[macintologist]

Someone asked me if I thought life was sacred, even plant life and animal life. If I think life is sacred, then how do I reconcile eating meat, something which was once alive.

But if human life is sacred, then why is abortion so widely accepted not only in America but throughout the world?

Why is it that people don't consider it to be murder?

I will try to explain to the neocons, why so many people don't think aborting/murdering a zygote/fetus is murder.

I judge the sacredness (sp) of life by its complexity.

The more complex an animal is, the more problems I have eating it, or killing it.

I cherish cats and dogs, I think they are wonderful animals with complex personalities compared to say..chickens. Therefore I would have a terrible time coming to grips with eating a kitten.

I don't feel much remorse when I stomp on ants because they have the same level of complexity as any kind of simple multi-cellular organism.

Chimpanzees are the most complex animal neurologically below a human, so I would feel that killing a chimpanzee is almost like killing another human.

I think the reason many pro-choice people don't see destroying a zygote as "murder of a human being" is because of the biological complexity of a zygote, being similar to that of a protozoa. A 2 week old fetus has the same biological complexity as a dragonfly. A 2 month old fetus has the same biological complexity as a rodent. And so forth... the older it gets, the less likely we are to abort/murder it.

At some point, we each draw a line where we think that something is biologically complex enough to think that killing it is wrong. We each draw the line in different areas.

This theory also applies to Terri Schiavo. Since her cortex is gone, she basically has the same neurological complexity as a parrot. This explains why I think it's torture to keep her alive in this neurological state for the rest of her life.

We don't consider shooting ducks to be murder because they are not very complex and we have no problem shooting them and eating them. Other things we would rather not eat, like cockroaches, but we would kill them. I'm really making a distinction between killing and murder here.

I am talking about all living things, not just humans. You surely eat meat right? You've stomped on ants before? You probably didn't think much of it, because ants are not so complex biologically. If you stomped on a cat multiple times and killed it, you would probably feel much more remorse, because it is far more complex biologically, as well as cute and fuzzy. So the point I'm making is that I think the reason people don't think abortion is murder is because of the implications of fetal complexity.

Each person decides for him/herself where they draw the line. The courts and legislature decide what is illegal or not. Currently the courts think that aborting 3-day old zygotes (also called morulas) is legal. They also think that killing your dog is illegal, and stomping on ants is perfectly legal. They also deem that killing an 8-month-old fetus in the womb of a pregnant women counts as murder.

So you're probably wondering where I draw the line? My line is when the fetus is developed enough to be able to survive independent of the mother's womb. You might say that this can change with technology, but the fetus still needs an amniotic sac (natural or artificial) and a placenta (natural or artificial) to develop into something which is capable of surviving independent of those.

Now, I have a question for the neocons:


Which one is the human embryo?

The point of the three pictures was to demonstrate what I mean by zygotes and embryos showing the same level of complexity as an arthropod, it's no wonder that we don't see destroying them as the same level as infanticide.

These embryos are all about 39 days old, well within the first trimester. I personally don't think abortion is murder until the fetus reaches the stage where it can survive independent of the mother's womb. So that would be early in the 7th month.

Now the neocons are probably going to start talking about eugenics and how back in the 1800's black people weren't considered to be as complex as white people, so it was ok to call them property.

I don't think this is a good analogy because I'm talking about biological complexity, not eugenics. Eugenics has been refuted and any intelligent person knows that a black man and a white man are of the same species. I never said that a zygote isn't human, but it's quality of life and complexity is similar to that of an earthworm, so that's why I don't think it's murder to abort one.

Is the determination of whether a person lives or dies dependent upon the degree to which they look like us? To what stage they are as complex as we are, neurologically, yes. Someone who has a mental disorder may act strangely, but they still have the same neurological complexity as a toddler, therefore killing them is wrong, since killing a toddler is wrong. People who are in a persistent vegetative state shouldn't even be alive in the first place, so I think keeping them alive artificially is inhumane and torture. Terri Shiavo doesn't have a brain cortex, it has been destroyed, therefore her neurological complexity rivals that of a parrot. She only responds to primitive stimuli, much like a reptile, and she will never get better, so I think putting her out of her misery is more humane than keeping her in this reptilian state, which is torture.

