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 isn't murder - biological reasoning

Abortion isn't murder - biological reasoning (Page 8)
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 02:39 AM
 
Deej, the two of us seem to have run out of contention. But there are a few lingering questions of yours that deserve answers.

Originally Posted by deej5871
So let's stop births all together and just abort every pregnancy. That would be the safest route.

Just tell me how stopping life-threatening pregnancies would be any different in a system where they were the only allowed abortions. Not pregnancies that *might* become life-threatening. You're effectively saying the baby is a murderer and we don't know if he will or will not strike, so we better just kill it to make sure.
Yes, 34x more likely to kill than an abortion. In a potentially life threatening situation like this, you can't prevent women from taking the safer path for no better reasons than "might have a souls" and "I don't knows." I haven't seen more evidence than those two why the first-trimester fetus deserves to remove the woman's right to decide something like that about her own safety.

A think that a fetus possesses both of those qualities, does it not?
Yes, at some point. The only web sources I've managed to find (all rabidly pro-life) all (somewhat suspiciously) cite the same figure of 40 days for the first detection of brainwaves (and by cite of course I mean present as fact without documentation). Since they are all biased (as I'm sure pro-choice websites would be if I had found any), I am waiting for a more technically reliable source, but let's say that puts the development of the above mentioned qualities at somewhere between 6 and 12 weeks. It's my understanding that this is roughly what the law already dictates, that first-trimester abortions are the only ones that are legal no-questions-asked. This is what leads me to think that current laws on abortions are not all that barbaric.

But I will repeat, who said it would be ok to sent women to prison all the time?
No one...where did that come from?
You had said something along the lines of "it's not like they're being sent to prison for 9 months." You could say the same thing to repeal the likes of that law where child molesters have to go door to door in their new neighborhood. "Those people don't need to be told. It's not like not knowing there's a child molester in the neighborhood is like going to prison." Maybe it's not, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to know.

Could it be, it isn't as bad as it's made out to be? There's even a site
Did you notice the citation at the bottom of that page? "-From Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine." Could it be, it actually is as bad as it's made out to be, most of the time? Wouldn't that be the simplest explanation?

Also, wouldn't you have to be pretty fat not to notice you're pregnant? Maybe we can have a weight requirement tied to the abortion law, would that take your website's observations into account?

"A1 and A2 can never become C unless combined"
So that's your hold up on this? How do you account for the fact that if they are near each other they probably will combine, and for that matter if they are far, one will seek out the other? How about another of your examples. If you keep a loaded gun in your desk drawer, there is a chance your kid will kill himself with it. If you keep an unloaded gun and bullets in your desk drawer, there is a slightly lesser chance your kid will kill himself with it. But by your above objection, he could never kill himself unless the two are combined, so the gun must not be considered a possible danger to the kid (A1 is the gun, A2 is the bullets, B is the loaded gun, and C is the kid's death). I don't agree to that, and I don't think the law does either. But I guess you are free to make your own arbitrary distinction.

but in the context, it's obvious.
Apparently not. A quick google search brought me here with the likes of "The truth is, abortion enthusiasts oppose even the most insignificant and reasonable limits on abortion, not because limits would reduce choices, but because they might reduce abortions." Not even those (in this thread) terrified of abortions believe that part of the pro-choice platform is to keep abortion numbers from dropping. But the whole tactic of pushing the "pro-abortion" rhetoric has got people thinking that's what it is.

Pro-abortion = pro-legalized-abortion = pro-choice. You have a problem with the first half. I'm saying I said they were the same so in the context of whenever I said it, they were the same.
To the pro-life side "abortion" is the key word, and everything else is secondary. To the pro-choice side, "legalized" is the key word, and everything else is secondary. I'm just asking that you if you want to put one in there, be fair and put the other in. Your proposed abbreviation excludes the most important part to the group you're using the word to describe. It's like saying to your peanut allergic child "you want some cookies?" when you mean "peanut cookies." To you, "cookies" will be the most important part of the label because you have to do the same work no matter what kind of cookies, and to hell with what's important to the person you're talking to.

because in almost all cases pro-life simply means you want abortions to stop.
I would have said pro-life means you want abortions to be stopped by law. Perhaps all this time I was misunderstanding it. It's a good thing I wasn't pushing all this time to try to change the name of the group I was arguing against Anyway, do you have any links that would put this to rest by outlining exactly what the pro-life platform is for me?

when naming either side you have to change implied meanings, which proves my point that you can redefine words from their implied meanings.
Yes, this was all agreed on, what, like 45 years ago? I imagine there was much debate and compromise at that time to arrive at the most acceptable terms. Do you happen to know for sure? I don't. But we do know that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been established for a long time and are no longer ambiguous. Maybe you should devote a bunch of time getting an important pro-choice group to help you promote "pro-abortion" as a new term, and in about 15 years everyone will have added that as a new term to their vocabulary. Or maybe you should spend that energy on something useful. This whole name-calling tack is petty and useless and detracts from your other arguments.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 02:48 AM
 
Zimphire got a question for you but before I ask it I need to know something first...
Are you against for what ever reason, personal, spiritual other:
Birth Control Pills
Morning After Pills
Condoms

Any or all of those?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
Zimphire got a question for you but before I ask it I need to know something first...
Are you against for what ever reason, personal, spiritual other:
Birth Control Pills
Morning After Pills
Condoms

Any or all of those?

Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 09:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
Zimphire got a question for you but before I ask it I need to know something first...Are you against for what ever reason, personal, spiritual other:
Birth Control Pills
Morning After Pills
Condoms
Any or all of those?
Actually, this is a good question. There are many religions (Catholicism in particular if I recall) that are opposed to Birth Control and Morning After pills because they destroy 'post-conception', meaning they allow the egg to become fertilized, then destroy it. A condom (at least when used properly) hinders the egg from becoming fertilized. As for me I'll openly admit being a little torn on this one, though would lean heavily towards a condom of the three above choices being the least questionable.

Some have questioned what I mean by safe sex, or irresponsible sex and I'll repeat myself. We are expecting two people that are generally engaged in irresponsible activity (you can say engaging the act of child-bearing is irresponsible in the same sense it would be irresponsible to cliff dive if you can't or don't intend to swim. Of course you're welcome to try it, but it would be stupid if you don't intend to do any swimming) to all of a sudden become responsible at the moment of stimulus. Two kids for example, engaging in sex are unlikely to use a condom, but let's say they did use a condom, are they still pulling out? Do they know that if they don't still pull out they're running the risk of pregnancy? Another example commonly found in unintended pregnancies is that taking 4 birth control pills on Thursday will not do. We are expecting irresponsible people to immediately be responsible at a time when responsibility is the last thing on either party's minds. This is not working. Gee ebuddy, why do you keep saying the same things over and over again? To keep y'all grounded in some common sense. Abortion is the result of irresponsibility period. There are other results as well up to and including AIDS, STDs, depression, suicide, botched reproductive organs, abortion, teen pregnancies, etc... While cliff diving is a rush and a lot of fun, the end result of it will invariably be swimming. If you don't intend to swim or can't swim, don't cliff dive. It's really that simple.

Uncle Skeleton; you have equated pregnancy to torture. This dramatization has completely lost me for several reasons;
A. A woman who has become pregnant and given birth will likely give birth again. I dare you to find one POW who has endured actual torture to claim he'd do it again or that "it's a pain you forget."
B. Knowing how you feel about the prospect of pregnancy and the torture it levels on females, I certainly hope you've been tied up. Birth control has a failure rate. To use it is to know that it has a failure rate and you could be subject to the poisoning of the one you "love". (at least for 30 minutes).

You've tried to draw a criminal background on the zygote. The abuse this zygote exacts on a woman in your view seems to be poisonous and the penalty to that zygote should be death. What is the penalty for having injected this woman with the poison? Are you not also liable?

I believe conception is "life", beautiful and miraculous, and the prospect of bringing another to existance is important and life-fulfilling for a woman and a man. I think you'll find most mothers agreeing with me on this evidenced by the number of woman who would also like to impose their archaic "pro-life" view on women. I believe snuffing this process is questionable. When I find something questionable, particularly in this case I default to life. I am also against the death penalty because I think it is questionable. At what point do I consider a life? Conception. What causes conception? Sex. Whether intended or not, pregnancy is the most profound aspect of sex. I've maintained what I've always said; the purpose of sex is to procreate. This purpose has side benefits up to and including euphoria, bonding between loved ones, and it's just damned fun, but to ignore that the most profound feature of sex is pregnancy is to have your head fully immersed in a... well you know, the whole Venus Fly-Trap analogy comes to mind.

I've been told a couple of things regarding my proposed law of "one legalized abortion".

A. You're saying that professionals have always maintained that "no one has an abortion without careful consideration". Why does your idea have any additional merit if they are already carefully considering abortion?

B. You're pro-life yet you support one legalized abortion per woman. Isn't this contradictory?

C. What about multiple rapes resulting in pregnancy, multiple chances of death to the mother, what about multiple incestuous relations resulting in pregnancy?

Answers;

A. You're saying that professionals have always maintained that "no one has an abortion without careful consideration". Why does your idea have any additional merit if they are already carefully considering abortion?
This is what professionals involved in the lucrative industry of baby-milling say. From examining the numbers of repeat abortions, it is evident to me there is little careful consideration of anything including the lifestyle that is repeatedly putting them in this position. My proposed law will ensure "careful consideration" is indeed the case. It is in line with the "professionals supposition" therefore my idea should not be objectionable.

B. You're pro-life yet you support one legalized abortion per woman. Isn't this contradictory?
I understand the nature of this argument. What I can say is that there are Pro-lifer's with signs showing aborted fetus' while chanting things like; "give life a chance.". They line up in the thousands up and down a major street in my city a couple of days each year in the hopes of saving just one life. My idea single-handedly saves hundreds of thousands of lives in one shot. No public display, no bloody signs, no intimidation, just sound legislation encouraging serious consideration for each life we take.

C. What about multiple rapes resulting in pregnancy, multiple chances of death to the mother, what about multiple incestuous relations resulting in pregnancy?
When you look at the percentages of abortions performed in the US, you begin to see some large numbers, then some very small numbers, then some extremely small numbers. The "small number" cases are rape, incest, and health of the mother. Health of the mother, at the forefront comprising 3% of abortions performed. The other two constitute 1% each. The cases of multiple rapes resulting in pregnancy, multiple incestuous relationships resulting in pregnancy, and mothers with inability to carry to term finding themselves repeatedly pregnant would be a substantially lower percentage than the current 1%. If you insist on latching on to "negligable numbers", I'd urge you to consider the hundreds of women who have died at the hands of the abortion doctor, botched reproductive organs, abortions attempted on women not even pregnant, unsterile abortion "mills", ABC link to breast cancer, counseling, guilt, depression, and suicide.
ebuddy
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Actually, this is a good question. There are many religions (Catholicism in particular if I recall) that are opposed to Birth Control and Morning After pills because they destroy 'post-conception', meaning they allow the egg to become fertilized, then destroy it. A condom (at least when used properly) hinders the egg from becoming fertilized. As for me I'll openly admit being a little torn on this one, though would lean heavily towards a condom of the three above choices being the least questionable.
So are you saying you are 'a little torn' on abortion, after all it is doing THE EXACT SAME THING as the BCP/Morning After in your mind.

So either you condemn BCP/RU486 or you feel it is a choice for some people since you YOURSELF are a 'little torn' on it.

That would lead be to believe you either condemn abortion/BCP/RU486 or you feel it is a choice for others, I don't see how you can have it both ways.

A living organism is being killed with abortion.
A living organism is being killed with a condom.
A living organism is being killed with BCP.
A living organism is being killed with RU486.
A living organism is being killed with jerking it in to a tube sock.
A living organism is being killed with a monthly period.

They are all potential humans, which from some reason is more important than the living being they were before that.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
in the same sense it would be irresponsible to cliff dive if you can't or don't intend to swim.
I wasn't aware that cliff diving only carried a 1% chance of having to swim afterward. I've never tried it so I guess I wouldn't know.

kids ... unlikely to use a condom ... pulling out? ... taking 4 birth control pills on Thursday
These are all issues of education. And you know what? Maybe kids would know to do all this stuff if talking about sex wasn't shamed out of them by puritan America. Kids aren't stupid, they can learn math and how to drive a car. It almost sounds like you're opposing abortion so you won't have to deal with telling kids they won't go to hell just for having sex.

Gee ebuddy, why do you keep saying the same things over and over again? To keep y'all grounded in some common sense.
How about some evidence. If your arguments are predicated on abortions resulting from irresponsibility, how about a link? How many abortions are the result of carelessness instead of equipment failure?

There are other results as well up to and including AIDS, STDs, depression, suicide, botched reproductive organs, abortion, teen pregnancies, etc.
I notice you're repeating yourself without answering my question. Don't sweat it, I'll ask again. After pointing out that all the above are consequences of the same behavior, are you suggesting we ban medical care for all of them? "Got the AIDS, huh, that's too damn bad, you shouldn't have been having sex if you didn't want AIDS. Yeah, I've got a treatment for you, but you can't have any, you're too irresponsible. Maybe next time you'll learn."

