Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Abortion: Is it time?

Abortion: Is it time? (Page 11)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2011, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I maintain that most people already believe the fetus is a human, a person and will deny its rights in the cases of rape, incest, and health of mother.
...
but it is a life they are willing to deny in the cases of rape, incest, and health of mother. Justifiable homicide.
Thank you, justifiable homicide is exactly the term I was trying to describe. It's the same thing that happens between 2 adult grown people.

Why 6 weeks?
See my latest exchange with stupendousman in this thread.

According to a Newsweek poll conducted in 2003, only 11% believe life begins at birth. 46% believe life begins at conception and an additional 12% when the embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus. I maintain that most already believe personhood occurs at conception,
...
Again, when people are directly asked when life begins, the majority claim conception. When they are asked about their general support or opposition to abortion, it hinges primarily on the circumstances of the pregnancy.
Well there's two problems with this evidence. First, again, people don't necessarily know that their issue is as simple as a failing hard drive. You can't just ask them and then take their answer for granted just because they say their s.m.a.r.t. status is verified.
And second, you can't draw conclusions about "personhood" by only asking about "life." Obviously a 1-day embryo is alive, simply because it's not dead. But then, so is an unfertilized egg, and a sperm, and a houseplant. "Life" is not actually the question, so asking about "life" already puts the respondent at a disadvantage (from the perspective of them thinking of the objectively right answer). You're depending on the respondent to guess that the question really means "personhood," some will and some won't. And besides that, asking a survey participant to decide on a number is honestly too difficult for that context; it's taken us 10 pages and we haven't even gotten past stage 1 here . Conception is the easiest way to respond, but that doesn't mean that the respondent's heart of hearts doesn't believe something else, that they just aren't able to put into words when they're on the spot, and having inadequate criteria given to them.

Do you have any evidence independent of surveys? (just asking)

Do you have some evidence to support this? When do the majority believe the fetus is a person?
No, but I would be shocked if there was any evidence against it, because not enough (if any?) studies properly address "personhood" rather than the inferior "life" criteria. But logically, the best timepoint will muster only a plurality, not a majority, so it stands to reason that the majority would fall into "not-conception" rather than "conception," even if the "not-conception" group is further fragmented.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2011, 02:16 PM
 
I want to argue the notion when life begins. The beginning of life happened billions of years ago. Since then everything has been a extension to that life that started it all. Religious people can go with the creation by design theory and people like me and science driven people can go with the evolution theory. Which ever way you look at it life started long ago so conception isn't the creating of life. Its the extension of life. Because the sperm and the egg are living cells already from both parents. Already alive individually. Everything around us is alive from the plants in the room to the bugs flying around your garbage can. So its not a issue about when life starts.

Its more a issue of personhood, when does the living tissue from both the mother and dad, extensions of their lives become a independent person of its own with its own thoughts and personality. And I don't think that develops until much later when the brain is forming.

Its not about when life starts, its when personhood starts.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2011, 03:07 PM
 
If a point where personhood was clearly established in utero (say EEGs and REM activity), would that be the cutoff for you?
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Its not about when life starts, its when personhood starts.
There's virtually no way to accurately pinpoint that, based on the criteria you set out. Also, that standard ignores the fact that we already consider the life in question worthy of other protections from outside intrusions by third parties (when a mother is attacked or harmed by others and also harm is done to her unborn).

As I've explained time and again, we already have an age old standard we've used to determine when we could or couldn't act to declare humans living persons or not, that is not arbitrary and is fairly easily determined via scientific means. Just because a person cannot function on their own, and may not have any discernible thoughts - we are not allowed to just allow the lifeforce in them to leave if that condition is determined to only be temporary. Only when they no longer have active brain waves and a heart beat, and it can be determined that they aren't likely to be able to have these things on their own in the near future, can we act to "pull the plug" on them. There's really no reason other than convenience issues or other arbitrary attempts to excuse killing the unborn that this same standard that is used outside the womb isn't used inside the womb.

Regardless, this isn't something for the courts to legislate. Per Constitutional mandate and past precedent, it's an issue for the states to decide.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Thank you, justifiable homicide is exactly the term I was trying to describe. It's the same thing that happens between 2 adult grown people.
Right, the same thing. And you'd likely not be arguing personhood between 2 adult grown people.

See my latest exchange with stupendousman in this thread.
So we have 1 vote for heart pumping blood = personhood.

Well there's two problems with this evidence. First, again, people don't necessarily know that their issue is as simple as a failing hard drive. You can't just ask them and then take their answer for granted just because they say their s.m.a.r.t. status is verified.
And yet the more we understand of fetal development, the less apt we are to support the termination of that development. Surveys are useful as a measurement of the opinion of our public court. While you cannot just take their answers for granted, that is in fact what a public opinion measurement would have to do and its fluctuations suggest changing attitudes. I don't know that people have any better grasp on personhood than life, why should I argue personhood?

And second, you can't draw conclusions about "personhood" by only asking about "life." Obviously a 1-day embryo is alive, simply because it's not dead. But then, so is an unfertilized egg, and a sperm, and a houseplant.
Conception is the point at which the life becomes fully human. It is no longer a fertilized egg, a sperm, or a houseplant; it is a fully compiled human life in development.

