Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris-
Even so, the unborn child is only temporarily non-sentient. The unborn child has the inherent capacity to attain sentience, and is therefore a human person as opposed to a cat or a dog. You once were a zygote, a fetus inside your mother's womb. Your definition has this disjoint where the unborn child is not human but later becomes one.

No. The so called "unborn child" is not temporarily non-sentient, because it has never been sentient before.

[DinoDoc]

What is sentience and how do you determine when an unborn or even an unborn child is sentient?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris-
Even so, the unborn child is only temporarily non-sentient. The unborn child has the inherent capacity to attain sentience, and is therefore a human person as opposed to a cat or a dog. You once were a zygote, a fetus inside your mother's womb. Your definition has this disjoint where the unborn child is not human but later becomes one.

Sorry, but the "it will eventually be sentient" argument doesn't hold water for me. This would just as easily preclude any form of contraception, as one could easily argue that the sperm will one day become part of a sentient being. Also, there is no guarantee the zygote will become sentient, as a large percentage of pregnancies end prematurely by natural means. At any rate, I don't believe it is unethical to destroy an embryo, as it has no atman, it is not sentient human life.

If it's not human in the womb, then what else could it be? Human beings produce other human beings.

It is no more a human being than eating an egg is the same as eating a chicken. It's an embryo.

I'm leery about the health exception for one reason.
Most times, the definition of health involves the UN definition which includes mental health. Doe v Bolton confirmed this perspective, therefore, all abortions were justified because pregnancy has a psychological effect. This is why I prefer life-threatening as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or other rare cases.

Well, by health risks, I meant physical. If the pregnancy threatens the life or the permanent physical well-being of the mother, I think it is right to terminate the pregnancy. Yes, that applies to even non-life threatening conditions, such as one that might render the mother infertile.

True, but the point in question is why are late-term abortions done. You have not shown that late-term abortions are done solely for the health of the mother as opposed to more material concerns.

I didn't say they were all done solely for the health of the mother, only that they were rare. As I said, I believe they should only be done for the health of the mother.

As for the rape issue, it's absolutely clear to me that a woman should not be forced to bear a child she that she had no wish to conceive or even participate in the conception of. It is tantamount to a second rape to force her to carry the child. That being said, I'd subject it to the same rules for normal abortion in terms of the time frame. Either abort it early or keep it, don't wait until the 3rd trimester to have an abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

"This would just as easily preclude any form of contraception, as one could easily argue that the sperm will one day become part of a sentient being."

Good question Boris.

However, what is the difference between sperm and between a zygote? Biologically, a zygote is a diploid cell, containing genes from both the mother and the father. A sperm cell contains only cells from the father.

If you leave sperm alone, will it become anything more than just sperm? No. The same is with an egg. However, a zygote is different. A zygote contains all the instructions required to grow from the genetic code it inherits from CONCEPTION onwards.

All the zygote requires to grow physically is the same thing an infant or even an adolescent requires. Nourishment, in the form of food and water, as well as heat and shelter. No difference, it's a continuum from conception onwards.

Boris, how can something that is not a human being suddenly become one? How do you maintain your identity from one day to the next?

Atman

1 Hinduism : the innermost essence of each individual
2 Hinduism : the supreme universal self : BRAHMA 2 "

Why is the atman only present at the end of the second trimester? And how do we detect an atman?

"That's why I don't think late-term abortions should be done except to protect the life of the mother (which is pretty much the only instances in which they are done today). "

I've been charitable in extending this to health. This is from earlier in the thread. You are claiming threat to the life of the mother, not health.

-Urban Ranger, what definition are you using for sentience? Same as Boris?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
However, what is the difference between sperm and between a zygote? Biologically, a zygote is a diploid cell, containing genes from both the mother and the father. A sperm cell contains only cells from the father.

If you leave sperm alone, will it become anything more than just sperm? No. The same is with an egg. However, a zygote is different. A zygote contains all the instructions required to grow from the genetic code it inherits from CONCEPTION onwards.

That's Boris. He's not a science major. What about body cells then? Biologically they are not different from zygotes, and it is definitely possible to coax them into behaving the same way.

Originally posted by obiwan18
-Urban Ranger, what definition are you using for sentience? Same as Boris?

A sentient being knows that it is an individual.

[Ned]

Nexr Mother's Day will be declared anti-woman by the pro-choice cabal.

