robotfire Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Maybe I should've said "Christian right"?Even then, it pretty much only applies to Catholics and a few others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Even then, it pretty much only applies to Catholics and a few others. Palin and Bachmann have an abstinence only policy and they're Christian. (Hasn't worked out very well for Palin tho) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 No once society is okay with the taking of life in self interests then it you will get what we have now.People can try to justify it all they want a person can say that another deserved it because they were a thief Another may justify it by saying they would feel they are not ready to be a mother and they do not feel it is right to bring a person into the world and have them feel unwanted. there is a key difference between the two scenarios, one is by choice (unless there is rape invovled). and one isnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 No there is no difference it is the same view of what is yours and how much value you place on that verses the life of another The only difference is the baby does not make any decisions in the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 can we please save the guns argument for a different thread? Seriously, this is an abortion thread and its not some soapbox to go on about how evil gun-owners are. If you want a thread about how all gun owners are selfish, then start that thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 It is discussing the value one holds on life and the excuses one makes in taking the life another. People it seems do not want to take a look at this they want to be able to demonize one or the other. If you want to say it is wrong to take a life for any reason other that self preservation then you have to hold all to the same standard not just a pregnant woman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 If you want to say it is wrong to take a life for any reason other that self preservation then you have to hold all to the same standard not just a pregnant woman Good thing I don't mind the taking of life then,the defining line of innocent life still holds sway with me though. Are all equally innocent or guilty in society? The offense of a fetus is simply existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 You say the baby is innocent and deserves to live no matter how others see it and you see a thief as deserving of death and others see him as someone just trying to survive. Like I stated before if you can judtify taking the life of another then so can another person and you are no more moral than that person, you may choose to see yourself better than others or more justified but in the end you have both place a value on the life of another and have them to be worth less then the goods or time you have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 So a fetus = a thief? This is nimble thinking? I guess it is a step up from the parasite crowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 What about women who have to get IVF to get pregnant? The embryo transfer typically takes place 2-5 days after egg retrieval. So, is the embryo in the petri dish (which obviously isn't dependent on the mother for cell division) still considered to be a "life"? what if someone accidentally drops the embryo on the floor? Is that manslaughter? What about how they sometimes choose which embryos to implant and discard others based on how they embryos are graded? Is that considered/should be considered eugenics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 What about women who have to get IVF to get pregnant? The embryo transfer typically takes place 2-5 days after egg retrieval. So, is the embryo in the petri dish (which obviously isn't dependent on the mother for cell division) still considered to be a "life"? what if someone accidentally drops the embryo on the floor? Is that manslaughter? What about how they sometimes choose which embryos to implant and discard others based on how they embryos are graded? Is that considered/should be considered eugenics? I tend to go with the general scientific consensus it is not a individual life till about 14 days....till more evidence indicates otherwise but yes I consider IVF eugenics, being so does not make it evil of itself I do find this kind of thing disturbing nonetheless http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017818/Embryos-involving-genes-animals-mixed-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 What about women who have to get IVF to get pregnant? The embryo transfer typically takes place 2-5 days after egg retrieval. So, is the embryo in the petri dish (which obviously isn't dependent on the mother for cell division) still considered to be a "life"? what if someone accidentally drops the embryo on the floor? Is that manslaughter? What about how they sometimes choose which embryos to implant and discard others based on how they embryos are graded? Is that considered/should be considered eugenics? I would think like with regular sex and the egg being fertalized i would consider a woman killing the fetus after it has taken hold to be even worse. (due to all the extra effort). Until the baby takes hold and has a chance at life its just an attempt. to be crass is a petri dish hitting the floor any different than male masterbation hitting the floor? If the child was conceived in good faith with the womens concious decision, how could the child be a thief? Though thief and parasite are great adjectives to remove the innocence of an unborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 well, males masturbating don't run the risk of having their little swimmers come into contact w/ an egg, so IMO- whack off all you want TWA: If you believe an individual life doesn't begin until 14 days, would you be opposed to an abortion pill that works at that early stage of pregnancy? Also, just out of curiosity, why 14 days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 well, males masturbating don't run the risk of having their little swimmers come into contact w/ an egg, so IMO- whack off all you want TWA: If you believe an individual life doesn't begin until 14 days, would you be opposed to an abortion pill that works at that early stage of pregnancy? Also, just out of curiosity, why 14 days? You said drop it on the floor= manslaugher? Dropping a petri dish on the floor runs the risk of having their little swimmers come into contact? Are you using the 5 second rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 You said drop it on the floor= manslaugher?Dropping a petri dish on the floor runs the risk of having their little swimmers come into contact? Are you using the 5 second rule? No, I'm asking if an embryo (already fertilized) is dropped on the floor is that manslaughter? A guy masturbating isn't having sex, so there isn't a chance for his sperm to fertilize anything, therefore IMO, masturbation is not even in the same ball park as the petri dish which contains a fertilized group of cells (embryo) being dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 TWA: If you believe an individual life doesn't begin until 14 days, would you be opposed to an abortion pill that works at that early stage of pregnancy? Also, just out of curiosity, why 14 days? There is a period before where cell division can split for multiple births,I believe it is life,just not a clearly defined individual one....it is a line they draw with cloning and other embryonic experiments as well the morning after pill I have no real objection to...RU 486 ect I don't like,but it at least largely eliminates society's participation(I do support a parents right to kill their child/fetus,but it is not something society or