"Life" is not actually the question, so asking about "life" already puts the respondent at a disadvantage (from the perspective of them thinking of the objectively right answer). You're depending on the respondent to guess that the question really means "personhood," some will and some won't. And besides that, asking a survey participant to decide on a number is honestly too difficult for that context; it's taken us 10 pages and we haven't even gotten past stage 1 here . Conception is the easiest way to respond, but that doesn't mean that the respondent's heart of hearts doesn't believe something else, that they just aren't able to put into words when they're on the spot, and having inadequate criteria given to them.
If life is too ambiguous for an adequate measure of public opinion, personhood is even more vague.

Do you have any evidence independent of surveys? (just asking)
All I would have to do is read the 10 pages of material covered in this thread to know when the fully human life is conceived, when it has hands, arms, knees, a heart, eyelashes, REM sleep, reactions to external stimuli, etc. When we talk about the court of public opinion as I have, surveys are useful. If they are not useful because "life" is too vague a criteria, I don't see how personhood is any more effective a criteria.

No, but I would be shocked if there was any evidence against it, because not enough (if any?) studies properly address "personhood" rather than the inferior "life" criteria. But logically, the best timepoint will muster only a plurality, not a majority, so it stands to reason that the majority would fall into "not-conception" rather than "conception," even if the "not-conception" group is further fragmented.
You may believe life is an inferior criteria, but I don't think personhood is any clearer or superior a criteria. For example, define personhood.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You may believe life is an inferior criteria, but I don't think personhood is any clearer or superior a criteria. For example, define personhood.
This was earlier in the thread
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It went from "when does life begin?' to "when does personhood begin?" What will it be moved to next? The ability to fend for him/herself?
(AKA moving the goal posts.)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
"Life" in this context has always been short-hand for personhood. Duh, because cockroaches are alive, but no one is going to cry when they are aborted. Who are we not allowed to kill, living things or people?


Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Just in case I missed it, how do you define "personhood"
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'll answer if you agree that this is the only relevant question.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
When we talk about the court of public opinion as I have, surveys are useful.
Perhaps your mistake is in the value you give to public opinion. Not everything should not be democratic. If you take a survey of which theory is most likely to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics into a single GUT, you might get a decent answer if you conduct your survey in the MIT cafeteria or outside the Royal Society. If you hold the same survey in the parking lot at Wall-mart, you aren't likely to learn much for your trouble.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 03:13 PM
 
When does a pollywog become a frog?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 03:13 PM
 
Usually on prom night.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post

So we have 1 vote for heart pumping blood = personhood.
So Dick Cheney doesn't qualify to be a person then? I think he has a mechanical pump.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
So Dick Cheney doesn't qualify to be a person then? I think he has a mechanical pump.
Dick Cheney didn't qualify as a human long before then.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right, the same thing. And you'd likely not be arguing personhood between 2 adult grown people.
You have your cause and effect backwards. Personhood being central causes the world to make sense, not vice versa.

So we have 1 vote for heart pumping blood = personhood.
Brain function would be better. A body without a mind is not considered a living person (like the brain-dead), while a mind without a body would be, if such a thing existed. But because brain function in fetuses is too hard to access, and because 6 weeks still provides "choice" to pro-choicers who take the matter seriously, and because earlier abortions are objectively better than late anyway by any possible medical assessment, I can accept heart-pumping as a substitute. At least it is based on biology.

And yet the more we understand of fetal development, the less apt we are to support the termination of that development. Surveys are useful as a measurement of the opinion of our public court. While you cannot just take their answers for granted, that is in fact what a public opinion measurement would have to do and its fluctuations suggest changing attitudes. I don't know that people have any better grasp on personhood than life, why should I argue personhood?
To do otherwise is the fallacy of "looking where the light is."
A drunk is searching for his car keys under a streetlight. A cop happens along, and after appraising the situation, asks the drunk where he had last seen the keys. The drunk points toward a dark alley. "Then why aren't you looking over there?" asks the exasperated cop. The drunk looks up and replies, "Because the light is better over here."
By searching under the light you may cover ground faster but you won't find your keys; and by asking easier questions you may get more answers, but they won't inform you about the morals of abortion. You ask the right question in order to get a better answer, not an easier answer. You search in the dark in order to search a better location, not an easier location.

Conception is the point at which the life becomes fully human. It is no longer a fertilized egg, a sperm, or a houseplant; it is a fully compiled human life in development.
No, not at all. A (human) gamete is already human (it's certainly not any other species), and an immortalized human cell line or cancerous tissue is human plus it's also diploid, but clearly neither of these things are people. A gamete also has all the potential it needs to eventually become a person, except for the sizable contribution it still needs from the parents, and the same is true of a one-day embryo. The remaining needed contribution gradually decreases as time goes on. Once cloning becomes possible (and arguably it already is), then every cell of every person has the potential to become a whole new person in its own right, and all it needs is that remaining contribution from its care-givers, same as the one-day embryo.