It's quality of life is based on its biological, and neurological complexity. A one-day old zygote has the same neurological complexity as bacteria. Someone who's cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid has the neurological complexity of a frog. For someone who is a grown adult and whose brain is likened to that of a frog, I think it's inhumane and torturous to keep them alive artificially. For a zygote, I don't think it's murder to abort it until it is developed enough to survive independent of the mother's womb.

Why is it that when a fetus can survive independently from the mother's womb, it then becomes a human life? It has always been life, but previous to that it has been in my opinion expendable life. I have explained the implication of this at the beginning of this post, and how it has to do with biological and neurological complexity and as to why I don't see it as murder, but simply as killing, just like killing an insect, of which we feel no remorse.

Thanks for reading through all that. I hope I explained it thoroughly

[Cody Dawg]

The third one on the right is a human.

[deomacius]

I don't want to get into a long debate on this (because it is a very BIG subject), but please answer the following.

� Does a 3 day old healthy frog zygote have the potential of reaching the level of complexity of an adult human being?

� Does a 3 day old healthy cat zygote have the potential of reaching the level of complexity of an adult human being?

� Does a 3 day old healthy human zygote have the potential of reaching the level of complexity of an adult human being?

I guess what I'm getting at is that barring someone's own selfish desires, that human zygote has the potential of living a normal healthy life. It usually comes down to a person thinking of themselves, rather than the child/infant/zygote, first. I don't agree with the mentality that the child is a burden or an inconvenience, so let's get rid of it. The time to have thought of that was BEFORE they got pregnant. Now obviously, I'm not going to address special cases like rape. My opinion stands primarily for the "inconvenienced" crowd.

You mentioned Terry Schiavo. Is she going to get better (more cerebral complexity, in your terminology)? Probably not. In that instance you MIGHT be able to make an argument for unplugging her. I don't want to touch that either. That should be the families decision.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by deomacius:
� Does a 3 day old healthy frog zygote have the potential of reaching the level of complexity of an adult human being?

� Does a 3 day old healthy cat zygote have the potential of reaching the level of complexity of an adult human being?

� Does a 3 day old healthy human zygote have the potential of reaching the level of complexity of an adult human being?

Regardless of whether or not a zygote can potentially become something else, we still judge its complexity at its current state, and feel much less remorse when we terminate it compared to say something which is complex, independent, and tangible/close to us.

[Kilbey]

Yet another rationalization on the ethics of killing babies.

If your calling it another name other than a baby, and saying it's "complexity" is lmited, makes you sleep well at night, I guess you have convinced yourself quite well.

Me, I think we are killing babies. The DNA is there, the potential is there, the baby is there. It's a human from fertilization.

You haven't convinced me.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Yet another rationalization on the ethics of killing babies.

If your calling it another name other than a baby, and saying it's "complexity" is lmited, makes you sleep well at night, I guess you have convinced yourself quite well.

Me, I think we are killing babies. The DNA is there, the potential is there, the baby is there. It's a human from fertilization.

You haven't convinced me.

Baby is the wrong word to use. Baby implies a fully developed fetus. In reality what is being destroyed are merely zygotes and primitive embryos.

I bet from the three pics above you couldn't even tell (without cheating) which one of the three is the human embryo. The other two are a dolphin and cat embryo. Their striking similarities suggest that at early embryonic stages, we are no more complex than any other vertebrate. Therefore aborting a fetus at that stage isn't any worse than killing a fish.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by macintologist:
The other two are a dolphin and cat embryo. Their striking similarities suggest that at early embryonic stages, we are no more complex than any other vertebrate. Therefore aborting a fetus at that stage isn't any worse than killing a fish.

While I WON'T justify killing any of the afore mentioned "zygotes" I will say this. None of the others will EVER be nearly as complex or even has the potential that a human child does. No matter how clinical you try to make it. NO zygote except the human one has the potential for so much. It makes no difference to me how you describe it, you are cutting off a life. If left alone, it would be a perfectly healthy human being.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Baby is the wrong word to use. Baby implies a fully developed fetus. In reality what is being destroyed are merely zygotes and primitive embryos.