A. A woman who has become pregnant and given birth will likely give birth again. I dare you to find one POW who has endured actual torture to claim he'd do it again or that "it's a pain you forget."
Did you miss my little scorecard analogy? You don't get a baby after you're a POW. I didn't say they forget, I said they decided it was worth it for the rewards.

B. Knowing how you feel about the prospect of pregnancy and the torture it levels on females, I certainly hope you've been tied up. Birth control has a failure rate. To use it is to know that it has a failure rate and you could be subject to the poisoning of the one you "love". (at least for 30 minutes).
If she doesn't want to be pregnant, and our birth control fails, she has a last chance to decide if (first trimester) abortion is the right path for her. If she does, your "poison" idea falls flat. If she doesn't, she must have decided she wants a baby and then it's no longer "poison." (Where did the word poison come from, did you just think of that?)

I believe conception is "life", beautiful and miraculous
You are free to believe that. This is what makes America great, freedom of belief in miracles. America is not, however, about forcing everyone to believe the same thing you do.

I believe snuffing this process is questionable. When I find something questionable, particularly in this case I default to life. I am also against the death penalty
So because you think it's questionable, we should all stop doing it? One side thinks it's necessary for a lot of situations, the other side just doesn't know. Well by all means, let's outlaw it!

If you have questions, get them answered. Then come back and tell everyone else how to live their lives. You are aware that the death penalty is still legal too, right? If you're trying to prove the "just don't know" argument is enough to start outlawing things, citing another failure of that argument is not going to help you.

At what point do I consider a life? Conception.
Hold up there, you just said a mouthful. What is your basis for believing that? This is really important. You're free to believe it, but if it's just because that's what they always said in Sunday school, that's no basis for declaring it the law of the land. I'd like to hear some reasoning behind this theory before we continue discussion which is fundamentally based on it. If possible, I'd like to see a list of what conditions defines personhood and separates people from anything else (for example, from HeLa cells). If you're not ready yet to declare your list, I would like to hear your thoughts on the list I proposed (heart and brain activity, and being descended from other people), or your objection to the idea of clearly outlining what defines personhood.

I've maintained what I've always said; the purpose of sex is to procreate. This purpose has side benefits up to and including euphoria, bonding between loved ones, and it's just damned fun
Procreation occurs in a small percentage of sexual encounters. The "side benefits" occur in a large majority of them. Based on that, I would have to say you have the "purpose" and the "side benefits" reversed. I'm not saying you have to believe the same thing I do on this, but your reasoning is far from conclusive.

I've been told a couple of things regarding my proposed law of "one legalized abortion".
I approve of your proposed compromise. But I have never been part of a decision on abortion, nor do I intend to, nor do I think it would be up to me. As such I am not in a position to decide if this compromise would be an undue imposition on people who actually do have multiple abortions. So in case they do have objections let's continue to refine it on the objections we've already heard.

This is what professionals involved in the lucrative industry of baby-milling say.
So now anyone who makes their living doing something can't be an expert on it? You know, all doctors make money doing medicine. That doesn't mean they're liars. These are still licensed physicians, and I'm not going to take your word against theirs based solely on conjecture.

From examining the numbers of repeat abortions, it is evident to me there is little careful consideration of anything including the lifestyle that is repeatedly putting them in this position.
Ok, that's almost evidence, so a gold star for you. What exactly about the numbers causes you to conclude this? What further data would you propose to use to test this theory?

C. What about multiple rapes resulting in pregnancy, multiple chances of death to the mother, what about multiple incestuous relations resulting in pregnancy?
This should be a simple matter of exempting those cases (if documented) from the restriction. As we've agreed it is a small minority and shouldn't affect your 50% figure.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stradlater
This doesn't have to do with time, it has to with the fact that one thing has been an individual and independent, while one thing has not. A zygote has never been individually independent and neither has a sperm or an egg. A fetus, zygote, sperm, and egg have more in common with each other than a baby has with any of them, wouldn't you say?
If you're talking that one hasn't been something, and one will become something, then you're using future and past tenses, so you are dealing with time. But whatever. You can make that distinction.

Time is not really the issue. Again: one thing depends on a physical, parasitic relationship and cannot breathe, eat, or drink on its own. The other thing is individually existent and possibly depends, from time to time, on another individual for help with the eating and drinking biz (though a newborn learns its way around a bottle quickly enough); a newborn can always breathe on its own and does not rely on umbilical relations.
Again, a regular parasite is considered an entity separate from its host, and not just a part of the host. But that's not really my main point. That's below.

You're missing the point.

No, a newborn is an individual. It does not PHYSICALLY depend on another individual. A zygote, however, is PHYSICALLY connected to an individual and depends on this parasitic link for nourishment. A baby can be raised by the mother it grew inside of, it can be raised by its father, it can be raised by a human with no direct relationship to it, it can be raised by a nanny or babysitter, temporarily. This has nothing to do with time and "x hours", it has to do with the physical nature of a dependence. Technically, a baby can breathe on its own, eat on its own, drink on its own, though it usually receives help for the second and third items on that list (though it still swallows what is given to it on its own, there's no physical dependence). A zygote cannot breathe, eat, or drink.
Why are you so hung up on physical dependence? The fact is that the newborn is just as dependent on someone to help it survive. If the fetus could have a surrogate like Skel's plan then it wouldn't even be the mother that it would depend on, just anyone.

The newborn is dependent enough that if you don't care for it and you are the mother, you would be criminally negligent. If something with that amount of dependence is considered a human life, and it is considered wrong to kill it in the eyes of the law, why is it now the same with a fetus? You can't say because it isn't technically dependent because according to the law, physical dependence is not what decides that.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
Originally Posted by Athens
Zimphire got a question for you but before I ask it I need to know something first...
Are you against for what ever reason, personal, spiritual other:
Birth Control Pills
Morning After Pills
Condoms

Any or all of those?
What, are you confused by what you wrote or what? (No offense intended, I just busted up laughing when I saw this though.)

Anyway, I've got to go eat. Skel, I'll reply to your post when I get back.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
If you're talking that one hasn't been something, and one will become something, then you're using future and past tenses, so you are dealing with time. But whatever. You can make that distinction.
The past has occurred, the future hasn't. If you are so hung up on the future, then you should be hung up on the future potentiality of every sperm in every ejaculation.

Originally Posted by deej5871
Again, a regular parasite is considered an entity separate from its host, and not just a part of the host. But that's not really my main point. That's below.
I'm not sure if this is even a point at all. A fetus or a zygote is a separate entity, as well. A sperm is a separate entity. An egg. But sperm and eggs are killed everyday and not many people care. Thousands of bacteria are massacred in early-morning mouthwashes, and we claim triumph. But you care about potential humans... A man ejaculates while in spasms of ecstacy -- many microorganisms, meanwhile, enter hostile environment. A woman retires to the restroom to attend to her monthly sacrificial ritual (and another human remains unborn). If you're going to care about a fertilized egg, or a dependent fetus that resembles an unborn chicken as much as it resembles a human, then why not give the same "murder" label to the other ems: masturbation, menstruation, miscarriage...

Originally Posted by deej5871
Why are you so hung up on physical dependence? The fact is that the newborn is just as dependent on someone to help it survive. If the fetus could have a surrogate like Skel's plan then it wouldn't even be the mother that it would depend on, just anyone.
Why are you so hung up on a small mass of cells that is unwanted by some? A newborn breathes on its own, swallows on its own. A human individual can breathe, swallow, etc. A fetus cannot. (And yes, some human adults are on life support, and some would argue that these aren't really humans anymore.)

Originally Posted by deej5871
The newborn is dependent enough that if you don't care for it and you are the mother, you would be criminally negligent. If something with that amount of dependence is considered a human life, and it is considered wrong to kill it in the eyes of the law, why is it now the same with a fetus? You can't say because it isn't technically dependent because according to the law, physical dependence is not what decides that.
It's not the same for a zygote and most fetuses (minus the 7 mo.+ viable fetuses) for the same reason it's not the same for a sperm or egg (and you agree with the latter).

A newborn has developed enough to basically be human�it breathes, eats, leaves waste, thinks (a fertilized egg does not think). There's a gradient fade as sperm/egg become human. However, a sperm/egg are not human (and you admit this), just as a zygote is not a human (will you admit this?), while a fetus begins to approach mammal status and finally, in the latest stages of pregnancy, it approaches human status.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Yes, 34x more likely to kill than an abortion. In a potentially life threatening situation like this, you can't prevent women from taking the safer path for no better reasons than "might have a souls" and "I don't knows." I haven't seen more evidence than those two why the first-trimester fetus deserves to remove the woman's right to decide something like that about her own safety.
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Originally Posted by ebuddy
C. What about multiple rapes resulting in pregnancy, multiple chances of death to the mother, what about multiple incestuous relations resulting in pregnancy?
This should be a simple matter of exempting those cases (if documented) from the restriction. As we've agreed it is a small minority and shouldn't affect your 50% figure.
So, now, with ebuddy's system, you have just as much faith as I do in the medical community to find those life-threatening fetuses in time?

Aside from that, I think "I don't knows" on whether the fetus is a person or not should certainly be good enough. What if you have a person in front of you who was just shot in the chest, and there's a 50/50 chance that he's a living human being, similar to a fetus. You think that because we don't know, we can just assume death, so you would be fine with shooting this shot man many more times even though we have no idea if he's a living human being or not (I know it's not a perfect analogy, since you probably think like Stradlater that "he was once an individual, you can't take that away, but for the purposes of this analogy, that doesn't apply because it's about the chance, not what he once was, if you see what I'm saying).

Yes, at some point. The only web sources I've managed to find (all rabidly pro-life) all (somewhat suspiciously) cite the same figure of 40 days for the first detection of brainwaves (and by cite of course I mean present as fact without documentation). Since they are all biased (as I'm sure pro-choice websites would be if I had found any), I am waiting for a more technically reliable source, but let's say that puts the development of the above mentioned qualities at somewhere between 6 and 12 weeks. It's my understanding that this is roughly what the law already dictates, that first-trimester abortions are the only ones that are legal no-questions-asked. This is what leads me to think that current laws on abortions are not all that barbaric.
I think that that's the law for most states, but I remember stupendousman was saying something about how some states still allow 3rd trimester abortions. I don't know if that's true, but if it is I find that appalling.

You had said something along the lines of "it's not like they're being sent to prison for 9 months." You could say the same thing to repeal the likes of that law where child molesters have to go door to door in their new neighborhood. "Those people don't need to be told. It's not like not knowing there's a child molester in the neighborhood is like going to prison." Maybe it's not, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to know.
Right to know about child molesters isn't really on the same level as right to terminate unborn child (or, to put it in our previously used terms, "right to not be trapped in pregnancy for 9 months).

Did you notice the citation at the bottom of that page? "-From Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine." Could it be, it actually is as bad as it's made out to be, most of the time? Wouldn't that be the simplest explanation?
"At the time he was writing, the role of endorphins in the birth process had not been discovered, and it was assumed that it was the prenatal training and positive outlook that he engendered in women that had produced the satisfaction and painless births reported by women in his care. Today, in light of our increased understanding of women�s bodies and their capacity for safe birth, the postnatal ecstasy and euphoria he reported would be attributed to endorphins and their ability to ease pain, promote concentration, and increase positive feelings and self-confidence." Link

As opposed to what you said before, that it is the love of the child that makes up for the pain, it is in fact, endorphins. Whether they want the child or not, the endorphins will be released. Also, if you read the rest of the article it states that the reason births can be so painful is only because women think it has to be painful. Apparently there are techniques that can easily make birth "easy and painless". It doesn't have to be a torturous birth. I agree that most births are probably not painless, and they are indeed anomalies, however I think saying that most births are "on par with torture" is really exaggerating it.

Also, wouldn't you have to be pretty fat not to notice you're pregnant? Maybe we can have a weight requirement tied to the abortion law, would that take your website's observations into account?
It isn't not noticing you're pregnant that makes it painless. If you read some of the stories the painless birth was sometimes on the way to the hospital.

So that's your hold up on this? How do you account for the fact that if they are near each other they probably will combine, and for that matter if they are far, one will seek out the other? How about another of your examples. If you keep a loaded gun in your desk drawer, there is a chance your kid will kill himself with it. If you keep an unloaded gun and bullets in your desk drawer, there is a slightly lesser chance your kid will kill himself with it. But by your above objection, he could never kill himself unless the two are combined, so the gun must not be considered a possible danger to the kid (A1 is the gun, A2 is the bullets, B is the loaded gun, and C is the kid's death). I don't agree to that, and I don't think the law does either. But I guess you are free to make your own arbitrary distinction.
The unloaded gun in the desk drawer will never kill the kid. He can keep pulling the trigger with the gun pointed at his head and it won't kill him. The same goes for the bullets. Those alone will never kill the child. Once he loads the bullets into the gun, then they could kill him. But then it isn't just an unloaded gun and some bullets, it's a loaded gun. The chance of A1 and A2 (back to sperm and eggs, not gun and bullets) combining has nothing to do with the chance of B to become C. Because once they combine then they are B. As long as they do not become B, they have no chance of becoming C. But once they do become B, they have a great chance of becoming C. I am not the only one who had made this distinction. Undotwa also agreed with what I said.