govt should support imo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 It has always amazed me how concerned conservatives are about life . . . right up until that baby pops out. Then **** em. Good luck, your own our own and not our problem. I would agree to more anti-choice laws if we all agreed that all children will have access to free healthcare, free childcare and free pre-k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 It has always amazed me how concerned conservatives are about life . . . right up until that baby pops out. Then **** em. Good luck, your own our own and not our problem. I would agree to more anti-choice laws if we all agreed that all children will have access to free healthcare, free childcare and free pre-k. On your own? WE require parents to provide for their needs by law We provide emergency care We provide basic sustenance(if their parents don't blow it on drugs) We take custody of a child that is seriously deprived we even provide much free pre-K though that one seems a bit silly as a condition for giving them a shot at life I say cut the funding for some adult wastes of oxygen and use the savings to pay for kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 No, I'm asking if an embryo (already fertilized) is dropped on the floor is that manslaughter? A guy masturbating isn't having sex, so there isn't a chance for his sperm to fertilize anything, therefore IMO, masturbation is not even in the same ball park as the petri dish which contains a fertilized group of cells (embryo) being dropped. A fertalized egg means nothing without a 'willing" home... its a stronger, smarter step, but is still just an attempt until a uterus wall accepts it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 A fertalized egg means nothing without a 'willing" home... its a stronger, smarter step, but is still just an attempt until a uterus wall accepts it. I actually agree with you. I basically wanted others' perspectives on if it matters if it's implanted in the uterus or still in a lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 So a fetus = a thief?This is nimble thinking? I guess it is a step up from the parasite crowd How one view life is all through the eyes of the beholder. I find it a little difficult to take seriously one who talks about the sanctity of life when they tend to asociate themselves with those who refer to those in trade unions, public workers and those social assistence as parasites. And see those who steal as deserving death. You want to see a world where abortion becomes less and less then contribute to a world where a balanced view on the value of a person is held at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 For anyone interested, this is a pretty good explanation of the earliest stages of human development and the means of assessing when the zygote becomes a distinct human organism. Its a short paper but it gets into cloning as well. http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf I thought this was pretty good: Why has it been so difficult to define when a human life begins? Why has the view that life begins at syngamy (or at even later developmental stages) been so compelling for so many scientists and physicians? Those who advocate syngamy as the beginning of life appear to find it intuitively obvious that syngamy completes the unique events of the first cell cycle and produces “full union” of the gametes; until syngamy occurs, the “process” of fertilization is still underway. Those who advocate an even later point for the onset of life do so on the basis of a similar argument: the embryo has not yet fully formed until specific structures or processes are in place; until these “defining” events occur, the process of fertilization (or of embryo formation) is still underway. Clearly, if fertilization is seen as a process rather than as an event, then prior to the completion of this process the zygote is not yet fully present. Based on this view, the cell that results from the fusion of sperm and egg is not a new individual but, as expressed recently by a colleague, merely “a unique human cell in the process of becoming a new human, but not there yet.” This way of thinking about human development is compelling to many because it is similar to our thinking about the much more familiar process of manufacturing. A car is not a car until it rolls off the assembly line—until then it is a bunch of parts in the process of becoming a car, but not there yet. Similarly, a cake is not a cake until it comes out of the oven—until then it is a variously gooey mass of flour, sugar, eggs, and butter that is gradually becoming a cake. However, a profound difference exists between manufacturing and embryonic development. The difference is who (or what) is doing the “producing.” The embryo is not something that is being passively built by the process of development, with some unspecified, external “builder” controlling the assembly of embryonic components. Rather, the embryo is manufacturing itself. The organized pattern of development doesn’t produce the embryo; it is produced by the embryo as a consequence of the zygote’s internal, self-organizing power. Indeed, this “totipotency,” or the power of the zygote both to generate all the cells of the body and simultaneously to organize those cells into coherent, interacting bodily structures, is the defining feature of the embryo. An additional problem with comparing embryogenesis to manufacturing is that, unlike the building of an automobile, there is no actual endpoint to the “building” of a human being. Human development is an ongoing process that begins with the zygote and continues seamlessly through embryogenesis, fetogenesis, birth, maturation, and aging, ending only in death. If the zygote is a manufactured “product” of an ongoing developmental process, at what point along this continuum does a human being actually exist? Why is a cell that has undergone syngamy a human zygote and not merely a “unique human cell in the process of becoming a new human, but not there yet”? Indeed, why consider the entity present at the end of embryogenesis or at birth a human being, and not merely “a unique collection of human cells in the process of becoming a new human, but not there yet”? Once a concession has been made to the concept of manufacture and to an arbitrary point at which development has proceeded “far enough” along the assembly line to generate a human being, the precise positioning of this point becomes purely a matter of preference, convenience, and the power to enforce one’s view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 I actually agree with you. I basically wanted others' perspectives on if it matters if it's implanted in the uterus or still in a lab. Someone dropping it isn't that good of a example(no offense) How about we up it to someone stealing them or destroying them?......or if they were implanted in someone else w/o your consent? would they just be a clump of cells then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Someone dropping it isn't that good of a example(no offense)How about we up it to someone stealing them or destroying them?......or if they were implanted in someone else w/o your consent? would they just be a clump of cells then? I still think that unless they're attached to the uterine wall they're still just a cluster of cells. Now if they were implanted in someone else and attached to the wall, then that's a totally different situation. I honestly don't know how to respond to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I think its the process rather than the environment. If the cluster of cells are generating the process of human development, either inside or outside the womb, it is a human organism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.