I bet from the three pics above you couldn't even tell (without cheating) which one of the three is the human embryo. The other two are a dolphin and cat embryo. Their striking similarities suggest that at early embryonic stages, we are no more complex than any other vertebrate. Therefore aborting a fetus at that stage isn't any worse than killing a fish.

Call it a zygote or embryo if that makes it easier for you to kill. I call it a baby and I say you're killing babies.

I didn't even really look closely at your pics. I'll admit did take a quick look and it is amazing what something so small has the potential to be.

"Aborting a fetus" to you is "killing a baby" to me. It's not a case of tomato/tomatoe

And "baby" is the right word to use.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The third one on the right is a human.

It's also the one titled "human_embryo.jpg" while the other two are "dolphin_embryo.jpg" and "cat_embryo.jpg"

[budster101]

Arent' the same idiots, (not in here, well, some I'm sure) stating that fish have feelings and fisherman are cruel in what they do? Yet, ironically, the same people are touting that pro-lifer's are nuts to think as they do...

At what point is it ok to fish? At what age is a fish ok to kill?

What about caviar? ...

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by budster101:
Arent' the same idiots, (not in here, well, some I'm sure) stating that fish have feelings and fisherman are cruel in what they do? Yet, ironically, the same people are touting that pro-lifer's are nuts to think as they do...

At what point is it ok to fish? At what age is a fish ok to kill?

What about caviar? ...

Didn't that girl on that show about taking the Amish into L.A. call chicken eggs "abortions".

[budster101]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Didn't that girl on that show about taking the Amish into L.A. call chicken eggs "abortions".

Interesting. Fertilized eggs? ... ack.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by budster101:
Arent' the same idiots, (not in here, well, some I'm sure) stating that fish have feelings and fisherman are cruel in what they do? Yet, ironically, the same people are touting that pro-lifer's are nuts to think as they do...

Which people believe both that fish have feelings and that pro-lifers are nuts?

[budster101]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Which people believe both that fish have feelings and that pro-lifers are nuts?

You want a list of names?

PETA for one.

[SVass]

Those who oppose abortion support the death penalty.

Those who oppose abortion oppose hiring lawyers for the accused.

Those who oppose abortion oppose allowing defendants from having witnesses for their defense. (Why can't Moussaoui question a man whose testimony is quoted in his indictment?-The sixth amendment gives him this ABSOLUTE right!)

Those who oppose abortion want Schiavo kept alive but they don't want to pay for her treatment. They oppose the lawsuit her husband used to collect the damages that have paid for her treatment. They want to cut Medicaid that is continuing to pay for her treatment. (Why don't they support Universal Health Care?)

Those who publicly oppose abortion are hypocrites trying to distract our attention from their crimes. (Delay, Bush, etc)

[budster101]

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion support the death penalty.

Those who oppose abortion oppose hiring lawyers for the accused.

Those who oppose abortion oppose allowing defendants from having witnesses for their defense. (Why can't Moussaoui question a man whose testimony is quoted in his indictment?-The sixth amendment gives him this ABSOLUTE right!)

Those who oppose abortion want Schiavo kept alive but they don't want to pay for her treatment. They oppose the lawsuit her husband used to collect the damages that have paid for her treatment. They want to cut Medicaid that is continuing to pay for her treatment. (Why don't they support Universal Health Care?)

Those who publicly oppose abortion are hypocrites trying to distract our attention from their crimes. (Delay, Bush, etc)

I'm pro-life. I'm against the death penalty. (See my posts, anywhere on the topic)

Is Moussaoui an American Citizen? Link (I'm not reading this tonight)

I oppose abortion, and wish for her to be kept alive. Her parents are going to take care of her...

BTW: They.. do not oppose the law suit of his. They oppose the punitive damages that seem to be obscene. The damages which the Lawyers take the lion's share of by-the-way.

Universal Death Care is more like it.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion support the death penalty.

Those who oppose abortion oppose hiring lawyers for the accused.

Those who oppose abortion oppose allowing defendants from having witnesses for their defense. (Why can't Moussaoui question a man whose testimony is quoted in his indictment?-The sixth amendment gives him this ABSOLUTE right!)

Those who oppose abortion want Schiavo kept alive but they don't want to pay for her treatment. They oppose the lawsuit her husband used to collect the damages that have paid for her treatment. They want to cut Medicaid that is continuing to pay for her treatment. (Why don't they support Universal Health Care?)