Apparently not. A quick google search brought me here with the likes of "The truth is, abortion enthusiasts oppose even the most insignificant and reasonable limits on abortion, not because limits would reduce choices, but because they might reduce abortions." Not even those (in this thread) terrified of abortions believe that part of the pro-choice platform is to keep abortion numbers from dropping. But the whole tactic of pushing the "pro-abortion" rhetoric has got people thinking that's what it is.
What do you say to the group that also can be called "pro-choice"? Apparently The United Pro Choice Smokers
Rights
also claims the name "pro-choice". They say "Nobody talks of being "pro-smoker" - instead they are "pro-choice"." (You have no idea how surprised I was to find this site.) Just because pro-choice is used for this doesn't make it apply any less for abortion debates. The same goes for pro-abortion. Just because some people use it in the context of people who want more abortions, doesn't mean I can't use it in the context of people who want abortion to stay legal.

To the pro-life side "abortion" is the key word, and everything else is secondary. To the pro-choice side, "legalized" is the key word, and everything else is secondary. I'm just asking that you if you want to put one in there, be fair and put the other in. Your proposed abbreviation excludes the most important part to the group you're using the word to describe. It's like saying to your peanut allergic child "you want some cookies?" when you mean "peanut cookies." To you, "cookies" will be the most important part of the label because you have to do the same work no matter what kind of cookies, and to hell with what's important to the person you're talking to.
And if the person saying "you want some cookies?" was a lady who was known for her peanut cookies and she was known to always offer her peanut cookies to passersby? This is the same. Everyone knows that when I say "pro-abortion" I mean "pro-legalized-abortion", just like you're kid would know that the nice lady always makes peanut cookies. Now, as you say, there are situations where this would be misinterpreted, maybe the kid was from out of town and didn't know the lady always put peanuts in her cookies. But that doesn't mean that the lady should have to say "peanut cookies" every time she offers cookies; just like I'm not going to say "pro-legalized-abortion" every time I want to refer to a pro-choicer.

I would have said pro-life means you want abortions to be stopped by law. Perhaps all this time I was misunderstanding it. It's a good thing I wasn't pushing all this time to try to change the name of the group I was arguing against Anyway, do you have any links that would put this to rest by outlining exactly what the pro-life platform is for me?
I think I've said this before but I'll say it again. I am not trying to rename the pro-choice group of people (just like you might refer to me as an anti-abortionist; I wouldn't accuse you of trying to change the name). I am not the pro-life platform. Everything I say is not straight from the pro-life platform. If you want my views, ask me about individual issues, as you have in the past.

Yes, this was all agreed on, what, like 45 years ago? I imagine there was much debate and compromise at that time to arrive at the most acceptable terms. Do you happen to know for sure? I don't. But we do know that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been established for a long time and are no longer ambiguous. Maybe you should devote a bunch of time getting an important pro-choice group to help you promote "pro-abortion" as a new term, and in about 15 years everyone will have added that as a new term to their vocabulary. Or maybe you should spend that energy on something useful. This whole name-calling tack is petty and useless and detracts from your other arguments.
If you refer to me as an anti-abortionist I won't care. I'm not trying to rename pro-choicers. And, just because the term "pro-abortion" sometimes means people for abortion, doesn't mean I have to establish it as a new term to make it mean people for legalized abortion. Just like with the pro-choice site I found, even the most popular use of the term isn't necessarily the one being referred to (assuming people for more abortions is the most popular use of "pro-abortion), sometimes you have to know what the meaning is based on what is being said. On the site, "pro-choice" means someone for choosing to smoke. In my posts, "pro-abortion" means someone for keeping abortion legal. Okay?
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stradlater
The past has occurred, the future hasn't. If you are so hung up on the future, then you should be hung up on the future potentiality of every sperm in every ejaculation.
The sperm has no potential until it fertilizes the egg. Read what I've said to Skel for reasoning, and take issue with that if you see problems with it.

I'm not sure if this is even a point at all. A fetus or a zygote is a separate entity, as well. A sperm is a separate entity. An egg. But sperm and eggs are killed everyday and not many people care. Thousands of bacteria are massacred in early-morning mouthwashes, and we claim triumph. But you care about potential humans... A man ejaculates while in spasms of ecstacy -- many microorganisms, meanwhile, enter hostile environment. A woman retires to the restroom to attend to her monthly sacrificial ritual (and another human remains unborn). If you're going to care about a fertilized egg, or a dependent fetus that resembles an unborn chicken as much as it resembles a human, then why not give the same "murder" label to the other ems: masturbation, menstruation, miscarriage...
See above. No potential until the egg is fertilized.

Why are you so hung up on a small mass of cells that is unwanted by some? A newborn breathes on its own, swallows on its own. A human individual can breathe, swallow, etc. A fetus cannot. (And yes, some human adults are on life support, and some would argue that these aren't really humans anymore.)
Because I consider them to be a potential person, infinitely more so than a sperm or egg. And a newborn can't do everything on it's own. If it is left alone it will eventually die if it doesn't receive care. The difference is the fetus need constant care, and the newborn needs occasional care. They will, however, both die if they don't receive any care.

It's not the same for a zygote and most fetuses (minus the 7 mo.+ viable fetuses) for the same reason it's not the same for a sperm or egg (and you agree with the latter).

A newborn has developed enough to basically be human�it breathes, eats, leaves waste, thinks (a fertilized egg does not think). There's a gradient fade as sperm/egg become human. However, a sperm/egg are not human (and you admit this), just as a zygote is not a human (will you admit this?), while a fetus begins to approach mammal status and finally, in the latest stages of pregnancy, it approaches human status.
All right, since this still seems to be addressing the opinion that sperm and eggs are just as human as a fetus, I'm assuming you have some problem with my reasoning. Please, find I problem with my reasoning I've used in my posts to Uncles Skeleton and then we can continue.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
The sperm has no potential until it fertilizes the egg. Read what I've said to Skel for reasoning, and take issue with that if you see problems with it.
Do you know what "potential" means? Potential is before-the-fact. A sperm and egg have the potential to become a human. A zygote has the potential to become a human.

Originally Posted by deej5871
Because I consider them to be a potential person, infinitely more so than a sperm or egg. And a newborn can't do everything on it's own. If it is left alone it will eventually die if it doesn't receive care. The difference is the fetus need constant care, and the newborn needs occasional care. They will, however, both die if they don't receive any care.
That's not "the" difference, it's "a" difference. Show me how a zygote has more in common with a human than a sperm or an egg. Show me how a first (or even second) trimester fetus has more in common with a human than a sperm or an egg.

A baby depends on the care of another to make nourishment available but exists and lives on his own. A cancer patient depends on the care of an oncologist but exists and lives on his own. A zygote depends on the environment inside of a woman but does not live/breathe on its own.

Originally Posted by deej5871
All right, since this still seems to be addressing the opinion that sperm and eggs are just as human as a fetus, I'm assuming you have some problem with my reasoning. Please, find I problem with my reasoning I've used in my posts to Uncles Skeleton and then we can continue.
I've explained my problem with your reasoning before and I explained it again in this post.

If you're going to call a fertilized egg a human, a zygote that has more in common with a sperm or an egg, then you need to think of a sperm or an egg as a human, too. Both have potential, one may have _more_ potential, but all are similarly complex and all indeed have potential.

If you refuse to consider a spermatozoon or ovum human, then the very-similar zygote should not be considered one, either. If you want to consider a third-trimester fetus a human, I guess I'd buy that, since it is finally approaching a human-enough structure and may even be viable at that point, but before that your argument is not convincing.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
So, now, with ebuddy's system, you have just as much faith as I do in the medical community to find those life-threatening fetuses in time?
Sorry, I didn't actually read ebuddy's post all the way through. Since he was repeating himself so much I got to about the word "rape" and jumped the gun. I withdraw my "simple matter" comment with regard to risk of the mother's life.

What if you have a person in front of you who was just shot in the chest, and there's a 50/50 chance that he's a living human being
What do you mean? You can't tell if he's still alive? You can find out easily enough, take his pulse. If then you get him to the hospital and find that he is braindead, then you can carry out whatever absurd reasoning you had for needing to shoot him again. I've been proposing all day that we need to do the same thing for how we define a person at the beginning of life, make a list of properties of human people. No one else seems to want to do that; they'd rather just say "I don't know is good enough. It's not.

(I know it's not a perfect analogy, since you probably think like Stradlater that "he was once an individual, you can't take that away, but for the purposes of this analogy, that doesn't apply because it's about the chance, not what he once was, if you see what I'm saying).
No, I'm not really following along with that exchange; it doesn't ring true with me. But if you two come to a concensus I will probably weigh in on that if I think there's anything wrong with it. But back to your analogy, I don't see how it's a chance he's alive. Either he is or he's not and it's not hard to find out which it is (besides which I can't imagine a reason why you'd have to shoot him if and only if he's dead).

[quotebut I remember stupendousman was saying something about how some states still allow 3rd trimester abortions.[/quote]

And that claim was challenged. The next step is for him to present some evidence that this is the case (I don't believe it is), but he's been silent. I'm ignoring that claim until he (or someone else) provides a (credible) link.

Right to know about child molesters isn't really on the same level as right to terminate unborn child (or, to put it in our previously used terms, "right to not be trapped in pregnancy for 9 months).
1. why not? chances are your kid won't be the one to be molested next anyway, but you still deserve to be told.
2. it's the same reasoning. just because something isn't the same as prison doesn't mean people can't expect to be protected from it.
We can drop this if you want; it seems it was just an offhand comment and not building to anything.

The unloaded gun in the desk drawer will never kill the kid. He can keep pulling the trigger with the gun pointed at his head and it won't kill him. The same goes for the bullets. Those alone will never kill the child. Once he loads the bullets into the gun, then they could kill him. But then it isn't just an unloaded gun and some bullets, it's a loaded gun. The chance of A1 and A2 (back to sperm and eggs, not gun and bullets) combining has nothing to do with the chance of B to become C. Because once they combine then they are B. As long as they do not become B, they have no chance of becoming C. But once they do become B, they have a great chance of becoming C. I am not the only one who had made this distinction. Undotwa also agreed with what I said.
Citing another anonymous internet user is not evidence.

Just answer me this. Is there a chance that a gun and bullets stored in the same drawer will be found by a kid in the house and used to shoot something or someone?

Here's another way to think about it. Take a fertilized egg, by itself. It will never become a child. Wait and wait and wait and it will never become a person. Same goes for growth hormones and nutrients, wait and wait and they will never become a child. But combine the two, and suddenly one cell incorporates the nutrients and becomes two cells, and then four, then a gastrula and blastula and blastocyst, each time combining with more and more nutrients, eventually becoming a fetus and then a child.

And then the child becomes an adult, and some of its cells divide into gametes, and then they meet other gametes, and so on. It's all a continuum, all part of a cycle, with no beginning and no end. It is entirely arbitrary where we say the "beginning" of it is, just like deciding that midnight is when the day begins.

What do you say to the group that also can be called "pro-choice"? Apparently The United Pro Choice Smokers
Rights
also claims the name "pro-choice".
And apparently their name is "Pro Choice Smokers Rights," not just "Pro Choice," (text which never on their page appears without being followed by "smokers rights"). How much do you want to bet they chose such a long name because "Pro Choice" already has an understood meaning and that is in the context of abortion?

And if the person saying "you want some cookies?" was a lady who was known for her peanut cookies and she was known to always offer her peanut cookies to passersby?
The first time a kid told her "it's rude to not call them 'peanut cookies' because people like me are allergic to peanuts," or the first time a kid had to go to the hospital because she didn't, she would start calling them "peanut cookies" because she's not an uptight asshole.

I am not the pro-life platform. Everything I say is not straight from the pro-life platform. If you want my views, ask me about individual issues
You had said "pro-life means you want abortions to be stopped." I asked you for clarification on that statement. Don't chastise me for asking you to elaborate on things you've said. In light of your deflection, I would conclude that you withdraw your statement that "pro-life simply means you want abortions to be stopped?"

just because the term "pro-abortion" sometimes means people for abortion, doesn't mean I have to establish it as a new term to make it mean people for legalized abortion.
No, it's the fact that it doesn't mean people for legalized abortion that means you have to establish it as a new term. Just like if you had called them "poop-heads" or "pinko commie anarchists."