None of these pseudo-scientific short-cuts are going to successfully obviate the true question (personhood), any more than the punishing-fornicators tactic or the women's-rights tactic. We knew what a person is before the discovery of DNA, and just because we haven't bothered to try to codify it doesn't mean we aren't still referring to that knowledge when we make decisions like those about abortion.

If life is too ambiguous for an adequate measure of public opinion, personhood is even more vague.
One reason that personhood remains shrouded in vagueness is because people like yourself have avoided discussing it, in favor of questions that are easier to answer but less meaningful (life).

All I would have to do is read the 10 pages of material covered in this thread to know when the fully human life is conceived, when it has hands, arms, knees, a heart, eyelashes, REM sleep, reactions to external stimuli, etc. When we talk about the court of public opinion as I have, surveys are useful. If they are not useful because "life" is too vague a criteria, I don't see how personhood is any more effective a criteria.
Because while people still make their private decisions about abortion based on personhood, they don't know that their decision boils down to such a singular concept, in part because like you they are reluctant to philosophize off the beaten path.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Originally Posted by ebuddy
You may believe life is an inferior criteria, but I don't think personhood is any clearer or superior a criteria. For example, define personhood.
This was earlier in the thread
Originally Posted by Chongo
It went from "when does life begin?' to "when does personhood begin?" What will it be moved to next? The ability to fend for him/herself?
(AKA moving the goal posts.)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
"Life" in this context has always been short-hand for personhood. Duh, because cockroaches are alive, but no one is going to cry when they are aborted. Who are we not allowed to kill, living things or people?
Originally Posted by Chongo
Just in case I missed it, how do you define "personhood"
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
I'll answer if you agree that this is the only relevant question.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for you
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You have your cause and effect backwards. Personhood being central causes the world to make sense, not vice versa.
In the abortion scenario there is a small person and a larger person; two people. In the two-adults scenario there are two adult people. I'm not conflating the two scenarios, I'm equating them based on your premise.

Brain function would be better. A body without a mind is not considered a living person (like the brain-dead), while a mind without a body would be, if such a thing existed. But because brain function in fetuses is too hard to access, and because 6 weeks still provides "choice" to pro-choicers who take the matter seriously, and because earlier abortions are objectively better than late anyway by any possible medical assessment, I can accept heart-pumping as a substitute. At least it is based on biology.
Dead people have rights, brain-dead people and 6' under the ground dead people. Define personhood.

To do otherwise is the fallacy of "looking where the light is."
By searching under the light you may cover ground faster but you won't find your keys; and by asking easier questions you may get more answers, but they won't inform you about the morals of abortion. You ask the right question in order to get a better answer, not an easier answer. You search in the dark in order to search a better location, not an easier location.
Human life is personhood. To establish human life is to establish personhood. The only thing easier about using life instead of personhood is the number of letters. What's the fallacy for searching an abyss for light?

No, not at all. A (human) gamete is already human (it's certainly not any other species), and an immortalized human cell line or cancerous tissue is human plus it's also diploid, but clearly neither of these things are people. A gamete also has all the potential it needs to eventually become a person, except for the sizable contribution it still needs from the parents, and the same is true of a one-day embryo. The remaining needed contribution gradually decreases as time goes on. Once cloning becomes possible (and arguably it already is), then every cell of every person has the potential to become a whole new person in its own right, and all it needs is that remaining contribution from its care-givers, same as the one-day embryo.
Conception is the point at which the life becomes fully human. It is no longer a fertilized egg, a sperm, or a houseplant; it is a fully compiled, individual human life in development. None of your examples satisfy this standard.

None of these pseudo-scientific short-cuts are going to successfully obviate the true question (personhood), any more than the punishing-fornicators tactic or the women's-rights tactic. We knew what a person is before the discovery of DNA, and just because we haven't bothered to try to codify it doesn't mean we aren't still referring to that knowledge when we make decisions like those about abortion.
Right and the more we learn about fetal development, the more our attitudes toward abortion changes and the less apt we are to deny one life to the benefit of another.

One reason that personhood remains shrouded in vagueness is because people like yourself have avoided discussing it, in favor of questions that are easier to answer but less meaningful (life).
I haven't avoided discussing it at all. I maintain there is absolutely zero difference between human life and personhood. Are you going to continue avoiding a definition for the word you insist on using?

Because while people still make their private decisions about abortion based on personhood, they don't know that their decision boils down to such a singular concept, in part because like you they are reluctant to philosophize off the beaten path.
I maintain that people "just know it" and believe it's wrong because the sense is innate. The more we learn about fetal development, the more nagging the singular concept becomes. This sense has to be ignored for personal advantage, justified, argued, conflated, confused, and counseled away.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 11:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
In the abortion scenario there is a small person and a larger person; two people. In the two-adults scenario there are two adult people. I'm not conflating the two scenarios, I'm equating them based on your premise.
You think that justifiable homicide has a height limit?

Dead people have rights, brain-dead people and 6' under the ground dead people.
Ok, but a different set of rights than living people have, because they are a fundamentally different entity. So what?