Those who publicly oppose abortion are hypocrites trying to distract our attention from their crimes. (Delay, Bush, etc)

You, sir, have NO idea what my stance is. Somebody is painting with broad strokes.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion support the death penalty.

WRONG. I oppose abortion and the death penalty.

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion oppose hiring lawyers for the accused.

WRONG. I oppose abortion and believe everyone accused should be able to have representation.

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion oppose allowing defendants from having witnesses for their defense. (Why can't Moussaoui question a man whose testimony is quoted in his indictment?-The sixth amendment gives him this ABSOLUTE right!)

WRONG. I oppose abortion and believe an person has his due right to a fair trial.

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion want Schiavo kept alive but they don't want to pay for her treatment. They oppose the lawsuit her husband used to collect the damages that have paid for her treatment. They want to cut Medicaid that is continuing to pay for her treatment. (Why don't they support Universal Health Care?)

WRONG. I oppose abortion and I oppose Mrs Schiavo's husbands attempt to kill her. I believe that her family should exhaust their assets to pay for her care and when they can afford to pay no more then the government should pay. Universal health care lowers health care quality.

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who publicly oppose abortion are hypocrites trying to distract our attention from their crimes. (Delay, Bush, etc)

WRONG. I oppose abortion and I am not a criminal.

Why do you paint with such broad strokes? Ignorance?

[deej5871]

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion support the death penalty.

What's so hypocritical about that? You can't compare a fetus that hasn't even begun it's life yet to a fully grown person that's killed 5 people. You can judge that the killer deserves to die based on his actions, but the fetus hasn't done anything to deserve to die.

Just because something has "potential" means nothing. There is infinite potential for human lives to be created. If your parents didn't have you, that potential would have gone to waste. Does that mean a person was killed? No.

[Zimphire]

What length people will go to make excuses for an action or beliefs amazes me daily.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What length people will go to make excuses for an action or beliefs amazes me daily.

Neocons like you will probably be confused by the three pictures.

The point was to demonstrate how at early stages in embryonic development we are no different from a fish or any other vertebrate. As the human embryo grows older, it gets exponentially more complex compared to the equilavent embryos of less complex organisms. This suggests why many people feel less remorse for aborting of a 30 day-old fetus compared to the killing of a newborn infant, and why this is reflected in the laws.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Yet another rationalization on the ethics of killing babies.

If your calling it another name other than a baby, and saying it's "complexity" is lmited, makes you sleep well at night, I guess you have convinced yourself quite well.

Me, I think we are killing babies. The DNA is there, the potential is there, the baby is there. It's a human from fertilization.

You haven't convinced me.

It is not killing babies, it is killing--if that is even the right word for this context--potential babies. It is still just a fetus. And at 39 days it still has 7-8 more months of gestation before it will be born.

Having said that, I still advocate that a woman's right to do what she wants with her body over-rides any inherent right to life of a fetus she may be carrying. You think the fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it, I don't. So we disagree. That is all.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What length people will go to make excuses for an action or beliefs amazes me daily.

Same here. Which beliefs are you referring to by the way, the pro-life beliefs or the pro-choice beliefs?

You do realize, don't you, your statement applies equally well to both groups?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:

You do realize, don't you, your statement applies equally well to both groups?

Nope. Not at all.

For example, I say we don't know. So until we do, we shouldn't be doing it.

Then again, I am just being honest.

This is just another excuse, no real proof of anything. We still have no PROOF either way.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Neocons like you will probably be confused by the three pictures.

100% silly.

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion support the death penalty.

Those who oppose abortion oppose hiring lawyers for the accused.

Those who oppose abortion oppose allowing defendants from having witnesses for their defense. (Why can't Moussaoui question a man whose testimony is quoted in his indictment?-The sixth amendment gives him this ABSOLUTE right!)

Those who oppose abortion want Schiavo kept alive but they don't want to pay for her treatment. They oppose the lawsuit her husband used to collect the damages that have paid for her treatment. They want to cut Medicaid that is continuing to pay for her treatment. (Why don't they support Universal Health Care?)