(assuming people for more abortions is the most popular use of "pro-abortion)
No, it would be people who support abortion for its own sake that would be "pro-abortion," for example, the imaginary group quoted in my last post (to you) that wanted to prevent the number of abortions performed from dropping.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stradlater
Do you know what "potential" means? Potential is before-the-fact. A sperm and egg have the potential to become a human. A zygote has the potential to become a human.
If you are the only man left on earth, none of the sperm inside you have any potential to become a human. If you are the only woman left on earth, and you have eggs inside you, they also have zero potential to become a human. Now, if you are the only woman left on earth, and you have a fertilized egg inside you, that fertilized egg has a very good chance of becoming a human. The way you see it, if there were a man and woman left on earth, and the woman was not pregnant yet, you think that the man's sperm would still have potential simply because it's still possible to impregnate the woman. This is where we differ. I think those sperm only can become a child if they fertilize the egg. If they haven't fertilized the egg yet, they aren't human.

That's not "the" difference, it's "a" difference. Show me how a zygote has more in common with a human than a sperm or an egg. Show me how a first (or even second) trimester fetus has more in common with a human than a sperm or an egg.
The zygote may have more in common with the sperm or egg but it probably has certain distinctly human features that would differentiate it from the gametes.

A baby depends on the care of another to make nourishment available but exists and lives on his own. A cancer patient depends on the care of an oncologist but exists and lives on his own. A zygote depends on the environment inside of a woman but does not live/breathe on its own.
None of this contradicts anything I said. They are still both dependent in some way.

I've explained my problem with your reasoning before and I explained it again in this post.

If you're going to call a fertilized egg a human, a zygote that has more in common with a sperm or an egg, then you need to think of a sperm or an egg as a human, too. Both have potential, one may have _more_ potential, but all are similarly complex and all indeed have potential.
It may have more in common with the sperm or egg, but that doesn't make it any less human. A 21 year old has more in common with an 18 year old than with someone who's 50, but once he crosses the line of 21 he is considered able to decide that he can drink, while an 18 year old can't. The same applies to fetuses. The fetus may have more in common with the gametes, but once it crosses that line, it is considered to be on the same level as a human, just as a 21 year old is on the same decision-making ability level as a 50 year old. (Not the best comparison, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that this is a line that is crossed, not something where it slowly becomes more and more human; it just becomes human.)

If you refuse to consider a spermatozoon or ovum human, then the very-similar zygote should not be considered one, either. If you want to consider a third-trimester fetus a human, I guess I'd buy that, since it is finally approaching a human-enough structure and may even be viable at that point, but before that your argument is not convincing.
I've been trying to explain to you why sperm and eggs are not human while zygotes might be. Maybe you should let me respond before calling my argument unconvincing.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
What do you mean? You can't tell if he's still alive? You can find out easily enough, take his pulse. If then you get him to the hospital and find that he is braindead, then you can carry out whatever absurd reasoning you had for needing to shoot him again. I've been proposing all day that we need to do the same thing for how we define a person at the beginning of life, make a list of properties of human people. No one else seems to want to do that; they'd rather just say "I don't know is good enough. It's not.
We can't tell he's alive because we don't know if a fetus is alive (alive being an alive human, not just "alive"). That's part of the reason it isn't a perfect analogy. I'm saying that for its purposes, no, you cannot tell if he's still alive.

No, I'm not really following along with that exchange; it doesn't ring true with me. But if you two come to a concensus I will probably weigh in on that if I think there's anything wrong with it. But back to your analogy, I don't see how it's a chance he's alive. Either he is or he's not and it's not hard to find out which it is (besides which I can't imagine a reason why you'd have to shoot him if and only if he's dead).
Because we don't know if a fetus is a person or not.

And that claim was challenged. The next step is for him to present some evidence that this is the case (I don't believe it is), but he's been silent. I'm ignoring that claim until he (or someone else) provides a (credible) link.
Okay then.

1. why not? chances are your kid won't be the one to be molested next anyway, but you still deserve to be told.
2. it's the same reasoning. just because something isn't the same as prison doesn't mean people can't expect to be protected from it.
We can drop this if you want; it seems it was just an offhand comment and not building to anything.
Dropped.

Citing another anonymous internet user is not evidence.
It wasn't "evidence", it was because you were saying I arbitrarily made the distinction as if I'm the only one who possesses this crazy notion.

Just answer me this. Is there a chance that a gun and bullets stored in the same drawer will be found by a kid in the house and used to shoot something or someone?
If they are found how will he shoot it without loading the gun? And if he does load the gun, they are no longer gun and bullets separate, they are loaded gun, and as I said that is the thing that could kill people.

Here's another way to think about it. Take a fertilized egg, by itself. It will never become a child. Wait and wait and wait and it will never become a person. Same goes for growth hormones and nutrients, wait and wait and they will never become a child. But combine the two, and suddenly one cell incorporates the nutrients and becomes two cells, and then four, then a gastrula and blastula and blastocyst, each time combining with more and more nutrients, eventually becoming a fetus and then a child.
The first half here is what I've been saying all along. Where we differ is that when you say "combine the two" you don't make that a separate category. It's when they combine that they make a fertilized egg, and that makes them no longer either sperm or egg, individually. They aren't just sperm and egg combined because you can't separate them again. Once they've combined they are something entirely new.

And then the child becomes an adult, and some of its cells divide into gametes, and then they meet other gametes, and so on. It's all a continuum, all part of a cycle, with no beginning and no end. It is entirely arbitrary where we say the "beginning" of it is, just like deciding that midnight is when the day begins.
I agree that it's an endless cycle, but it's where the "meet other gametes" part that we might differ. What if the gametes never meet other gametes? This cycle stops. You're assuming that they will meet, but they don't have to. If they don't, they never become a child. That's why when they meet is when the new life is created (or, in this context, when life continues).

And apparently their name is "Pro Choice Smokers Rights," not just "Pro Choice," (text which never on their page appears without being followed by "smokers rights"). How much do you want to bet they chose such a long name because "Pro Choice" already has an understood meaning and that is in the context of abortion?
Did you read what I said? It specifically says "Nobody talks of being 'pro-smoker' - instead they are 'pro-choice'." They do use Pro-Choice. Maybe not for their official name, but they obviously use it when talking. Just like myself and "Pro-abortion". I don't want to change "Pro-choice" to "pro-abortion", but I don't think there's much problem with using it when talking or debating or whatever.

The first time a kid told her "it's rude to not call them 'peanut cookies' because people like me are allergic to peanuts," or the first time a kid had to go to the hospital because she didn't, she would start calling them "peanut cookies" because she's not an uptight asshole.
Everyone knows she makes peanut cookies and calls them cookies. Just like everyone here knows when I refer to a pro-choicer I might call them pro-abortionist. I really doubt she would stop just because someone told her to. The kid who told her obviously knew about them being peanut cookies, just like you telling me calling it pro-abortion might be rude, you did know what I was referring to. Your kid being sent to the hospital is comparable to if someone here seriously misinterpreted what I've said and began to argue against that. But so far, no one really has, so I see no reason to stop calling it "pro-abortion".

You had said "pro-life means you want abortions to be stopped." I asked you for clarification on that statement. Don't chastise me for asking you to elaborate on things you've said. In light of your deflection, I would conclude that you withdraw your statement that "pro-life simply means you want abortions to be stopped?"
That was because it is the opposing statement to "pro-choice means you want abortions to stay legal". I only said it to reduce things down to simplest terms. Therefore, I'm not going to spout off the whole platform: I'm trying to keep it simple.

No, it's the fact that it doesn't mean people for legalized abortion that means you have to establish it as a new term. Just like if you had called them "poop-heads" or "pinko commie anarchists."
Pro-choice in reference to the smoking movement doesn't need to be established as a new term, even though the term itself doesn't mean people that are for being allowed to smoke. In the context of what I say, pro-abortion means people who want abortion to stay legal; in the context of their site, pro-choice means people who want the choice to smoke. It's all about context.

No, it would be people who support abortion for its own sake that would be "pro-abortion," for example, the imaginary group quoted in my last post (to you) that wanted to prevent the number of abortions performed from dropping.
And people that support choice for its own sake would be pro-choice? You can't narrow it down at all?

And again, as I pointed out with the pro-choice smokers group, the term "pro-choice" can be applied to two completely different groups, and so can "pro-abortion".
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
If you are the only man left on earth, none of the sperm inside you have any potential to become a human. If you are the only woman left on earth, and you have eggs inside you, they also have zero potential to become a human. Now, if you are the only woman left on earth, and you have a fertilized egg inside you, that fertilized egg has a very good chance of becoming a human. The way you see it, if there were a man and woman left on earth, and the woman was not pregnant yet, you think that the man's sperm would still have potential simply because it's still possible to impregnate the woman. This is where we differ. I think those sperm only can become a child if they fertilize the egg. If they haven't fertilized the egg yet, they aren't human.
Firstly, let's address your wonderful (and unnecessary) scenario. If you are the only man on earth, then yes, your sperm has zero potential to become another human (unless science allows for it by some Brave New way). If you are the last woman on earth with an unfertilized egg, there is zero potential if there exists no preserved semen on the planet. If you're the last woman on earth and you are pregnant, then potential existed with the sperm that was around to impregnate the woman and potential existed with her now-fertilized egg. If the woman gives birth to a woman, all of their remaining eggs return to zero potential.

These examples of yours, however, were completely unnecessary because you have to completely alter the earth to make your definition of "potential" work.

If sperm and eggs exist, and an environment in which they can become a human exists, then POTENTIAL exists.

Again: do you know what "potential" means? Think about what it means when a man or woman is considered "potent." It doesn't mean that the man has already impregnated a girl or that the woman is pregnant. I'll define "potential" this time:
Adj: "existing in possibility" or
Noun: "the inherent capacity for coming into being"

With each sperm and egg (while assuming that there is at least one fertile person of each sex on the planet) there is potential for a human to be born.

Potential exists before-the-fact. AGAIN (since you still fail to understand the meaning of "potential"): something cannot only have potential AFTER something happens, the potential exists beforehand. Every sperm has the potential to pierce an egg and become a human individual; it does not lack this potential before it reaches the egg because it can POTENTIALLY reach an egg.

Originally Posted by deej5871
The zygote may have more in common with the sperm or egg but it probably has certain distinctly human features that would differentiate it from the gametes.
"Probably" is your key word here. You at least admit that a zygote has more in common with a sperm or egg; we're getting somewhere. What "human features" do you think "probably" would differentiate it?

Originally Posted by deej5871
None of this contradicts anything I said. They are still both dependent in some way.
And an egg is dependent on its host to survive beyond the month it waits for sperm. And a sperm is dependent on its host to survive by getting ejaculated in an egg's vicinity.

So a baby is dependent, an adult is dependent, a fetus is dependent, a zygote is dependent, a sperm is dependent, an egg is dependent. Right?

Originally Posted by deej5871
It may have more in common with the sperm or egg, but that doesn't make it any less human.
So what makes a sperm and egg less human?

Originally Posted by deej5871
A 21 year old has more in common with an 18 year old than with someone who's 50, but once he crosses the line of 21 he is considered able to decide that he can drink, while an 18 year old can't. The same applies to fetuses. The fetus may have more in common with the gametes, but once it crosses that line, it is considered to be on the same level as a human, just as a 21 year old is on the same decision-making ability level as a 50 year old. (Not the best comparison, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that this is a line that is crossed, not something where it slowly becomes more and more human; it just becomes human.)
These are lines that humans are defining. Other countries define this line at 18 or earlier. A "line" is crossed when sperm joins egg, sure. A line was previously crossed when that egg and that sperm first formed. Another "line" is crossed after pregnancy when the zygote splits. Another "line" is crossed when appendages form. Another "line" is crossed when the brain begins to function. Another "line" is crossed on the baby's first birthday. You're defining THE line of importance at fertilization, it's your opinion; just as it was someone's opinion that the drinking age should be 21, and many disagree that this is the wrong place to set the line.

21 years old is an arbitrary age, just as fertilization is an arbitrary point to consider that cell to now be a human.
Originally Posted by deej5871
I've been trying to explain to you why sperm and eggs are not human while zygotes might be. Maybe you should let me respond before calling my argument unconvincing.
I called it unconvincing after I read it. And I'm calling it unconvincing again and I've explained why...again.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 11:01 PM
 
(I'm splitting these posts per analogy)

Originally Posted by deej5871
We can't tell he's alive because we don't know if a fetus is alive (alive being an alive human, not just "alive"). That's part of the reason it isn't a perfect analogy. I'm saying that for its purposes, no, you cannot tell if he's still alive.
I'm not following this at all. Can you start it over from scratch, and use no pronouns (I guess the best way is name everything Tom Dick and Harry)?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
It wasn't "evidence", it was because you were saying I arbitrarily made the distinction as if I'm the only one who possesses this crazy notion.
Just because someone else shares the opinion doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. If Jesus Christ had said "humanity begins at e7," for no other reason than that he had a hunch, I bet you a shiny nickel there would be a billion people today who all believe it. That doesn't mean it isn't an arbitrary point in human development. (e7 is the technical short-hand for embryonic day 7).
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
Just answer me this. Is there a chance that a gun and bullets stored in the same drawer will be found by a kid in the house and used to shoot something or someone?
If they are found how will he shoot it without loading the gun? And if he does load the gun, they are no longer gun and bullets separate, they are loaded gun, and as I said that is the thing that could kill people.
It's a yes or no question.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stradlater
No, a newborn is an individual. It does not PHYSICALLY depend on another individual.
Why all the mish-mashing about whether a living thing is dependant on others physically for life? It's already been determined by law that you can be dependant on others physically for life and still be determined to be eligible for the rights that individuals have. Everyday, living beings end up in situations where they can not care and feed themselves and require the assistance of others to maintain life and still have rights.