Define personhood.
Same as I told Chongo, I will move on to stage 2 if stage 1 is settled. Is it?

Human life is personhood. To establish human life is to establish personhood. The only thing easier about using life instead of personhood is the number of letters.
What is a human cell culture, or an organ transplant, or a sperm donation? Are these human life?

Conception is the point at which the life becomes fully human. It is no longer a fertilized egg, a sperm, or a houseplant; it is a fully compiled, individual human life in development.
Why? Because you say so? Is that based on logic, or just force of will?

Right and the more we learn about fetal development, the more our attitudes toward abortion changes and the less apt we are to deny one life to the benefit of another.
Why? Because the more we learn, the more a fetus seems like a person?
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2011, 11:46 PM
 
Dude, abortion is wrong. if you don't want a baby don't have sex. it that simple. or use a condom and birth control. there shouldn't be a thing such as abortion.
?NoFrEaKiNgWaY?:P
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 12:26 AM
 
Welcome. You'll fit right in here.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 12:47 AM
 
I want him on the other team.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by askad23 View Post
Dude, abortion is wrong. if you don't want a baby don't have sex. it that simple. or use a condom and birth control. there shouldn't be a thing such as abortion.

And so goes the saying if you think its wrong don't have one.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 01:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by askad23 View Post
Dude, abortion is wrong. if you don't want a baby don't have sex. it that simple. or use a condom and birth control. there shouldn't be a thing such as abortion.
I heard the same argument against the use of condoms and birth control.

If you don't want babies, don't have sex. Or don't get raped.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 05:28 AM
 
And if your the mom of Jesus your just screwed with spontaneous conception.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 08:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You think that justifiable homicide has a height limit?
No. I'm trying to protect the little guys, remember?

Ok, but a different set of rights than living people have, because they are a fundamentally different entity. So what?
So lifefulness is more meaningful than personhood and richlifefulness is more meaningful than that and...

Same as I told Chongo, I will move on to stage 2 if stage 1 is settled. Is it?
It is as far as I'm concerned; human life = personhood.

What is a human cell culture, or an organ transplant, or a sperm donation? Are these human life?
A component of human life in development, the skilled installation of a component of human life, and the gratuitous distribution of a component of human life. No, they are components of human life.

Why? Because you say so? Is that based on logic, or just force of will?
Logic. Fertilization is the point at which all contributing components are compiled into a fully complete, new, genetically distinct person. To deny its personhood at this point is to deny your own existence.

Why? Because the more we learn, the more a fetus seems like a person?
Yes. The more we learn, the more confident we are in defending our life-presupposition. Is personhood defined by you? Is it based on logic, or just force of will? While human life and personhood are essentially the same, one is a more precise nomenclature than the other. Personhood could arguably occur when one has found their niche at 30 years of age whereas human life is more scientifically qualifiable, less vulnerable to the muddying of waters.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So lifefulness is more meaningful than personhood and richlifefulness is more meaningful than that and...
Not more meaningful, just different. But your admission that "people" can be anything other than alive, disproves your statement below that human life = personhood.

It is as far as I'm concerned; human life = personhood.
But is it the only relevant question?

human life = personhood.
So Chewbacca wouldn't be a person then? Or that robot guy from star trek? What about the supernatural, if there were gods or spirits that weren't human, would that disqualify them as people? If science provides a means to make (or discover) an animal as smart as a human, is there any possible way for you to consider them a person?

To me, a person is an entity that is fundamentally "like us," either in form, behavior or thought. If something achieves this without being related to us, that doesn't disqualify them. And if something is related to us but fails to achieve this, it does disqualify them. (Yes, there is a recursive component to the definition, but since "we" already exist, that is ok)

A component of human life in development, the skilled installation of a component of human life, and the gratuitous distribution of a component of human life. No, they are components of human life.
So "human life" is a continuum after all.

Logic. Fertilization is the point at which all contributing components are compiled into a fully complete, new, genetically distinct person. To deny its personhood at this point is to deny your own existence.
Fully complete: except it lacks organs, tissues, antibodies, and one trillion times its mass in nutrients, minerals and vitamins. It's not even a multicellular organism.
Genetically distinct: unless it is a monozygotic twin; are they not true people?
Genetically distinct: human cell lines are genetically distinct from any living human (and also they are "fully complete," more so than a single-cell embryo), does that make them people?

Yes. The more we learn, the more confident we are in defending our life-presupposition.
There was never any doubt of "life," just as there is no doubt that houseplants are "alive." No additional confidence was ever gained in this supposition, nor was it needed.

Is personhood defined by you? Is it based on logic, or just force of will? While human life and personhood are essentially the same, one is a more precise nomenclature than the other. Personhood could arguably occur when one has found their niche at 30 years of age whereas human life is more scientifically qualifiable, less vulnerable to the muddying of waters.
It is a more difficult question, I haven't denied this. Are you afraid of difficulty? I'm not.

That the more worthwhile things in life are often more difficult shouldn't surprise you.
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Jun 10, 2011 at 02:06 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 02:51 PM
 
What about conjoined twins who share one heart?