Those who publicly oppose abortion are hypocrites trying to distract our attention from their crimes. (Delay, Bush, etc)

Now that was a fistfull of stupid.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Nope. Not at all.

For example, I say we don't know. So until we do, we shouldn't be doing it.

Then again, I am just being honest.

This is just another excuse, no real proof of anything. We still have no PROOF either way.

You are correct that we have no proof either way. So, any claims you make on this issue are a statement of belief because they can't be a statement of fact. So, your statement that you don't know is a "belief" as well. Simply because you may not choose to categorize it a such does not make it any less of a belief.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Yet another rationalization on the ethics of killing babies.

If your calling it another name other than a baby, and saying it's "complexity" is lmited, makes you sleep well at night, I guess you have convinced yourself quite well.

Me, I think we are killing babies. The DNA is there, the potential is there, the baby is there. It's a human from fertilization.

You haven't convinced me.

In another thread you had no problem killing sick healthy adults who commit terrible crimes, so what�s the difference between that and a partial life that isn�t born yet that has a chance of being born. You seem to pick and choose your murders out of convince. Flip flop one way and then the next way when it suits you.

[Athens]

People here to rent the Documenty "What the Bleep do we know" because after watching that its changed my opinion on what life is.

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by Athens:
In another thread you had no problem killing sick healthy adults who commit terrible crimes, so what�s the difference between that and a partial life that isn�t born yet that has a chance of being born. You seem to pick and choose your murders out of convince. Flip flop one way and then the next way when it suits you.

NO, the person who commits terrible crimes has proven that they are a danger to others around them and must be permanantly removed.

A child has yet to prove wether they are a threat or not.

Most as in 51% become productive conservative members of society, while the other 49% should have been terminated before birth.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Murder isn't a biological concept, therefore biology isn't an argument that something isn't murder. At best, it is a tool to decide whether or not a physical act fits within the legal definition of murder.

For example, killing a dog isn't murder if you can prove biologically the thing killed was a dog and not a human where the law defining murder only includes humans. Like any tool, it isn't in and of itself a trump argument when the question is what could the law punish. For example, there is no real reason the law couldn't punish killing a dog the same way it does killing a human being. You could even call such a law "murder" since the word chosen is really irrelevant.

The distinction between abortion and the death penalty is really quite simple. Nobody denies that convicted criminals sentenced to die aren't human and don't have human rights. However, among those rights are the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law. It's a right that can be derogated if there is due process. The distinction is that a fetus hasn't been convicted of a crime.

That's not saying that abortion laws have to be black or white (and in fact at present they are not). But it is saying that the presumed inconsistency between supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion on demand is a false dichotomy.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Athens:
In another thread you had no problem killing sick healthy adults who commit terrible crimes, so what�s the difference between that and a partial life that isn�t born yet that has a chance of being born. You seem to pick and choose your murders out of convince. Flip flop one way and then the next way when it suits you.

I did? Where?

I usually say something like this. :

I bet your against the death penalty aren't you.

Kill the babies and keep the killers alive, is that your belief?

Personally, I think all killing is wrong unless it is in self defence or in time of war.

Which if you construed to be pro-death penalty then your reading comprehension is below my 1 1/2 year old's.

[SVass]

Originally posted by budster101:
I'm pro-life. I'm against the death penalty. (See my posts, anywhere on the topic)

Is Moussaoui an American Citizen?

I oppose abortion, and wish for her to be kept alive. Her parents are going to take care of her...

BTW: They.. do not oppose the law suit of his. They oppose the punitive damages that seem to be obscene. The damages which the Lawyers take the lion's share of by-the-way.

Universal Death Care is more like it.

6th amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.{the word used is ACCUSED, not citizen}

14th amendment No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.{Here the word is PERSON, not citizen--I realize that our illiterate courts have, in the past, read person as male and as corporation, and intentionally excluded both women and orientals}

Some Schiavo life proponents claim that her husband wants to claim the money (and her parents seem to want the insurance settlement) and those opposed to punitive damages do no appear to recognize the obscenity of bonuses paid to the top executives of our companies. Universal health care would convert these problems to simple envy. I am familiar with one case where an insurance company IN WRITING instructed its claims agents to delay all payments for up to one year to increase its interest earnings and then argued that punitive damages for the entire excess profits were not justified. Who was being obscene?