We've already determined that based soley on the scientific method we use to determine if something has "life" (active brain waves and a heartbeat) and can not legally be killed, the unborn has no such rights can still be killed despite having the same scientific life signs as those outside the womb.

Our current laws aren't based on the wishes of our founding fathers, as laws regarding abortion where legal back when they put the constitution together, and they found no reason to specifically enumerate protections for this practice (therefore, allowing the states to decide, per the constitution).

It's also been shown through poling that most people believe that there should be a lot more limits on abortion (especially late term and those done for convenience only).

So...given that we currently aren't basing our laws on constitent scientific measurements, equitable rights for both males and females, the wishes of our founding fathers per the constitution or the "will of the people", why is it that we continue to have laws based soley on the radical leftward leanings of a majority on the high court?

I think that's the question that should first be asked, before we can find any common ground. Currently, the law doesn't reflect compromise nor anything else that would seem reasonble on a number of grounds. Until we've at least got that fixed, "pro" or "anti" abortion is just two far sides of a controversial issue.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 11:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
Here's another way to think about it. Take a fertilized egg, by itself. It will never become a child. Wait and wait and wait and it will never become a person. Same goes for growth hormones and nutrients, wait and wait and they will never become a child. But combine the two (fertilized egg and nutrients and hormones), and suddenly one cell incorporates the nutrients and becomes two cells, and then four, then a gastrula and blastula and blastocyst, each time combining with more and more nutrients, eventually becoming a fetus and then a child.
The first half here is what I've been saying all along. Where we differ is that when you say "combine the two" you don't make that a separate category. It's when they combine that they make a fertilized egg, and that makes them no longer either sperm or egg, individually. They aren't just sperm and egg combined because you can't separate them again. Once they've combined they are something entirely new.
Read mine again. It all takes place after the egg is fertilized.

I agree that it's an endless cycle, but it's where the "meet other gametes" part that we might differ. What if the gametes never meet other gametes? This cycle stops. You're assuming that they will meet, but they don't have to.
No, they don't have to. Nor does a fertilized egg have to begin dividing, nor implant in the uterine wall, nor survive to term. Even once the child is born, there is no guarantee that it will survive for any particular length of time. Chance of failure does not differentiate a zygote from a gamete or anything else.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
And that claim was challenged. The next step is for him to present some evidence that this is the case (I don't believe it is), but he's been silent. I'm ignoring that claim until he (or someone else) provides a (credible) link.
My argument was based on the notion that it is legal to kill viable fetuses (unborn babies) who do not require their mothers to live. Fetuses are viable (based on most consensus) at about 24 weeks. You can get an abortion up to the day of delivery IF your Doctor says it is in the best interest of your "health". That includes if you and he feel that it would be too mentally stressful on you to have to lug a tot around for several years and raise him or her to adulthood. The prohibition against late term abortion is essentially NO prohibition at all. The high court has emasculated it to the point where you could not enforce it if you tried. No state has a law that clearly outlaws late-term abortion to emergency "life or death" situations only. All it requires is for the abortionist to feel that it's in the best interest of the woman's "health" which could mean ANYTHING and most of the time does.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 11:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stradlater
Firstly, let's address your wonderful (and unnecessary) scenario. If you are the only man on earth, then yes, your sperm has zero potential to become another human (unless science allows for it by some Brave New way). If you are the last woman on earth with an unfertilized egg, there is zero potential if there exists no preserved semen on the planet. If you're the last woman on earth and you are pregnant, then potential existed with the sperm that was around to impregnate the woman and potential existed with her now-fertilized egg. If the woman gives birth to a woman, all of their remaining eggs return to zero potential.

These examples of yours, however, were completely unnecessary because you have to completely alter the earth to make your definition of "potential" work.

If sperm and eggs exist, and an environment in which they can become a human exists, then POTENTIAL exists.

Again: do you know what "potential" means? Think about what it means when a man or woman is considered "potent." It doesn't mean that the man has already impregnated a girl or that the woman is pregnant. I'll define "potential" this time:
Adj: "existing in possibility" or
Noun: "the inherent capacity for coming into being"

With each sperm and egg (while assuming that there is at least one fertile person of each sex on the planet) there is potential for a human to be born.

Potential exists before-the-fact. AGAIN (since you still fail to understand the meaning of "potential"): something cannot only have potential AFTER something happens, the potential exists beforehand. Every sperm has the potential to pierce an egg and become a human individual; it does not lack this potential before it reaches the egg because it can POTENTIALLY reach an egg.
I've only said it is impossible iff the sperm and egg do not meet, which is true. Therefore, going by you're definition, sperm and egg alone have zero potential of becoming a child. However, if they do meet, and they combine to become a fertilized egg, that is when the potential comes in. You'd be right if I didn't say "unless the sperm and egg meet" and if I didn't categorize them accordingly.

"Probably" is your key word here. You at least admit that a zygote has more in common with a sperm or egg; we're getting somewhere. What "human features" do you think "probably" would differentiate it?
I don't know. It depends on what stage it's in. Either way I'd just be answering your questions via Google, so I won't bother.

And an egg is dependent on its host to survive beyond the month it waits for sperm. And a sperm is dependent on its host to survive by getting ejaculated in an egg's vicinity.

So a baby is dependent, an adult is dependent, a fetus is dependent, a zygote is dependent, a sperm is dependent, an egg is dependent. Right?

So what makes a sperm and egg less human?
No, not everyone is dependent. Adults can survive on their own without help. Young children might even be able to. I'd even give you technically two year olds. But a newborn simply doesn't have the muscle development yet to even move 10 feet on it's own. How would it ever survive without help?

An egg or sperm is not a human because dependency on something is not an argument. You were the one trying to say a fetus is dependent and that's what makes it not human. I disagreed. Now why would I say that a sperm or egg is human because it's dependent?

These are lines that humans are defining. Other countries define this line at 18 or earlier. A "line" is crossed when sperm joins egg, sure. A line was previously crossed when that egg and that sperm first formed. Another "line" is crossed after pregnancy when the zygote splits. Another "line" is crossed when appendages form. Another "line" is crossed when the brain begins to function. Another "line" is crossed on the baby's first birthday. You're defining THE line of importance at fertilization, it's your opinion; just as it was someone's opinion that the drinking age should be 21, and many disagree that this is the wrong place to set the line.
I understand these are lines that humans defined. You are the one that was saying life is a continuous cycle and that it is always there (which is true). You had the problem with drawing lines and saying exactly when one life begins. I was attempting to illustrate that lines need to be made sometimes even if things on one side of the line are almost exactly the same as the stuff on the other.

21 years old is an arbitrary age, just as fertilization is an arbitrary point to consider that cell to now be a human.
I called it unconvincing after I read it. And I'm calling it unconvincing again and I've explained why...again.
Yes, I'm just having a ball trying to explain my views to you.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
I'm not following this at all. Can you start it over from scratch, and use no pronouns (I guess the best way is name everything Tom Dick and Harry)?
Okay. Like I said, it isn't a perfect analogy, so it's perfectly understandable that it might be hard to understand.
Here's what I said originally:"What if you have a person in front of you who was just shot in the chest, and there's a 50/50 chance that he's a living human being, similar to a fetus. You think that because we don't know, we can just assume death, so you would be fine with shooting this shot man many more times even though we have no idea if he's a living human being or not."

There is a man, Tom. Tom has recently been shot and you, Dick (I'm just going in order....honestly), come up to him. Tom's lying on the ground, and for my purposes, it is impossible for you to tell if Tom is alive or dead (before I said if he was "a living human being" because that same term could be applied to the fetus). You think that because we don't know if Tom is alive or if he is dead, we can assume he is dead (or, with a fetus, assume it is not a human being). So, let's say you wanted Tom dead for some reason, maybe, didn't want to deal with him because he was your responsibility. So, you decide to shoot him, because you've decided he's as good as dead anyway.

Now I added a little something about responsibility at the end there.. Tell me you got it.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Just because someone else shares the opinion doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. If Jesus Christ had said "humanity begins at e7," for no other reason than that he had a hunch, I bet you a shiny nickel there would be a billion people today who all believe it. That doesn't mean it isn't an arbitrary point in human development. (e7 is the technical short-hand for embryonic day 7).
It wasn't really intended to be much of anything! I only really put that there to kind of hint to undotwa that I was hoping he'd come back and help me support my case, because he was someone else who posted in support of it before. Okay? Can we drop this?
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Just answer me this. Is there a chance that a gun and bullets stored in the same drawer will be found by a kid in the house and used to shoot something or someone?
If they are found how will he shoot it without loading the gun? And if he does load the gun, they are no longer gun and bullets separate, they are loaded gun, and as I said that is the thing that could kill people.
It's a yes or no question.
There is no chance even if the kid finds the gun and pulls the trigger unless (and I've been saying this all along) he loads the bullets into the gun. But then the gun is a loaded gun, and it does have a large chance of killing someone.

Short answer: No. Explanation: See above. It's because I said "unless" and I made a distinction between a loaded gun and the gun and bullets separate.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Read mine again. It all takes place after the egg is fertilized.
Oh, sorry. My mistake. My post still makes a little sense though, if you think of it how I thought of it...

No, they don't have to. Nor does a fertilized egg have to begin dividing, nor implant in the uterine wall, nor survive to term. Even once the child is born, there is no guarantee that it will survive for any particular length of time. Chance of failure does not differentiate a zygote from a gamete or anything else.
But in my line of categorizing and reasoning the sperm and eggs individually have zero chance of becoming human. I think we can differentiate zero from numbers above zero.

Apparently you all think I'm just drawing lines and categorizing to make myself right. You think that sperm and eggs have a certain potential to become people. You're right, they do. But they only do if they combine. That's the only way they have any chance of becoming a child.

Let me try to give a possible explanation: How do the sperm and egg combine? Sex. Sex is a choice. After that choice has been made, things start happening automatically. It is a process that will continue, unless someone stop it, with an abortion. So, you say the line is drawn at conception because that's where the original choice was made to start. If this choice wasn't made there would be no unborn child to deal with. You wouldn't have to put a stop to things that were already put into motion. If a condom stopped the sperm and egg from combining, nothing was put into motion, so there is nothing to stop.

^I don't know if that cleared anything up or just made me sound like I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass. I'm just having trouble articulating exactly why I feel the need to put the line there. I might be able to expand upon that later. Maybe. Also this line of reasoning doesn't apply well to my gun analogy, so I think I might be dropping that completely.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
Did you read what I said? It specifically says "Nobody talks of being 'pro-smoker' - instead they are 'pro-choice'." They do use Pro-Choice. Maybe not for their official name, but they obviously use it when talking. Just like myself and "Pro-abortion". I don't want to change "Pro-choice" to "pro-abortion", but I don't think there's much problem with using it when talking or debating or whatever.
I apologize for missing that, I searched for "pro choice." But as it turns out, this is irrelevant. You are free to use "pro-abortion" to describe any number of different groups that actually are "pro-abortion." These people are using "pro-choice" to describe themselves, not another group (let alone as part of an argument against that group), and they are not using the term inaccurately with regard to its component words. Both of those facts set them apart from what you propose to do.

Also, I finally waded back through this thread to find where "pro-abortion" was first used, to see if indeed you were using it innocuously. But it turns out, you didn't establish use of the word at all, I did (much to my surprise). Here's how it went down:
Deej: Abortion is risky, childbirth is risky, hell even driving a car is risky. If you risk your life in a car, why not risk it in childbirth
Skel: I'm proposing that no one has the right to force you to do any of those things. It's pro-choice afterall, not pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion
Deej: Yes you are, you're pro-abortion. Don't deny it.

So even if one were to concede that you were aloud to use words with their own private meanings contradictory to their established meanings (you certainly can not), that still wouldn't give you the right to call someone a liar for using it correctly, which is what you did to start this exchange.

Everyone knows she makes peanut cookies and calls them cookies.
No, everyone else doesn't care, just like I don't keep track of which foods I eat have peanut in them, I'm not allergic.

I really doubt she would stop just because someone told her to.
You think she would make cookies to give away, but refuse to say "peanut" when it might save a kid's life, just out of spite? What kind of cookie baking ladies do you know?

The kid who told her obviously knew about them being peanut cookies
The kid who told her probably learned the hard way to ask about baked goods that might contain peanuts, then when he found out he told her (to save any other peanut allergic kids) that she should warn them by simply calling them "peanut cookies." It would take a cruel vindictive witch to refuse to make that concession.