Is that one or two persons?

What about parasitic twins? Should we kill the parasite in order to save the baby?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
What about conjoined twins who share one heart?

Is that one or two persons?
This issue arose in Canada. The doctors determined that they would both die, so the twins were separated, saving the twin with the better chance to survive. The other twin was killed by the operation, obviously.

What about parasitic twins? Should we kill the parasite in order to save the baby?
Yes.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 05:25 PM
 
OK geniuses what about this?
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 05:35 PM
 
Removing one head like a defective limb, no different then removing a arm or a leg? After all the body and the remaining head lives on. Or is it still murder. I guess this shows that life is in the head not the body as a whole. Thus the brain development and viability is the most suitable metric to go by when its to late to abort a baby and not a beating heart. If removing the second head is not murder then the metric is based on the heart. Since each head is its own person in a sense I think the Brain metric is the most valid one for personhood. After all, all that we are is our brain.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 06:38 PM
 
Ok I don't see the relevance of the conjoined twins. Little help?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
OK geniuses what about this?
What about it? Are they gonna die? No? Then there's nothing to be done. (Sheesh, what a stupid question.)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Ok I don't see the relevance of the conjoined twins. Little help?
We are talking about personhood and abortion right?

Because ebuddy said a person is define by a beating heart.

So I'm just wondering if conjoin twins who share one heart is considered one or two persons.

Also I don't think anyone is against aborting a parasitic twin in order the save the baby's life. Don't know why some would be against abortion if the mother's life is in danger.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2011, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Because ebuddy said a person is define by a beating heart.
No that's not what ebuddy said at all which renders your next question, at least to me, unnecessary.

Also I don't think anyone is against aborting a parasitic twin in order the save the baby's life. Don't know why some would be against abortion if the mother's life is in danger.
As far as I know, saving the mother over the baby has been standard fare in the medical profession since its inception and I'm not aware of any serious challenge to that standard.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2011, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Not more meaningful, just different. But your admission that "people" can be anything other than alive, disproves your statement below that human life = personhood.
I said that dead people have rights and queried you for the definition of personhood. I never said dead people enjoy human life or personhood. Dead people are not human life, they are expired human life.

But is it the only relevant question?
We've agreed it's the crux of the debate, but I maintain it's not the only question.

So Chewbacca wouldn't be a person then? Or that robot guy from star trek? What about the supernatural, if there were gods or spirits that weren't human, would that disqualify them as people? If science provides a means to make (or discover) an animal as smart as a human, is there any possible way for you to consider them a person?
Chewbacca? Yes as merely a different, much hairier race. I would be passionately opposed to aborting Chubaccalets. The robot guy from star trek? No. He's entirely inorganic and it would behoove the whole of society to maintain control of this entity's status. If it meant committing mass genocide to eliminate a runaway threat, I'd be among the first to support action. My detractors would call it a war for silicone. Supernatural beings and/or gods could likely assume whatever status they chose. Animals of equal thought capacity? If science produces them; their contribution to the form, behaviors, or thoughts of the entity must be the sole basis of consideration. See star trek. Otherwise see Chewbacca.

To me, a person is an entity that is fundamentally "like us," either in form, behavior or thought. If something achieves this without being related to us, that doesn't disqualify them. And if something is related to us but fails to achieve this, it does disqualify them. (Yes, there is a recursive component to the definition, but since "we" already exist, that is ok)
All this does is make human life seem more essential in the discussion.

So "human life" is a continuum after all.
If you must, but it's a vastly shorter sequence than personhood, physically and philosophically.

Fully complete: except it lacks organs, tissues, antibodies, and one trillion times its mass in nutrients, minerals and vitamins. It's not even a multicellular organism.
Human life goes through many stages and my nod is toward the preservation of it at all stages from its inception.

Genetically distinct: unless it is a monozygotic twin; are they not true people?
No, they are two people and aborting a monozygotic twin would be twice as bad.

Genetically distinct: human cell lines are genetically distinct from any living human (and also they are "fully complete," more so than a single-cell embryo), does that make them people?
These are components of components all available at the moment of conception. Why should these be any more profound than the print of a finger that has been severed from its hand? I mean, you could identify its host, but the more obscure this argument becomes, the more useful the human life qualifier IMO.

There was never any doubt of "life," just as there is no doubt that houseplants are "alive." No additional confidence was ever gained in this supposition, nor was it needed.

It is a more difficult question, I haven't denied this. Are you afraid of difficulty? I'm not.
That the more worthwhile things in life are often more difficult shouldn't surprise you.
Do I respect the commitment of difficulty? Yes. Really, it should be no surprise to you that a proponent of preserving the fetus at an earlier age would prefer a more precise nomenclature. Personhood is too vague a principle and the examples you use to work around the problem only make the term more problematic to me.

Analysis paralysis.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2011, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
OK geniuses what about this?
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Ok I don't see the relevance of the conjoined twins. Little help?
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
What about it? Are they gonna die? No? Then there's nothing to be done. (Sheesh, what a stupid question.)