[Spiffor]

Ned :
Can you explain how the pro-choice cabal is anti-women please ?
I am precisely pro-choice because I respect women for something else than their infanting abilities, and I assume every pro-choice does.
Can you enlighten me please ?

Edit : nevermind, I understood what you say (I thought the pro-choice wanted to rename "Mother's day" into "Anti-women day" )
And actually, Mother's day is originally extremely conservative in its nature, being invented by Pétain's regime. It was a part of his big natality plan, and clearly rooted into the idea that women have to stay at home and raise their children.
Fortunately, it is just a consumerist fest now (but I still do not celebrate it )

[Sava]

How come John Kennedy gets assassinated and this pud is walking around the country, turning it into his own private little relgious cult... f*ck Bush... I'll spit on him if I ever meet him.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks Urban Ranger.

BTW I'm a history major. Much easier than Physics, although I still have a 'thing' for science.

Interesting point about body cells.

From what I can see, the zygote is kind of special because it is the unique combination of two different genomes. Your own cells will bear the same code as you. Also, you need to coax the cell to change, unlike the zygote which will divide on it's own unless we intervene.

Adult stem cells are cool though.
Be nice to see Christopher Reeves walk because they work with his own cells.

As for sentient as you have defined, the problem is what about infants? Do they have a self-concept in this sense? I don't want to justify infanticide just because an infant is not currently self-aware.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I'm not going to defend abortion in the case of rape.

Having an abortion in the case of rape, is like having your car smashed up by a hit and run driver, and then smashing the car next to you in your frustration and anger. Is it right to hurt an innocent person because someone else has hurt you? No. The woman was violated, but abortion will not get rid of the rape.

From the woman's perspective, having an abortion after rape is like being cut free of the wreckage after a car crash.

The opponents of abortion want to leave her trapped in the wreckage for nine months.

The same analogy can be used for abortion after contraceptive failure. Cars are dangerous, and any person who voluntarily drives a car should expect to remain trapped in the wreckage if it crashes. It is "immoral" to cut them free, even if they had been wearing a seatbelt, as this would absolve them from the consequences of the risk they accepted.

It is clearly an abominable torture to FORCE a woman to carry a hated parasite within her body for nine months. And I would not blame any woman for using deadly force to prevent it, even if this means the assassination of a politician if this would prevent such legislation. It would be a clear case of self-defense.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Of course, there's another problem with "National Sanctity of Life Day".

The main argument of pro-choicers is that the fetus is not a person. But we recognize that it is "life".

If it's life that mustn't be taken, then salt is the only food that should be consumed on National Sanctity of Life Day, plus other minerals and artificial colors and flavors synthesized from petroleum (organic, but not killed by humans).

How many recipes for salt are there?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Proteus,
regarding RU486-

http://dianedew.com/ru486.htm

"Dr. Turshen examined the research findings of French studies, in which 50% of patients using RU-486 suffered complications ranging anywhere from nausea to bleeding for up to 40 days. "

"One death has been reported, supposedly from the prostaglandin (PG) administered with mifepristone. And three women have suffered heart attacks. Numerous others have had to undergo blood transfusions, or dilatation and curettage, to remove remaining placental fragments."

"Abortion with RU-486 is a lengthy procedure (three to five visits required) that cannot be kept confidential, she said. The patient cannot plan where the fetus will be expelled -- in the office, in the hospital, or at home."

The Report is a bit old (1993).

I´d prefer the Report from M.S. Lawrence Roberge:

http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

It also states a lot of those Points you mentioned.
But some of the points, for example the excessive bleeding seem to be cause,
because the women self-administered Painkillers without consulting their Doctors first.

His Report sounds to me as if a lot of dangers by administering RU 486
could be avoided by instructing the women properly and especially by keeping
close contact with the mother during the days after taking RU 486 and PG.

But you are right.
Maybe RU486 isn´t the really ideal way to abort pregnancy.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I think it is you who are a little off here. While electric impulses can be detected sometimes as early as 6 weeks, that is not remotely the same as brainwave activity nor remotely comparable to nervous systom neural activity.

At anyrate, I don't think the fetus is classifiable as human until the atman is developed, and I am doubtful that happens until late in the second trimester at the earliest.