Your kid being sent to the hospital is comparable to if someone here seriously misinterpreted what I've said and began to argue against that. But so far, no one really has
I posted a link to someone who has! Just because no one here has done it (yet) doesn't mean it isn't incorrect/misleading to use the term, (as just because no kid has been sent to the hospital yet doesn't mean the woman wouldn't want to prevent that by simply adding the extra word). I can't believe you're throwing a hissy fit over having to say "legalized." How about "abortion-rights?" Does that work for you?

Pro-choice in reference to the smoking movement doesn't need to be established as a new term, even though the term itself doesn't mean people that are for being allowed to smoke....in the context of their site, pro-choice means people who want the choice to smoke.
There are two things wrong with this reasoning. First, they did have to establish pro-choice as a new term in their context. The one and only time it is used on that page is in a sentence explaining what it means (when they use it to describe themselves). Second, the term is technically accurate for them, they do support choice, a specific kind of choice. In the case of abortion, you propose to call people "pro-abortion" when they oppose abortion! It's blatantly false.

And people that support choice for its own sake would be pro-choice? You can't narrow it down at all?
If you wish to confuse matters, yes, you can apply the term pro-choice to other kinds of choice, as your smoking friends did (in one off-hand comment). But you can't apply the term to other groups who have many members that are against choice. That's a major difference.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
Currently, the law doesn't reflect compromise
Doesn't it though? It denies the worst abortions (3rd trimester), unless the mother's health is at risk (and there's some restriction on the 2nd too isn't there? I can't remember what it is). How is that not a compromise? If the mother thinks she's going to die that's clearly self-defense; you can't fault the law for making that allowance.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
All it requires is for the abortionist to feel that it's in the best interest of the woman's "health" which could mean ANYTHING and most of the time does.
Once again, you're calling licensed physicians liars with no evidence to back it up. It's not very convincing; at the very best it's he said/she said, and the licensed physicians are a lot more credible than you are.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
Okay. Like I said, it isn't a perfect analogy, so it's perfectly understandable that it might be hard to understand.
Here's what I said originally:"What if you have a person in front of you who was just shot in the chest, and there's a 50/50 chance that he's a living human being, similar to a fetus. You think that because we don't know, we can just assume death, so you would be fine with shooting this shot man many more times even though we have no idea if he's a living human being or not."

There is a man, Tom. Tom has recently been shot and you, Dick (I'm just going in order....honestly), come up to him. Tom's lying on the ground, and for my purposes, it is impossible for you to tell if Tom is alive or dead (before I said if he was "a living human being" because that same term could be applied to the fetus). You think that because we don't know if Tom is alive or if he is dead, we can assume he is dead (or, with a fetus, assume it is not a human being). So, let's say you wanted Tom dead for some reason, maybe, didn't want to deal with him because he was your responsibility. So, you decide to shoot him, because you've decided he's as good as dead anyway.

Now I added a little something about responsibility at the end there.. Tell me you got it.
One of the great things about analogy is that it shows us how to solve problems we otherwise have a mental block about. In this case, the analogy tells us that in order to move on with our lives, we have to decide whether we think Tom is dead or not, and act on it. Medical science tells us, if Tom has a heartbeat and brain function, we have agreed that he is alive. Otherwise, he's already dead. Medical science tells us similar things about fetii. I don't know what you're asking, but once you have established what someone needs to have in order to be considered a (live) person, this scenario is not ambiguous.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 01:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
Short answer: No. Explanation: See above. It's because I said "unless" and I made a distinction between a loaded gun and the gun and bullets separate.
So unloaded guns aren't dangerous? Why do we have waiting periods and restrictions about felons buying unloaded guns? We need to repeal those laws immediately!!1

[/sarcasm]
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
Oh, sorry. My mistake. My post still makes a little sense though, if you think of it how I thought of it...
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. It basically says if you can define the combination of sperm and egg as the pivotal point when a new person begins, you can just as easily define the combination of fetus and fresh air as that pivotal point. It's all the same reasoning. Didn't mean that? Here, try it again (I really like this comparison and I want it to get a fair shake):

Take a fertilized egg, by itself. It will never become a child. Wait and wait and wait and it will never become a person. Same goes for growth hormones and nutrients, wait and wait and they will never become a child. But combine the two (fertilized egg and nutrients and hormones), and suddenly one cell incorporates the nutrients and becomes two cells, and then four, then a gastrula and blastula and blastocyst, each time combining with more and more nutrients, eventually becoming a fetus and then a child.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 01:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
How do the sperm and egg combine? Sex. Sex is a choice. After that choice has been made, things start happening automatically. It is a process that will continue, unless someone stop it, with an abortion.
Or any form of birth control. That line of reasoning leads to banning all birth control.

So, you say the line is drawn at conception because that's where the original choice was made to start.
No, you said just a moment ago that the act of sex was where the original choice was made. Again, this leads to banning all birth control.

I'm just having trouble articulating exactly why I feel the need to put the line there.
Well this didn't do it. Try again.

PS. I know why you feel the need to put the line there, because that's what you learned in Sunday school. I'm not arguing that, but it sure is what I'm thinking after all this time. I know how you feel, people are naturally fearful of change. I learned growing up that the line was at the end of the first trimester, with special allowances made after that for protecting the mother's safety � la self-defense. I've decided it probably ought to be moved up to about half that (pending a reliable source for when things like brainwaves are detectable), and if the allowances are being abused (if!), something needs to be done (an abortion audit?). But by all means, try to come up with a factual basis for putting it at fertilization; I'm all ears.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 01:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
There is no chance even if the kid finds the gun and pulls the trigger unless (and I've been saying this all along) he loads the bullets into the gun. But then the gun is a loaded gun, and it does have a large chance of killing someone.
Well there's no chance of the gun killing someone...unless...the trigger is pulled. And there's no chance of a fertilized egg becoming a zygote...unless...it starts dividing and implants in the uterine wall. Basically, you're saying there's no chance as long as the bullets aren't used for the one and only thing they were designed to be used for.

We both agree, life is a continuum, with many steps. There is a certain chance of each of those steps happening, and once each one does, there is a certain different chance of the next one happening. The argument of potentiallity doesn't even make a distinction between steps that are carried out by biomechanics (like the sperm finding the egg or the blastula finding the uterine wall) or by conscious thought (like two people getting married or them deciding to try to have children). It might just as well say that by two people not getting married they are killing the potential of the kids they might have decided to have if they had gotten married. You have to find some other way to decide what constitutes a person. Again, I have proposed a list. Someone please tell me what's wrong with it.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
I wasn't aware that cliff diving only carried a 1% chance of having to swim afterward. I've never tried it so I guess I wouldn't know.
If you don't intend to swim, I wouldn't recommend cliff-diving for sure.
These are all issues of education. And you know what? Maybe kids would know to do all this stuff if talking about sex wasn't shamed out of them by puritan America.
Talking about sex is shamed out them by puritan America? Link please establishing credibility on this point??? Pull your head from the Venus Fly-trap brother. I've got kids and I know exactly what they've been educated on. They've been taught that abstinence is the only way to ensure against pregnancy and STDs, and they've been taught that kids who do engage sex run the risk of the above because they not only didn't adhere to the golden rule, but then misused contraception by... (explaination of how to properly use birth control.)
Kids aren't stupid, they can learn math and how to drive a car.
Kids and people in general are not stupid my friend, but they lack common sense in favor of temporal desires. They lack forethought on implications of having sex. While they are educated on properly using birth control, the moment of stimulus is not the time for thinking clearly. They begin to think like you in sex can only result in the "feel goodz" forgetting that the most profound aspect of sex is pregnancy.
It almost sounds like you're opposing abortion so you won't have to deal with telling kids they won't go to hell just for having sex.
Do you have a link to illustrate this as the view of the Pro-lifer??? Some evidence that your argument holds any weight at all please? Can you measure the number of people who feel this way in accordance with the number of people who simply oppose it because in matters of the question of life or death, they choose life?
How about some evidence. If your arguments are predicated on abortions resulting from irresponsibility, how about a link? How many abortions are the result of carelessness instead of equipment failure?
Failure in equipment can also be attributed to the operator. If the operator was using a condom and failed to pull out, is this equipment failure or operator error resulting in failure. Were you in the bedroom to know? This is not measurable. What I can give you is information compiled by the CDC and AGI, two independant sources and they reported the following;

- 49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; 1/2 of these are terminated by abortion (AGI).
- 82% of all abortions are performed on unmarried women
- Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 33% of all abortions (CDC).
- 52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25, and teenagers obtain 19% (AGI).
- 48% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).
- Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
- Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely (AGI).
- On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
I notice you're repeating yourself without answering my question. Don't sweat it, I'll ask again. After pointing out that all the above are consequences of the same behavior, are you suggesting we ban medical care for all of them? "Got the AIDS, huh, that's too damn bad, you shouldn't have been having sex if you didn't want AIDS. Yeah, I've got a treatment for you, but you can't have any, you're too irresponsible. Maybe next time you'll learn."
You have a knack for keying in on the most obscure and absurd arguments for Pro-abortion that I think I've ever seen. The answer to your silly little question (again, since I've already answered this) is; No. You will not be denied medical treatment for pregnancy. I received a wealth of aid from the State via Medicaid and WIC. We used this aid to see our children through the most volatile ages while working towards a more lucrative career that now enables us to be aid-free, parents, and professionals. This is why those programs are there. You can only suppose abortion is a medical treatment if the mother's life is in danger. In the vast majority of cases of abortion, health of the mother is a comparitively negligable number and per statistics compiled above, is not even taken into account because of it's miniscule percentage of reasons for abortion. i.e. Abortion is not a medical treatment, therefore one cannot say one who carries to term is denying themselves or being denied medical treatment. Lamaze, prenatal treatments, and birth, as well as residual aid via foodstamps, WIC, and Medicaid will all ensure you are well cared for throughout and after the pregnancy.
Did you miss my little scorecard analogy? You don't get a baby after you're a POW. I didn't say they forget, I said they decided it was worth it for the rewards.
You've missed the mantra of mothers on this one. This is something women say to other women who are pregnant in a tongue in cheek fashion; "ahh, it's the type of pain you forget." The fact that a woman would want to give birth naturally must really make you shake your head. What?!? NO DRUGS?!?
If she doesn't want to be pregnant, and our birth control fails, she has a last chance to decide if (first trimester) abortion is the right path for her. If she does, your "poison" idea falls flat. If she doesn't, she must have decided she wants a baby and then it's no longer "poison." (Where did the word poison come from, did you just think of that?)
You reduced a zygote to nothing more than an abusive cell growing like a parasite within a woman's body resulting in torture. Sounds like you're equating a zygote to a sort of poison. There would be no poison had you not injected the woman with the by-product that created the poison. You have in fact injected the woman with a potentially abusive, and life-threatening poison and as such (per your absurdity) should be subject to criminal law. She should at least be able to take you to court for the cost of the abortion, mental anguish, and the counseling that many need after having this perfectly natural procedure performed on them.
You are free to believe that. This is what makes America great, freedom of belief in miracles. America is not, however, about forcing everyone to believe the same thing you do.
Who is forcing who to do what??? Again, you're viewing Pro-Life as being some punitive sentence for unwanted pregnancy. Look, the decision to be placed in this position was already made. 99% of the cases are comprised of those who made a decision to spread their legs. No one forced them to do it. Once a life is conceived, it should be cared for and be placed under the blanket afforded life under our Constitution.
So because you think it's questionable, we should all stop doing it? One side thinks it's necessary for a lot of situations, the other side just doesn't know. Well by all means, let's outlaw it!
So, if a life is not viable in your unprofessional opinion, you should be able to snuff it? Repeatedly??? We're not allowed to do this with house pets legally.
If you have questions, get them answered. Then come back and tell everyone else how to live their lives. You are aware that the death penalty is still legal too, right? If you're trying to prove the "just don't know" argument is enough to start outlawing things, citing another failure of that argument is not going to help you.
Ironically, you didn't call anyone to task for trying to illustrate some hypocracy in those who support the death penalty, but claim to be Pro-Life. I'll remember the statement; Tell them how to live their lives the next time I hear of a guy pressuring his girlfriend to have an abortion. Afterall, with 2 other girlfriends, he can only care for so many children. I think everyone conceived should have the opportunity to live their lives. You're not only trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives, but you're trying to make an unprofessional, uneducated decision on who gets to live at all.
Hold up there, you just said a mouthful. What is your basis for believing that?
The same basis of our forefathers. That life is meaningful and purposeful and all who can, should be encouraged to live this life with pursuit of happiness.
This is really important. You're free to believe it, but if it's just because that's what they always said in Sunday school, that's no basis for declaring it the law of the land.
On the contrary, we've determined a rather extensive list of legislation regarding the "lesser" of us. Much of our system was founded upon the Judeo-Christian aspect of governing and the importance of life, and liberty. There are numerous Federal programs aimed specifically at caring for and provisioning our work places for handicapped individuals, and equal opportunity employment up to and including a place for those more severely mentally challenges. What level of brain activity is necessary for life viability? Have you formulated some opinion on the continuum of importance of life. You seemed to have developed some hierarchy of rights based on the chemical composition of humankind. This has been held by others throughout history of whose company you may or may not appreciate.
I'd like to hear some reasoning behind this theory before we continue discussion which is fundamentally based on it. If possible, I'd like to see a list of what conditions defines personhood and separates people from anything else (for example, from HeLa cells). If you're not ready yet to declare your list, I would like to hear your thoughts on the list I proposed (heart and brain activity, and being descended from other people), or your objection to the idea of clearly outlining what defines personhood.
Conception. Problem with that? I know you like to confound yourself on medical concepts you don't understand, and seek to change other people's minds based on your lack of value in human-life. Existence is a continuum. It starts at conception, while vulnerable works it's way to zygote-hood, then to fetus, then to birth, life, pursuit of happiness, aging, geriatric, vulnerability. It would be easy to take the life of anyone at any point during this continuum as is the case in what we see today based on our decision whether or not a life is viable using concepts we don't understand. When we reduce humankind to an entity that must be allowed to exist or eliminated based on whether or not we believe they are contributing tax dollars, we in fact are devaluating life. Our system was founded upon a belief in the meaning of life outside the medical, outside the logical, and we assign rights based on ideals outside these natural boundaries. Is it wrong to have bio-ethics? Is it wrong to have ethics advisory boards??? At least, historically we have. This majority "sunday school" nation has created a system that produces the world's wealthiest even among our most poor. We have amassed a competitive medical edge in the attempt of saving lives, not taking them.
Procreation occurs in a small percentage of sexual encounters. The "side benefits" occur in a large majority of them. Based on that, I would have to say you have the "purpose" and the "side benefits" reversed. I'm not saying you have to believe the same thing I do on this, but your reasoning is far from conclusive.
I disagree and believe that your view only contains more questions and fewer answers.
I approve of your proposed compromise. But I have never been part of a decision on abortion, nor do I intend to, nor do I think it would be up to me. As such I am not in a position to decide if this compromise would be an undue imposition on people who actually do have multiple abortions. So in case they do have objections let's continue to refine it on the objections we've already heard.
I was simply reiterating my answer to the reason for this thread. A question of ideas regarding how to handle the issue.
So now anyone who makes their living doing something can't be an expert on it?
As easily as they could be mistaken sure.
You know, all doctors make money doing medicine. That doesn't mean they're liars. These are still licensed physicians, and I'm not going to take your word against theirs based solely on conjecture.
I certainly would ask you to do no such thing. I don't think they're all liars. You may know, there's a great many doctors who oppose abortion, feel the abortion "doctor" is a hack-quack, and believe taking life is counter-productive to their call of saving lives. Now we're just debating on which doctors to agree with.
Ok, that's almost evidence, so a gold star for you. What exactly about the numbers causes you to conclude this? What further data would you propose to use to test this theory?
All the numbers comprise my conclusion. No further data needed. The data is quite extensive and comprehensive to those who can see it. It is a matter of socio-economics. One of the answers is to eliminate the lower socio-economic base through abortion. I believe this is genocide, and the wrong answer.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Doesn't it though? It denies the worst abortions (3rd trimester), unless the mother's health is at risk (and there's some restriction on the 2nd too isn't there? I can't remember what it is). How is that not a compromise? If the mother thinks she's going to die that's clearly self-defense; you can't fault the law for making that allowance.
It's not rational to think you are going to die during most any pregnancy, and if the fear of being impregnated and dying is too great, then there is a solution that works effectively 100% of the time that does not require you to kill your offspring.