Sorry, I forget the question. No, they're not going to die. In fact, they just turned 21.


If found to be pregnant, who is pregnant? One wants to keep it the other doesn't. Who gets the final say?
( Last edited by Chongo; Jun 11, 2011 at 08:46 AM. )
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2011, 09:49 AM
 
Thats a great question. I'd love to hear it put to them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2011, 10:20 AM
 
Well before that time, I'm sure they'd have to come to some agreement over having sex. I would say they'd have to have those discussions before the fact.

I saw an interview where they were learning to drive a car, and how difficult it was, but they did it. I don't remember which brain has access to which limbs or if both do.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2011, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I said that dead people have rights and queried you for the definition of personhood. I never said dead people enjoy human life or personhood. Dead people are not human life, they are expired human life.
I'm afraid I can't answer unless you explain how "dead people" are not people.

We've agreed it's the crux of the debate, but I maintain it's not the only question.
Well then we're still mired in stage 1. If you please, what are the other questions?

Chewbacca? Yes as merely a different, much hairier race. I would be passionately opposed to aborting Chubaccalets. The robot guy from star trek? No. He's entirely inorganic and it would behoove the whole of society to maintain control of this entity's status. If it meant committing mass genocide to eliminate a runaway threat, I'd be among the first to support action. My detractors would call it a war for silicone. Supernatural beings and/or gods could likely assume whatever status they chose. Animals of equal thought capacity? If science produces them; their contribution to the form, behaviors, or thoughts of the entity must be the sole basis of consideration. See star trek. Otherwise see Chewbacca.
...
These are components of components all available at the moment of conception. Why should these be any more profound than the print of a finger that has been severed from its hand? I mean, you could identify its host, but the more obscure this argument becomes, the more useful the human life qualifier IMO.
So personhood means "human life" except when the people aren't human (or alive).

And "human life" means personhood except when that human life is not the kind that eventually grows up into a person.

It's clear that I'm not the only one of us that has a full understanding of what it is to be a "person," independent from the simplistic definition "human life."


All this does is make human life seem more essential in the discussion.
Except on the extremes. Single-cell organisms are not "like us" at all, in form, behavior or thought, even if their genome is "human" and they are "alive."

Do I respect the commitment of difficulty? Yes. Really, it should be no surprise to you that a proponent of preserving the fetus at an earlier age would prefer a more precise nomenclature. Personhood is too vague a principle and the examples you use to work around the problem only make the term more problematic to me.

Analysis paralysis.
Analysis paralysis can also be caused by focusing on the wrong topic due to inaccurate nomenclature. "iPod" is more precise than "mp3 player," but if you use "ipod" to order a charger for your zune you'll be deadlocked for some time. Just because the zune is uncommon and you don't know its name and neither does the store, doesn't mean that fudging the answer, and calling it something you know it's not, is going to work.

BTW, the debate has been paralyzed for decades already using "life," so we really have nothing to lose and everything to gain by finally switching to the correct word.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2011, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm afraid I can't answer unless you explain how "dead people" are not people.
The life-decision has already been made for dead people. Analysis paralysis.

Well then we're still mired in stage 1. If you please, what are the other questions?
Reproductive rights - the mother's rights.

So personhood means "human life" except when the people aren't human (or alive).
Personhood could mean life up to and including just finding your niche at 30 yrs old. You may not like it, but Human life is more precise in the abortion context. Personhood is apparently good for science fiction, but it's just not very useful in the abortion debate or in reality.

And "human life" means personhood except when that human life is not the kind that eventually grows up into a person.

It's clear that I'm not the only one of us that has a full understanding of what it is to be a "person," independent from the simplistic definition "human life."
I suppose you could continue taking left turns and I'll be here when you're done. I'd prefer simple over simplistic and there's nothing wrong with simple. It's usually what you get from trimming all the irrelevant fat. Since you've yet to define personhood, it appears analysis paralysis has already gotten you in its grips and you're the only one still mired in stage 1.

Except on the extremes. Single-cell organisms are not "like us" at all, in form, behavior or thought, even if their genome is "human" and they are "alive."
Yeah, but we're not talking about extremes as tempting as they might be.

Analysis paralysis can also be caused by focusing on the wrong topic due to inaccurate nomenclature. "iPod" is more precise than "mp3 player," but if you use "ipod" to order a charger for your zune you'll be deadlocked for some time. Just because the zune is uncommon and you don't know its name and neither does the store, doesn't mean that fudging the answer, and calling it something you know it's not, is going to work.
Yes, but iPod is still more precise for mp3 player than electronics.

BTW, the debate has been paralyzed for decades already using "life," so we really have nothing to lose and everything to gain by finally switching to the correct word.
We'll have to agree to disagree. There's a very important reason why I would prefer the more precise term; one that would indicate an individual person at its biological inception, worthy of preservation. The other remains meaningless after multiple pages of debate.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2011, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
If found to be pregnant, who is pregnant? One wants to keep it the other doesn't. Who gets the final say?
I think you'd be amazed at how mature and responsible two people faced with this physical challenge would be. I'd be willing to bet the above is answered before they collectively decide to engage sex.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2011, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Reproductive rights - the mother's rights.
As all other questions in the debate, it can be answered in the form "if it's a person, then X; otherwise, Y. Simple as that."
If it's a person, then reproductive rights lose. Otherwise, they win. Simple as that. The right to choose when to reproduce, while significant, would never justify murder. The only time it would justify a homicide would be in the same circumstances for... justifiable homicide. So the only question remaining is whether it actually is murder, due to whether the fetus is a person which can be murdered.

