[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Hehe. Nice retort.

Errr, no.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos 

And without adequate gestational conditions, an early term fetus can not develop into a baby, and will remain a fetus.

It basically boils down to what you focus on.

Making a moral argument on the basis of potential genetic material is arbitrary at best. Right now, of course, you can have your neat little definition, but it won't last very long.

The bottom line is, for all intents and purposes, a sperm is no more a human being than a one second old fetus.

But if you wanna go down the genetic material road…go right ahead.

/I'll be here for a while.

Actually, following your line of argumentation (ability to develop without very specific external - to the baby/embryo/foetus - conditions), life doesn't start until WELL after a child's second or third birthday. Humans are completely dependent upon life support and protection at birth. Marking the passage into human life at birth is actually far more arbitrary than marking it at conception, the point at which the fertilized zygote first gains the full potential to even become what it will eventually become.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos 

Errr, no.

Oh lighten up. It was funny!

I don't agree with 90% of what Crash says, but I do appreciate an attempt to lighten up an otherwise stale debate

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Actually, following your line of argumentation (ability to develop without very specific external - to the baby/embryo/foetus - conditions), life doesn't start until WELL after a child's second or third birthday.

Interesting. Why would you draw the line here? What makes a 3 1/2 year old better adept at survival than a 3 year old?

Originally Posted by analogika 

Humans are completely dependent upon life support and protection at birth.

Physically maybe, but organically, no.

Originally Posted by analogika 

Marking the passage into human life at birth is actually far more arbitrary than marking it at conception, the point at which the fertilized zygote first gains the full potential to even become what it will eventually become.

Depends on what you put your focus. I certainly wasn't making the argument that "life" begins at birth. BUT, there is a far greater difference between an 8 month old non yet born baby and a recently fertilized zygote, than there is between a 1 second old foetus and a sperm.

[analogika]

Emotionally, yes. Scientifically, the biggest difference is gaining the full set of chromosomes.

NOTHING is possible before then, and EVERYTHING follows naturally from that.

[- - e r i k - -]

I support post-birth abortions!

[Johnny Reb]

Well all I know is pa could sell a pregnant cow for more money than one that wasn't pregnant.

Reckon life has value well before you see the calf.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

… but I do appreciate an attempt to lighten up an otherwise stale debate

Oh, sorry…I must have missed the cue here.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Johnny Reb 

Well all I know is pa could sell a pregnant cow for more money than one that wasn't pregnant.

Reckon life has value well before you see the calf.

I'm sure your analogy would transfer excellently to your ma.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Scientifically, the biggest difference is gaining the full set of chromosomes.

In terms of pure "science" (since it heavily depends upon meaningful classification), yes. In terms of morals, emotion, cognition etc., no.

Originally Posted by analogika 

NOTHING is possible before then, and EVERYTHING follows naturally from that.

Well, and this is defiinitely the last point I'm going to make about the issue,– without the sperm NOTHING is possible either. It's all part of the "natural process". Just depends where you draw the line.

[Spliffdaddy]

When something so perfectly profound is said, it seems a shame to let it die in a post.

I hope you don't mind if I use those beautiful words in my signature.

[- - e r i k - -]

AHHAHAHAHA!

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

When something so perfectly profound is said, it seems a shame to let it die in a post.

I hope you don't mind if I use those beautiful words in my signature.

Yea, never underestimate the power of j1zz. But I'm sure you knew about that, being a total d1ck and all.

Oh, and that's gonna cost ya eleventybillion™ dollars in royalties.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

AHHAHAHAHA!

Yeeeaaaah! Your cheerleading powers are strong today.

[- - e r i k - -]

Yeah, I am cheering for the people I most disagree with. Nice logic there.

Oh, and please cheer up and I'll do some cheering for you too. I mostly agree with you you know

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos 

Well, and this is defiinitely the last point I'm going to make about the issue,– without the sperm NOTHING is possible either. It's all part of the "natural process". Just depends where you draw the line.

Of course it does. But your argumentation is an emotional/philosophical one in which it is simply impossible to justify ANY line by a truly sound argument: Because without the father, the SPERM would be impossible.

At which point, it's obvious that human life begins with the great-grandfather's Bar Mitzvah.

Conception and birth are the only two hard-and-fast events you can really nail down.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Conception and birth are the only two hard-and-fast events you can really nail down.

Quoted myself to add that conception can be slow and cuddly, of course, depending upon inclination, without weakening my argument.

Or immaculate, I suppose.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Life ends when your brain activity stops. You can come back to life after you've stopped breathing.

i suppose a working brain but not breathing is dead

a dead brain and still breathing is dead

so i'll amend my statement, you die when you stop breathing for 24 hours

[- - e r i k - -]

Why 24 hours? That seems rather arbitrary, than scientific.