[Moderator]

Does anyone know:

at what point the fetus develops a brain and/or central nervous system? at what point the fetus can feel pain?


IMO: if the central nervous system of the fetus is deeloped enough to allow it to feel pain, then its too late to abort. That should still provide a window where it would be legal..if you wait too long you're dealing with a baby.

If the pregnancy may kill or cause severe harm to the mother (grey area)..then it ought to be allowed.

[blythe]

The thing that bothers me about people who advocate animal "rights" is that, as they try to bring animals up to the level of humans, they inevitably bring humans down to the level of animals. A human is just another animal. No more, no less. Yet what exactly is an animal? According to science, just matter and energy. Yet no one wants to wants to be consistent with their so called beliefs. They make up totally subjective "complexity" standards and "morals", and pretend that these "standards" actually make a difference. Why don't you be true your scientific beliefs and realize that every thing is simply matter and energy, and that no arrangement or rearrangement of said matter or energy has any intrinsic worth. Why don't you have as much concern with a cup of water as you do with the welfare of your mother? Are you not rational enough to realize that they're both just instances of molecules interacting with each other? Why be upset if I stick a knife in a cup of water or in your mother? I've only just rearranged some molecules is all. That happens a gazillion times a day. If you'd like a stab at being somewhat consistent with your scientific "beliefs", perhaps you should take up Buddhism and chant the immortal words of Tripper in the classic movie Meatballs, "It just doesn't matter!" Or perhaps there's more to human life after all.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
You are correct that we have no proof either way. So, any claims you make on this issue are a statement of belief because they can't be a statement of fact.

Not just me, but anyone in this thread.

So, your statement that you don't know is a "belief" as well.

One backed by fact.

Simply because you may not choose to categorize it a such does not make it any less of a belief.

Either way, it's irrelevent to my point.

Since we dom't know either way, and we don't, we shouldn't be doing it at all.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by blythe:
The thing that bothers me about people who advocate animal "rights" is that, as they try to bring animals up to the level of humans, they inevitably bring humans down to the level of animals. A human is just another animal. No more, no less. Yet what exactly is an animal? According to science, just matter and energy. Yet no one wants to wants to be consistent with their so called beliefs. They make up totally subjective "complexity" standards and "morals", and pretend that these "standards" actually make a difference. Why don't you be true your scientific beliefs and realize that every thing is simply matter and energy, and that no arrangement or rearrangement of said matter or energy has any intrinsic worth. Why don't you have as much concern with a cup of water as you do with the welfare of your mother? Are you not rational enough to realize that they're both just instances of molecules interacting with each other? Why be upset if I stick a knife in a cup of water or in your mother? I've only just rearranged some molecules is all. That happens a gazillion times a day. If you'd like a stab at being somewhat consistent with your scientific "beliefs", perhaps you should take up Buddhism and chant the immortal words of Tripper in the classic movie Meatballs, "It just doesn't matter!" Or perhaps there's more to human life after all.

Water is inorganic. Water isn't living.

We can determine organic complexity of many different animals by say...comparing the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide of hemoglobin in many different vertebrates. The greater the number of differences in an organism from human amino acid sequence, the less complex it is (to us), and the less remorse we feel for killing it. This is also reflected in "animal rights" laws. Notice how those laws apply more to animals with less amino acid sequence differences such as cats/dogs and horses, than say...cockroaches.

Now with fetuses, they have human DNA, so how do we then determine its complexity? We do that by comparing its embryonic stage to the equivalent stages in different animals. At 39 days, a human embryo is no different from the 39-day old embryos of other animals such as cats and dolphins and turtles.

The older the human fetus gets, the more it retains human physical features, until the point where it is exclusively human (phenotypical), and shares no common embryonic features with other animals.

[budster101]

Babies: "The other-other white meat".

- Fat Bastard

[deomacius]

Originally posted by budster101:
Babies: "The other-other white meat".

- Fat Bastard

Cold! So cold!


"I want my babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback ribs."

{Okay, that was in bad taste!}
{{Oooh.... I did it again!!}}

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Now with fetuses, they have human DNA, so how do we then determine its complexity? We do that by comparing its embryonic stage to the equivalent stages in different animals. At 39 days, a human embryo is no different from the 39-day old embryos of other animals such as cats and dolphins and turtles.