This is true irrelevant of what you consider a person. If you honestly think that a "person" is not until the age of 30, then per the above template no abortions would bother you. (of course, no one honestly thinks that, and to claim so is dishonest). It reveals the true question, what constitutes a person, and everything else is derived directly from that.

The same is not true of "human life," which you've already equivocated on.

Personhood could mean life up to and including just finding your niche at 30 yrs old.
It could, but in actual fact it doesn't. Everyone knows what personhood is, they just haven't been spurred to putting it into words. No one thinks that children are not people.

I suppose you could continue taking left turns and I'll be here when you're done. I'd prefer simple over simplistic and there's nothing wrong with simple. It's usually what you get from trimming all the irrelevant fat. Since you've yet to define personhood, it appears analysis paralysis has already gotten you in its grips and you're the only one still mired in stage 1.
Hardly. I defined personhood here years ago, and have moved on (I found the old thread again yesterday to check). But as for hashing it out with you, there is no point in building stage 2 on a shoddy foundation lacking stage 1.

Yeah, but we're not talking about extremes as tempting as they might be.
But you are. You specifically indicated the single-cell organism many times.

Yes, but iPod is still more precise for mp3 player than electronics.
That will be very comforting to you when you're trying to attach an ipod cable to your zune, while I am "paralyzed" working towards finding the actual zune cable. You will smugly be "ahead" of me due to having a cable in hand.

We'll have to agree to disagree. There's a very important reason why I would prefer the more precise term; one that would indicate an individual person at its biological inception, worthy of preservation. The other remains meaningless after multiple pages of debate.
Yeah, obfuscation is the reason
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2011, 03:33 PM
 
What do pro lifers think of growing body parts in the labs, like a new heart from your own tissue as replacements for damaged and defective organs.

Lets take this a step further what about growing meat in the lab for consumption. Im not talking about growing animals then killing them but parts of animals like cows legs.

Im curious what the pro lifers stance is on these technologies.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
What do pro lifers think of growing body parts in the labs, like a new heart from your own tissue as replacements for damaged and defective organs.

Lets take this a step further what about growing meat in the lab for consumption. Im not talking about growing animals then killing them but parts of animals like cows legs.

Im curious what the pro lifers stance is on these technologies.
It sounds like someone has been watching reruns of ST Enterprise (Similitude)
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It sounds like someone has been watching reruns of ST Enterprise (Similitude)
Probably, though they had the genetronic replicator in TNG.

What about the meat that wants to be eaten from The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
OK geniuses what about this?
this is amazing !!
{Animated sigs are not allowed.}
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
What do pro lifers think of growing body parts in the labs, like a new heart from your own tissue as replacements for damaged and defective organs.

Lets take this a step further what about growing meat in the lab for consumption. Im not talking about growing animals then killing them but parts of animals like cows legs.

Im curious what the pro lifers stance is on these technologies.
Adult stem cells have been used to reverse heart damage.
In Regenerative Medicine, Adult Stem Cells – Not Embryonic – Are Showing More Promise, Expert Says | University at Buffalo Faculty Experts

Use of adult stems cells is permitted. The use of embryonic cells and cloning are not.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 12:47 PM
 
What is frustrating about these sorts of threads is that I never walk away with more understanding than I had when I started. The answers to the original questions I posed remain a puzzle to me.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
As all other questions in the debate, it can be answered in the form "if it's a person, then X; otherwise, Y. Simple as that."
If it's a person, then reproductive rights lose. Otherwise, they win. Simple as that.
We're able to justify killing persons. Personhood may simply be a benefit of preserving human life. IMO, personhood does not speak adequately to what it is I seek to preserve. Should I abandon this line of reasoning to suit your view?

The right to choose when to reproduce, while significant, would never justify murder.
This is the pro-life position yes.

The only time it would justify a homicide would be in the same circumstances for... justifiable homicide. So the only question remaining is whether it actually is murder, due to whether the fetus is a person which can be murdered.
You may claim that a strict adherence to the human life principle causes difficulty in garnering support for the pro-life view, but this is no reason to abandon the view if you truly believe it is correct.

This is true irrelevant of what you consider a person. If you honestly think that a "person" is not until the age of 30, then per the above template no abortions would bother you. (of course, no one honestly thinks that, and to claim so is dishonest). It reveals the true question, what constitutes a person, and everything else is derived directly from that.
I don't use the personhood determinant. I wouldn't know if you felt personhood occurred at 30 weeks or 30 years.