[ironknee]

hmmm...if you stop breathing for 24 hours straight, then you are dead.

that is the first stake in the ground...maybe we can get it down to 10 minutes with experimentation

wanna try?

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I hear this quite a bit. Is it true? I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually espouse a truly moral or cultural relativist view. In fact, aren't liberals the ones usually most up in arms about bad stuff going on around the world - Amnesty Intl. and all those types of groups?

And what does it really mean to be a moral/cultural relativist? Usually people use the phrase to mean "anything goes," as in "those liberals will let men marry their pets." That seems patently false, because liberals have values that are just as strongly held as moral absolutists, they're just different values.

Maybe it has a more subtle meaning: that there are no absolute, objective, verifiable moral or cultural standards, and therefore we have to decide them for ourselves rather than wait for them to come down to us on stone tablets. Isn't this what secular humanism is all about?

Just something I've been thinking about...

The only time I ever hear "moral relativism" talked about anymore is on Limbaugh, and neither he nor anyone who calls in ever knows what they're talking about.

Stanley Fish had a piece in Harper's or the Atlantic a while back in which he said something along the lines of "It's not that we believe that there is no truth. We all believe that there are truths. It's that we do not believe there is an objectively verifiable way of determining that truth."

I tend to explain it this way: it used to be OK to have sex with young boys. It's not anymore. It used to be OK to make black people work and not pay them anything. It's not anymore. It used to be OK to call black people "nigger." It's not anymore. It used to be OK to think that people with brown skin were savages who needed either extermination or civilization. It's not anymore.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Of course it does. But your argumentation is an emotional/philosophical one in which it is simply impossible to justify ANY line by a truly sound argument

Well, that's simply not true. At a certain stage of development the "baby" becomes "self-aware" (not in the same sense as grown humans, but at least self aware enough to feel emotional (and probably psychological) stress and pain). Obviously, this doesn't happen in the first few weeks or days of pregnancy, so the event of conception is really irrelevant from that "perspective".

To me, this is not only a far more sound argument to set the point for the beginning of an existence (human "life"), but also to consider the individual as an equal in terms of ethical and legal treatment.

Again, there is a HUGE difference between a 3 day old and a 8 1/2 month old fetus/almost "baby". From a purely scientific perspective, both haven't been born yet, and are thus "equal" in terms of status and the gestational stage.

But from a "moral perspective" (which this thread is actually about, still, I guess), you simply cannot even compare something that has the potential become a full grown human, to somebody (sic) who's actually "alive", but just hasn't been born yet.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

hmmm...if you stop breathing for 24 hours straight, then you are dead.

That is true, but it's not WHEN you die

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos 

Well, that's simply not true. At a certain stage of development the "baby" becomes "self-aware" (not in the same sense as grown humans, but at least self aware enough to feel emotional (and probably psychological) stress and pain). Obviously, this doesn't happen in the first few weeks or days of pregnancy, so the event of conception is really irrelevant from that "perspective".

Certainly, and that is why most countries have the first-trimester abortion limit.

But there is no hard-and-fast way of determining when this happens.

Originally Posted by Kr0nos 

Again, there is a HUGE difference between a 3 day old and a 8 1/2 month old fetus/almost "baby". From a purely scientific perspective, both haven't been born yet, and are thus "equal" in terms of status and the gestational stage.

They're obviously not equal, from a scientific standpoint. It depends on which criterion you personally deem applicable.

You were arguing about sperm dying being a waste of human life, which was just wrong and stupid from whatever standpoint.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by analogika 

But there is no hard-and-fast way of determining when this happens.

I wonder if there really isn't… Dunno though.

Originally Posted by analogika 

You were arguing about sperm dying being a waste of human life, which was just wrong and stupid from whatever standpoint.

Not any more wrong or stupid than assessing the same (or maybe even a higher) moral and legal value to a 1 second old embryo as to a grown human being (or any "grown" animal for that matter), which is, incidentally, exactly what I was arguing in the first place.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If by moral relativism you means things like being opposed to the death penalty but in favor of abortion, then yes; This is moral relativism and the term applies to Liberals. Of course, I have yet to see Conservatives, who frequently advocate against abortion because they are "Pro Life", come out against the death penalty, which is the taking of a life.

Paging Kevin to the PL. Paging Kevin to the PL.

Edit: nm, he covered it already.

Personally, I'd trade the death penalty for a ban on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That is true, but it's not WHEN you die

ok how about, if you stop breathing for 24 hours straight, then you've died after your last breath?