at conception, or even at birth. They grow along with the body and with time. The loss of a fetus is simply not the same degree of loss of an adult. Also, the fetus doesn't suffer. And by your own Christian beliefs, upon death, the soul either goes to heaven, hell, or purgatory. A baby would either go to heaven or the soul would be reborn. Either way, I don't see a negative. In fact, the negative would be bringing the child into a world and situation where it isn't wanted.

A baby on a respirator is human. But it doesn't have the same level of growth as an adult. Death isn't a bad thing, IMO. Death is the same state of existence as before you were born. The manner in which the death occurs is where the evil lies. Specifically, in suffering and the significance of loss on family. If God does exist in the manner in which Judeo-Christians believe, then he obviously is taking care of the babies killed by abortion. I seriously doubt that they are all burning in hell.

I just don't see the negative aspect of it.