The same is not true of "human life," which you've already equivocated on.
You're just projecting now. I've committed to a very specific, measurable, well-defined principle. You've committed to nothing. You may have several years ago, but you'll have to pardon me for not using the advanced search feature of the forum to find out what you think. You're free to express yourself when you're ready to commit, but until then you're still mired in stage 1, equivocating to avoid what may be an irreconcilable difference in our views. You say personhood, I say human life. So the debate is human life vs personhood and you insist on arguing personhood why? The answer is easy of course and it indicates that you know exactly what I mean by human life.

It could, but in actual fact it doesn't. Everyone knows what personhood is, they just haven't been spurred to putting it into words. No one thinks that children are not people.
Likewise, no one is mistaking human life for skin tissue or the robot from star trek in this context.

Hardly. I defined personhood here years ago, and have moved on (I found the old thread again yesterday to check). But as for hashing it out with you, there is no point in building stage 2 on a shoddy foundation lacking stage 1.
You've not committed to a measure here because that would lead me back to mine; the irreconcilable disagreement.

But you are. You specifically indicated the single-cell organism many times.
How is that more extreme than employing star trek, chewbacca, and house plants?

That will be very comforting to you when you're trying to attach an ipod cable to your zune, while I am "paralyzed" working towards finding the actual zune cable. You will smugly be "ahead" of me due to having a cable in hand.
If I were to take my problem to the court of public opinion, they'd simply tell me I'm trying to use the wrong cable at which time I'd go get the correct one. Your answer would lead you to the electronics store where you'd be wandering around somewhere near the gaming section.

Yeah, obfuscation is the reason
You'd go a long way toward clarity in an abortion discussion by avoiding redirects such as skin tissue, house plants, and Chewbacca. Unless of course it suits you to remain unclear.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We're able to justify killing persons. Personhood may simply be a benefit of preserving human life. IMO, personhood does not speak adequately to what it is I seek to preserve. Should I abandon this line of reasoning to suit your view?
See, I always thought you wanted to protect them because of being people. But here you want to protect them in spite of being (merely) people. This sort of understanding is possible only by using accurate words like "person."

This is the pro-life position yes.
Neither side condones murder. This is yet another situation where the distinction between "alive" and "a person" is key. Most living things can't be murdered, but all "people" can. If you had used "person" there would be no confusion, as accusing someone of "murdering" a thing not considered a "person" is nonsense.

You may claim that a strict adherence to the human life principle causes difficulty in garnering support for the pro-life view, but this is no reason to abandon the view if you truly believe it is correct.
Precisely why I'm showing how it's incorrect.

You're just projecting now. I've committed to a very specific, measurable, well-defined principle.
Your metric is not specific, you just arbitrarily label things "components" to exclude them.

Likewise, no one is mistaking human life for skin tissue or the robot from star trek in this context.
But they are mistaking single-cell embryos for skin tissue, because of sloppy terminology like "life."

Can something be alive but not a person? Yes. Can something be a person but not alive? No. Person is more specific.

Person actually connects to the debate. Is it alive? "Yes but that's not what's important." This yields no information. Is it a person? There's no "yes but" answer to that. It is a hard question, but at the end of it you have the actual answer to abortion.

You've not committed to a measure here because that would lead me back to mine; the irreconcilable disagreement.
Because the measure is immaterial. By any measure it yields the answer to the abortion question. If the measure is having 2 eyes, then it answers the abortion question: if 2 eyes, then you can only abort in a situation of justifiable homicide (already defined), if other than 2 eyes, then abortion ok. Now if the measure is having a beating heart, it still answers the abortion question: if beating heart, justifiable homicide only, if no beating heart, then abortion ok. Now if the measure is human species, it still answers the question: if human species, justifiable homicide only, if no human species, then abortion ok.

By anyone's measure of personhood, it answers abortion. Not true of "life."

How is that more extreme than employing star trek, chewbacca, and house plants?
It's not, I never said it was. The extremes are what separate correlation from causation. Just because human life is correlated with personhood doesn't make all human life a person and it doesn't make all people human or alive. You claimed that "like us in form, behavior or thought" indicates "human life," but the extreme cases like single-celled human life are how we test these claims. And this claim fails the test. Chewbacca would also indicate a failure of the test, due to being "like us in behavior and thought" but not being human. Either extreme is sufficient to show it.

If I were to take my problem to the court of public opinion, they'd simply tell me I'm trying to use the wrong cable at which time I'd go get the correct one. Your answer would lead you to the electronics store where you'd be wandering around somewhere near the gaming section.
Well according to your linked source, the court of public opinion says abortion "should be legal in all or most cases," so... what?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It sounds like someone has been watching reruns of ST Enterprise (Similitude)
Maybe you should advance to the 20th century and keep up on modern science.

In vitro meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 07:23 PM
 
maybe in another 100 years from now, science will have it nailed down. When you want a baby you provide a hair sample from mom and dad and the 9 nine months a baby grows in a incubator. No more pregnancies, no more abortions, less STD's. It really could head that way.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2011, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Maybe you should advance to the 20th century and keep up on modern science.

In vitro meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If this suggestion ever worked on people who live their lives based on the guidelines (mis)interpreted from a 2000+ year old book we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2