Once again, you're calling licensed physicians liars with no evidence to back it up. It's not very convincing; at the very best it's he said/she said, and the licensed physicians are a lot more credible than you are.
I'm doing no such thing. A doctor could well think that a women could be better off emotionally (stresswise...though this is the case with all women really) if she didn't have to have a child and let her kill it right before it left the birth canal. Perfectly legal, and it doesn't have to require a single lie or any real health emergency. I'll have to find the story, but there was one hospital that performed partial birth abortions that did then in the second and third trimester, and one witness claimed that they were mostly done electively, not for any clear health emergency. All it takes is for the doctor, who is getting paid, to feel it's what's "best" for the very vague and undefined "health" of the women which again, is no real prohibition at all.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Talking about sex is shamed out them by puritan America? Link please establishing credibility on this point???
If it's your position that talking about sex is not considered "dirty" in American culture, I won't press it. Is that your position?

I've got kids and I know exactly what they've been educated on. They've been taught that abstinence is the only way to ensure against pregnancy and STDs, and they've been taught that kids who do engage sex run the risk of the above because they not only didn't adhere to the golden rule, but then misused contraception by... (explaination of how to properly use birth control.)
So your kids know perfectly well how to use birth control...but anyone getting an abortion just doesn't? I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

While they are educated on properly using birth control, the moment of stimulus is not the time for thinking clearly.
There are moments of excitement in driving too. Do you object to kids being allowed to drive? Or do you think it might be better to do a better job of preparing them to do it right?

Do you have a link to illustrate this as the view of the Pro-lifer??? Some evidence that your argument holds any weight at all please? Can you measure the number of people who feel this way in accordance with the number of people who simply oppose it because in matters of the question of life or death, they choose life?
I was just saying that it looked that way (for you) based on the large amount of your empassioned rhetoric that was about the evils of sex. I was half asking if that was the case, and half asking you to give another more legitimate reason for it.

Failure in equipment can also be attributed to the operator.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. By "carelessness vs equipment failure" I specifically meant "user error vs equipment failure." How many abortions are the result of user error and not equipment failure?

This is not measurable.
You could ask people. It's not a crime, they have no particular reason to lie about it.

- 48% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).
- On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
Yeah, you've mentioned those before. Do they have something to do with user error vs equipment failure?

No. You will not be denied medical treatment for pregnancy.
Ok, so as you've said, abortion and pregnancy are two results of "irresponsibility period." For one you would want to give medical treatment, the other you would want to outlaw. How about the other things you gave in that list (AIDS, STDs, depression, suicide, botched reproductive organs, etc)? Which would you allow treatment for and which would you outlaw and why?

You can only suppose abortion is a medical treatment if the mother's life is in danger.
What about "botched reproductive organs?" The mother can't be allowed to protect herself from that?

You reduced a zygote to nothing more than an abusive cell growing like a parasite within a woman's body
Yes.

resulting in torture.
I'm sorry that got out of hand. Women say it's painful, I believe them. A website says it might not be so bad, I'm skeptical. That's all.

Sounds like you're equating a zygote to a sort of poison.
I don't think there is a single poison that is biological (rather than chemical). But go on.

There would be no poison had you not injected the woman with the by-product that created the poison. You have in fact injected the woman with a potentially abusive, and life-threatening poison and as such (per your absurdity) should be subject to criminal law. She should at least be able to take you to court for the cost of the abortion, mental anguish, and the counseling that many need after having this perfectly natural procedure performed on them.
I'm afraid the usefulness of ignoring whether a 6 week zygote is a person is over. In light of that, for women who don't subscribe to the conception = person philosophy, in order to make your poison analogy valid it would have to be a poison that doesn't take effect for 6 weeks, and the antidote is in danger of being outlawed. Like the flu (if there was a treatment for the flu, which was subject to being outlawed).

Once a life is conceived, it should be cared for and be placed under the blanket afforded life under our Constitution.
Yes, I gather this pretty much sums up your platform. But if I may, I would like to ask for clarification on the language. By "a life," do you mean all life, or just all human life, or just all human life that is a person?

So, if a life is not viable in your unprofessional opinion, you should be able to snuff it? Repeatedly??? We're not allowed to do this with house pets legally.
What do you mean? Even when house pets are "viable" they are allowed to be put down. I'm confused by this statement. (viable means they can survive, not that they are in peak physical condition, unless I'm mistaken)

Ironically, you didn't call anyone to task for trying to illustrate some hypocracy in those who support the death penalty, but claim to be Pro-Life.
How is that ironic? No one here said they support the death penalty, and furthermore the main justification for moral decisions on your side seems to be fault, for which the death penalty would be clearly different.

I'll remember the statement; Tell them how to live their lives the next time I hear of a guy pressuring his girlfriend to have an abortion.
The only person here who has come close to supporting "that guy" (whoever he is) is stupendousman, with his giant shoulder chip about child-support.

I think everyone conceived should have the opportunity to live their lives.
But aparently not if it means you would have to carry them to term yourself.

You're not only trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives, but you're trying to make an unprofessional, uneducated decision on who gets to live at all.
Can't refute the logic so you attack the messenger? What makes you think I'm uneducated or unprofessional, not that it matters? What's your profession, o great master of all things?

What level of brain activity is necessary for life viability?
Some. As opposed to none. If there is some brain activity, that is a qualitative difference from none, and I think it's an important one.

Conception. Problem with that?
Ok, good. Problem? no. I don't agree, but it's not my place to tell you what to believe. But can I just ask does conception mean fertilization? I've never really been clear on this. Is it the moment when the sperm enters the zona pellucida of the egg? Anyway...what about identical twins? Since they only had one conception between them, are they 2 people or 1? And, if that's the criteria, it doesn't rule out HeLa cells, since they came from a fertilization event too. And it doesn't rule out animals either, the ones that reproduce sexually anyway. Do you have any other restrictions on what defines a person (for you)?

Incidentally, I believe that a great many animals (apes, elephants, dolphins, etc) are deserving of rights and protections they probably won't get, and they are much higher on the list than 6 week fetii (of any species). But I'm not pompous enough to think I have a monopoly on the right to force everyone else to believe the same thing I do. So in that vein, supposing you get abortion outlawed, what will you say to someone who comes along and says "I believe that life begins at conception, and I believe that conception is the moment the parents' gametes are deployed towards each other. Therefore all forms of birth control are immoral." Will you say "well that's the same reasoning I used to get abortion outlawed, so I will now help you get all birth control outlawed"? Again, I'm just trying to understand your position.

I know you like to confound yourself on medical concepts you don't understand, and seek to change other people's minds based on your lack of value in human-life.
And I know you like to maximize the number of human lives without regard for the rights or quality of life of the ones that are already around. It's neat to meet people on the internet isn't it? I'm glad we're getting to know each other. What does this have to do with anything?

I disagree and believe that your view only contains more questions and fewer answers.
Well ask them then.

All the numbers comprise my conclusion. No further data needed. The data is quite extensive and comprehensive to those who can see it. It is a matter of socio-economics. One of the answers is to eliminate the lower socio-economic base through abortion. I believe this is genocide, and the wrong answer.
"what about the numbers tells you that?"
"all of them."

That's not an answer.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 10:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
I've only said it is impossible iff the sperm and egg do not meet, which is true. Therefore, going by you're definition, sperm and egg alone have zero potential of becoming a child. However, if they do meet, and they combine to become a fertilized egg, that is when the potential comes in. You'd be right if I didn't say "unless the sperm and egg meet" and if I didn't categorize them accordingly.
Reread my post, or perhaps read a dictionary. You still don't understand what "potential" means and are using it incorrectly.

Any sperm inside any testicle at this moment, along with any egg that has not been flushed out, has potential. If a sperm never meets an egg and DIES, only then is there zero potential. If a zygote or fetus dies, it also has zero potential.

I am right despite you saying "unless the sperm and egg meet" because POTENTIALLY (see how the word is used, again and again) they may meet.

Originally Posted by deej5871
I don't know. It depends on what stage it's in. Either way I'd just be answering your questions via Google, so I won't bother.
Then you won't both being convincing.

Originally Posted by deej5871
No, not everyone is dependent. Adults can survive on their own without help. Young children might even be able to. I'd even give you technically two year olds. But a newborn simply doesn't have the muscle development yet to even move 10 feet on it's own. How would it ever survive without help?

An egg or sperm is not a human because dependency on something is not an argument. You were the one trying to say a fetus is dependent and that's what makes it not human. I disagreed. Now why would I say that a sperm or egg is human because it's dependent?
If you nitpick (as you are doing with newborns in comparison with fetuses), then you could consider many adults dependent on modern services -- there are plenty who would not survive if they didn't have refrigerators, supermarkets, restaurants, etc. to depend on...

But this doesn't matter, because you're "not arguing on dependency."

Why, then, if you would please reiterate, is a zygote more human than an egg and sperm?

I understand these are lines that humans defined. You are the one that was saying life is a continuous cycle and that it is always there (which is true). You had the problem with drawing lines and saying exactly when one life begins. I was attempting to illustrate that lines need to be made sometimes even if things on one side of the line are almost exactly the same as the stuff on the other.
And these current lines are arbitrary. Skel made a good point about this: if Jesus had said in the Bible that a baby's kick is the sign that life has begun, then most people would have no problem with first-trimester abortions.

Why should one place the line at fertilization and not before or after? You're not arguing dependency, apparently (where sperm and eggs depend on their hosts to become humans as much as zygotes do), but you ARE arguing potential (where sperm and eggs, like zygotes, all have the potential of becoming humans).

Anyways, if you offer a compelling argument I'll respond, but I'm getting tired repeating myself in the hopes of you grasping the definition of a word.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
What, are you confused by what you wrote or what? (No offense intended, I just busted up laughing when I saw this though.)