The older the human fetus gets, the more it retains human physical features, until the point where it is exclusively human (phenotypical), and shares no common embryonic features with other animals.

Any logic to kill a baby eh? Amazing.

I am sure Hitler used such twisted logic on his views of killing Jews.

We kill more babies than Hitler ever dreamed of killing Jews.

[mitchell_pgh]

Do I think it's killing, and irresponsible... Yes

Do I think it should be made illegal... No

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Any logic to kill a baby eh? Amazing.

I am sure Hitler used such twisted logic on his views of killing Jews.

Yes he did. Made them to look like something other than living human beings so you could feel better about turning on them and gassing them.

After all, they are just fetu... er I mean Jews. Not real humans.

Right?


I am just amazed more people don't see right through the charade.

I guess it's just like then, out of convenience.

[xenu]

If it was murder, anti-abortionists everywhere would be phoning the police to file charges.
They don't for a very good reason - they know it's not murder.

[Taliesin]

There are three possible ways of dealing with the problem:

1. It's really easy, girls and women that don't want to become pregnant shouldn't engage in sexual intercourse, same can be said about boys and men who don't want to become fathers yet.

After all that's what sexual intercourse is for, to get pregnant, to become mother and father, to produce a baby.

If you can't resist and the pressure is too high and you still don't want babies, then you can at least relieve yourself on your own.


So it's really a good idea to try to use the education-system as well as the media (movies, music, commercials...) to promote sex within a marriage and to discourage sex outside a marriage.

Then if all goes well, you don't have to kill unborn babies, except in cases of rape.

It's off course too late for this generation of youngsters, and possibly even for the next, but it would eventually work, if supported by parents, schools, TV/cinema/radio...

That's the conservative solution, and I think it would work and is espescially morally and religiously supported...

2. The other "solution" would then be to monitor, with the help of the school-doctors, the exact development of every school-child and to medicate the girls that reached the level of being able to become pregnant with antibaby-pills on a regular term, and to equipp boys, that have reached the level of being able to have sex, with condoms on a regular term.
In order to ensure the correct use of condoms and the correct way of having sex, so that accidents can be excluded, etc.., there must then be conducted sexual practice-training in the schools, during which boys have sex with girls and teachers show them how to exactly use the condoms and how to have sex. For more expertise, prostitutes, callgirls and callboys can be invited to school to show in detail and practice how to have safer and fulfilling sex and to instruct the boys and girls and mentor them through the practice-units. The state would have to pay the professionals for the time that is consumed by this.

That is then the scientific, secular and progressive solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

3. The last solution is the one currently in use by most european and other states, namely to simply kill unwanted preborn-babies and to leave everything else like it was.

Taliesin

[xenu]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
After all that's what sexual intercourse is for, to get pregnant, to become mother and father, to produce a baby.

You seriously need to get out more.

I would guess that most (non-fundamentalist) adults and most gay people would disagree with you on this point.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by xenu:
You seriously need to get out more.

I would guess that most (non-fundamentalist) adults and most gay people would disagree with you on this point.

You should really hone your reading skills, that point was clearly made for the conservative solution and doesn't reflect what I might think or not.

Taliesin

[xenu]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
You should really hone your reading skills, that point was clearly made for the conservative solution and doesn't reflect what I might think or not.

Taliesin

... That's the conservative solution, and I think it would work and is espescially morally and religiously supported...

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by xenu:
... That's the conservative solution, and I think it would work and is espescially morally and religiously supported...

You should really get familiar with the discussion-technique to present a case from different point of views without making the one or the other to oneself's opinion.

Whatever I said in point 1 represents the view of the conservative solution, and if executed it would probably work, and it is indeed morally and religiously supported, or don't you think that restricting sex to marriages is morally and religious supported? It is, and that's the point the conservatives are making as conservatives are mostly also religious people.

What I said in point 2, the not morally and not religious but scientifical, secular solution would work as well as point 1-solution in preventing the killing of unborn babies.

Taliesin

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
We kill more babies than Hitler ever dreamed of killing Jews.

I hope you get pregnant.