Yep, from a neurological Standpoint it would be plausible to say that your Consciousness and therefore your "being human" starts with the development of brainwaves (which require myelinated and interconnected Neurons within the Brain).
I think the 20st week has been the earliest Date at which Brainwaves have been measured to date.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Being asleep does not render one non-sentient. Find a better example.

Yep,
and even while asleep your Brain shows Brainwaves and the fact that you dream during your sleep (although most of the dreams aren´t remembered after wakening) should show everyone, that you aren´t completely without consciousness during sleep but rather in an altered state of Consciousness.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Of course, there's another problem with "National Sanctity of Life Day".

The main argument of pro-choicers is that the fetus is not a person. But we recognize that it is "life".

If it's life that mustn't be taken, then salt is the only food that should be consumed on National Sanctity of Life Day, plus other minerals and artificial colors and flavors synthesized from petroleum (organic, but not killed by humans).

How many recipes for salt are there?

Not to forget,
that with this argument you schouldn´t treat Diseases, because
almost all of them are caused by bacteria which are definitely life,
Viruses, which could be considered Life (there are a lot of discussions about this among biologists)
or sometimes even higher developed Forms of Life like Nematodae (Thread Worms)

If you consider it right,
medicine is a science of death,
because so many lifeforms are killed by treating Diseases, and everything just to save the life of a single human

[Jack the Bodiless]

On the subject of deaths resulting from RU-486 (or, indeed, any other form of abortion performed under medical supervision):

These need to be offset against the danger of death during childbirth.

Even in the modern age, pregnancy is a (relatively) great risk to the mother's life.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
From what I can see, the zygote is kind of special because it is the unique combination of two different genomes.

Same genome.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Your own cells will bear the same code as you.

How does that make a difference? Not all individuals have unique DNA codes.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Also, you need to coax the cell to change, unlike the zygote which will divide on it's own unless we intervene.

Yes, but sex cells don't become zygote automatically either. That's what mating is for So both needs an extra process.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Adult stem cells are cool though.
Be nice to see Christopher Reeves walk because they work with his own cells.

I don't have any problems with using stem cells from embryoes either. You can take a cell when a zygote is at 2, 4, or even 8 (maybe even more) stage without killing it. Also, there is all that extra stuff from artificial insemination that will end up down the toilet anyway. What's the difference.

Originally posted by obiwan18
As for sentient as you have defined, the problem is what about infants? Do they have a self-concept in this sense? I don't want to justify infanticide just because an infant is not currently self-aware.

I expected this question from somebody.

I don't know if infants are sentient. Maybe they are. Unless we can finally nail it down, I am willing to give them benefit of the doubt. Besides, infants are already outside, so it's not really applicable to the abortion debate. The only grey area I see are those fetuses older than 6 months.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
cyclotron

Do you have a responsibility to your parents? Do you have an obligation to respect them and to take care of them if they need help even though you had no choice in the matter?

It would be generous of me to take care of them, but it is not required by law. Surely you see the difference...

If we accept your statement as true, you have just destroyed what a family is all about. Obligations and responsibilities arise from the fetus' right to life. Every right has a corresponding responsibility.

Not a legal responsibility, though. You may think that a family is all about obligations to eachother, but the law doesn't see it that way, and this is a legal issue.

If there was another option for the mother, an incubator that could develop a child apart from the mother's womb, then pregnancy would not confer a duty on the mother. However, since we don't have said incubator, the child has no other place to grow or to develop.

Irrelevant. A person's right to life does not, and never will, confer an obligation to help on anybody. That is why people can die without a kidney transplant while I still have both my kidneys. You may think it is right for me to donate my kidneys, but in the end it is my decision. The right of somebody to their life does not confer an obligation on me, and in the same way an infant's right to life does not confer an obligation on the mother if the mother did not agree to the obligation (i.e., rape).

In order to improve the kidney example, you'd have to change things around, like saying that the man is only hooked up to you for 9 months.

Also irrelevant. Even if he is only hooked up for 10 seconds, I still am not obligated to provide my body for his use.

Also, the man would have to be really small so that you could still walk around and work. Some women do work during pregnancy, you know. It's not a sentence to bed for nine months.

Again, irrelevant. The woman has no obligation to another life forced upon her. As I said, even if the obligation is short or trivial in nature it is still not automatically conferred. You are confusing what you believe is proper with our society's moral beliefs: namely, that right to life does not require you to fulfill an obligation.