Anyway, I've got to go eat. Skel, I'll reply to your post when I get back.

No just confused about Zim not answering a question directed to him, guess hes chicken. LOL we need a chicken in the smilies list
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 11:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
I'll have to find the story, but there was one hospital that performed partial birth abortions that did then in the second and third trimester, and one witness claimed that they were mostly done electively, not for any clear health emergency.
There have been a lot of arguments lately in this thread about doctors allegedly sidestepping the law regarding late term abortions. This is an argument for better enforcement, not for a different law. It's just as useless as arguing that abortion should not be outlawed because it would force women to unsafe illegal abortion facilities. In both cases the argument is "people will break the law, so why even have a law." It's not a valid argument.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman
So...given that we currently aren't basing our laws on ... equitable rights for both males and females
Is this a hidden reference to your child-support rant? If not, what is it about? If so, go find out what the reasoning for the law was originally. There are literally only 3 possibilities. 1, it was for a good reason before and that's still a good reason, something neither of us has thought of, 2, it was a good reason before but the situation has changed and now it's unfair, or 3, it was never a good reason. There are hundreds of laws of each category everywhere. 2 and 3 are simply cruft from an imperfect system (what system isn't imperfect?), and if either is the case, start a new thread to raise the alarm about it there. It's not relevant to this discussion.

why is it that we continue to have laws based soley on the radical leftward leanings of a majority on the high court?
I don't agree that the court is hijacking the country, but I do think abortion should be a state-by-state issue. Some people want to live in Jesusland, with no knowledge of evolution and thinking the earth is flat. I say let them, and in that case I'm sure whatever state(s) did this would go pro-life and you'd have somewhere to be happy in. Looking back, I say the same could have been said of the civil war; if the south wanted to leave, good riddance. They're not pulling their weight anyway. The most likely outcome (for today's situation at any rate) is a competition between the two kinds of states, for voters, for scientific inquiry, for the tech industry, for everything. And what's more American than competition? Also it would allow both sides (who will never just kiss and make up) to see in practice how (if) the other side's way actually functions. This is not sarcasm, I really think this could work. I would weep for the children who might grow up thinking Noah's Ark is the literal truth and whatnot, but weeping is not the end of the world. It's their choice afterall
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 12:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Stradlater
Reread my post, or perhaps read a dictionary. You still don't understand what "potential" means and are using it incorrectly.

Any sperm inside any testicle at this moment, along with any egg that has not been flushed out, has potential. If a sperm never meets an egg and DIES, only then is there zero potential. If a zygote or fetus dies, it also has zero potential.

I am right despite you saying "unless the sperm and egg meet" because POTENTIALLY (see how the word is used, again and again) they may meet.
Firstly, let's address your wonderful (and unnecessary) scenario. If you are the only man on earth, then yes, your sperm has zero potential to become another human...
These examples of yours, however, were completely unnecessary because you have to completely alter the earth to make your definition of "potential" work.
You agreed that when I made the restriction that if you were the only man on earth your sperm would have zero potential. So why not if I say "if the sperm never combine with an egg they have zero potential" does the restriction still not make the potential zero? And I'm not altering the definition to make it work, I'm restricting it. You may not see a difference, but I do. If you group certain things together based on certain events happening then some of the groups will have potential, and others won't, even if without the grouping they would all of potential.

Why, then, if you would please reiterate, is a zygote more human than an egg and sperm?
I'm trying to tell you why but you won't hear it.

And these current lines are arbitrary. Skel made a good point about this: if Jesus had said in the Bible that a baby's kick is the sign that life has begun, then most people would have no problem with first-trimester abortions.

Why should one place the line at fertilization and not before or after? You're not arguing dependency, apparently (where sperm and eggs depend on their hosts to become humans as much as zygotes do), but you ARE arguing potential (where sperm and eggs, like zygotes, all have the potential of becoming humans).
Again, this has to do with what I'm saying above, which you apparently can't understand.

Anyways, if you offer a compelling argument I'll respond, but I'm getting tired repeating myself in the hopes of you grasping the definition of a word.
Yes, and I haven't repeated myself for your benefit at all..
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 01:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Well there's no chance of the gun killing someone...unless...the trigger is pulled. And there's no chance of a fertilized egg becoming a zygote...unless...it starts dividing and implants in the uterine wall. Basically, you're saying there's no chance as long as the bullets aren't used for the one and only thing they were designed to be used for.
They have no chance of doing it if there is no gun. All bullets are designed to go in a gun, obviously. But if there is no gun, all those bullets are useless. You could have tons of bullets and no guns and you'd have zero chance of killing anyone. You could have tons of sperm, but without an egg you have zero chance of getting a child. As I'm saying to Stradlater, I'm restricting this into different groups.

I just thought of a possible way to explain this with the A, B, C example, but it might get a little confusing. Now, let's say A1=sperm, or a bullet, or the number 5. A2=egg, or a gun, or the number 2. B=fertilized egg, or loaded gun, or the number 7. C= baby, or killed kid, or the number 21. A1 and A2 can combine to equal B. Certain things can, but won't necessarily be done to B to get it to C. A1 and A2 won't ever become C without becoming B first. That's why the line is set at when A1 and A2 combine to become B, because that's when they first have the ability to become C. Before that, there is no way to do anything to A1 or A2 to get them to C without them becoming B first.

We both agree, life is a continuum, with many steps. There is a certain chance of each of those steps happening, and once each one does, there is a certain different chance of the next one happening. The argument of potentiallity doesn't even make a distinction between steps that are carried out by biomechanics (like the sperm finding the egg or the blastula finding the uterine wall) or by conscious thought (like two people getting married or them deciding to try to have children). It might just as well say that by two people not getting married they are killing the potential of the kids they might have decided to have if they had gotten married. You have to find some other way to decide what constitutes a person. Again, I have proposed a list. Someone please tell me what's wrong with it.
Nothing is wrong with your list, I [officially] agree with it. I'm trying to give you some reasons why many people believe "life" starts at conception.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 01:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Or any form of birth control. That line of reasoning leads to banning all birth control.
What? How does a condom allow sperm and egg to combine? It doesn't. Now, I can see to this reasoning banning Morning After pills and the like, but not all birth control.

No, you said just a moment ago that the act of sex was where the original choice was made. Again, this leads to banning all birth control.
That's the original choice made, but the process doesn't start until the gametes combine. Sometimes the original choice has consequences and sometimes it doesn't.

Well this didn't do it. Try again.

PS. I know why you feel the need to put the line there, because that's what you learned in Sunday school. I'm not arguing that, but it sure is what I'm thinking after all this time. I know how you feel, people are naturally fearful of change. I learned growing up that the line was at the end of the first trimester, with special allowances made after that for protecting the mother's safety � la self-defense. I've decided it probably ought to be moved up to about half that (pending a reliable source for when things like brainwaves are detectable), and if the allowances are being abused (if!), something needs to be done (an abortion audit?). But by all means, try to come up with a factual basis for putting it at fertilization; I'm all ears.
Untrue blanket generalization about your opponent. You just lost yourself a little respect from me (not that my respect is worth anything ).
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 01:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. It basically says if you can define the combination of sperm and egg as the pivotal point when a new person begins, you can just as easily define the combination of fetus and fresh air as that pivotal point. It's all the same reasoning. Didn't mean that? Here, try it again (I really like this comparison and I want it to get a fair shake):

Take a fertilized egg, by itself. It will never become a child. Wait and wait and wait and it will never become a person. Same goes for growth hormones and nutrients, wait and wait and they will never become a child. But combine the two (fertilized egg and nutrients and hormones), and suddenly one cell incorporates the nutrients and becomes two cells, and then four, then a gastrula and blastula and blastocyst, each time combining with more and more nutrients, eventually becoming a fetus and then a child.
It sounds like you're arguing that life should be considered started when the fertilized egg starts getting nutrients. That would follow the same reasoning as my views, and I would have no problem with it (seeing as a fertilized egg usually starts getting it's nutrients around the time it is formed).

But, I don't really think that's what you meant. You're saying that you can draw the line anywhere because you can change to the combination of anything you want (I didn't word that well, but I think you'll get it). This goes back to starting a process. To stop a fertilized egg from receiving it's nutrients you would have to stop the automatic process.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 01:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
So unloaded guns aren't dangerous? Why do we have waiting periods and restrictions about felons buying unloaded guns? We need to repeal those laws immediately!!1

[/sarcasm]
Unloaded guns aren't dangerous... Haven't you ever heard comedians talk about how we don't need gun control, we need bullet control? It's very true. I think there's even a serious movement trying to accomplish bullet control rather than gun control.

We're getting off topic I think. This thread isn't about gun-control.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 01:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by deej5871
You agreed that when I made the restriction that if you were the only man on earth your sperm would have zero potential. So why not if I say "if the sperm never combine with an egg they have zero potential" does the restriction still not make the potential zero? And I'm not altering the definition to make it work, I'm restricting it. You may not see a difference, but I do. If you group certain things together based on certain events happening then some of the groups will have potential, and others won't, even if without the grouping they would all of potential.
Don't be an ignoramus. As long as a sperm and egg are currently alive, they have potential. Read a dictionary.

I'm trying to tell you why but you won't hear it.

Again, this has to do with what I'm saying above, which you apparently can't understand.
What you're saying above is that a sperm and egg have no potential if they never meet. In that wording, the only way there's zero potential is if the sperm and egg are already dead. If a zygote is already dead, it has zero potential, too. We could also say a fetus has zero potential if the fetus is stillborn.

A live fetus has potential to become a human individual.
As do live eggs and sperm.

Yes, and I haven't repeated myself for your benefit at all..
And eyes roll to the skies and another ovum dies but no one cries.

You have yet to be convincing as to why the line should be set at fertilization. If the zygote is alive, it has potential, but it could die, and before that zygote is expelled from the body, it has zero potential, just as dead sperm and dead eggs have. But if the sperm is alive, and the egg is alive: potential exists. Look up the word. Look up the word. Look up the word.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 01:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Also, I finally waded back through this thread to find where "pro-abortion" was first used, to see if indeed you were using it innocuously. But it turns out, you didn't establish use of the word at all, I did (much to my surprise). Here's how it went down:
Deej: Abortion is risky, childbirth is risky, hell even driving a car is risky. If you risk your life in a car, why not risk it in childbirth
Skel: I'm proposing that no one has the right to force you to do any of those things. It's pro-choice afterall, not pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion
Deej: Yes you are, you're pro-abortion. Don't deny it.

So even if one were to concede that you were aloud to use words with their own private meanings contradictory to their established meanings (you certainly can not), that still wouldn't give you the right to call someone a liar for using it correctly, which is what you did to start this exchange.
Still..I later clarified that when I said pro-abortion I meant pro-legalized-abortion.

No, everyone else doesn't care, just like I don't keep track of which foods I eat have peanut in them, I'm not allergic.

You think she would make cookies to give away, but refuse to say "peanut" when it might save a kid's life, just out of spite? What kind of cookie baking ladies do you know?

The kid who told her probably learned the hard way to ask about baked goods that might contain peanuts, then when he found out he told her (to save any other peanut allergic kids) that she should warn them by simply calling them "peanut cookies." It would take a cruel vindictive witch to refuse to make that concession.
Before I try and answer these, can you just tell me if this is still relating to abortion or not (How?..you're losing me in your cookies)? It seems to me this is now actually about a lady and peanut cookies...

I posted a link to someone who has! Just because no one here has done it (yet) doesn't mean it isn't incorrect/misleading to use the term, (as just because no kid has been sent to the hospital yet doesn't mean the woman wouldn't want to prevent that by simply adding the extra word). I can't believe you're throwing a hissy fit over having to say "legalized." How about "abortion-rights?" Does that work for you?
Yes, but that someone hasn't read my posts. Remember: context. I said someone here because I'm talking about how I defined it via the context of my posts, which only someone here might misinterpret. Outsiders have nothing to do with it.

Fine. Abortion-rights it is. I think we can finish this futile argument.

(It wasn't a "hissy fit". At least, no more so than yours about me leaving out "legalized". )
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 01:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
One of the great things about analogy is that it shows us how to solve problems we otherwise have a mental block about. In this case, the analogy tells us that in order to move on with our lives, we have to decide whether we think Tom is dead or not, and act on it. Medical science tells us, if Tom has a heartbeat and brain function, we have agreed that he is alive. Otherwise, he's already dead. Medical science tells us similar things about fetii. I don't know what you're asking, but once you have established what someone needs to have in order to be considered a (live) person, this scenario is not ambiguous.
Even if some think heartbeat and brain function are the real deciding factor on whether something is alive or not, others don't. Again, in the Schiavo case I don't think she had any brain waves (I remember a post in the thread saying this, but I don't think it had a source) but many people still thought she was alive. And the only reason the courts ruled that Schiavo wasn't to be kept alive even without her brainwaves is because that's what we believed her wishes were. If we hadn't known her wishes, the courts most likely would have ruled to keep her alive. So, since we don't know the wishes of an unborn child, we should try to keep it alive.
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,