Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Abortion Abortion Forum - A complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issue


Thanks Tree18Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2017, 09:18 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
No problemo.

Dodge of what? Saying it's a technicality is like someone describing part of a law as a loophole; any part of any law can be called a loophole by someone who's dissatisfied with the law.

I get that from people who ask when does life begin as though there's some sort of starting point a few days or weeks or whatever after conception; I'm the one who doesn't know where they're getting that from and trying to make some sense out of it.

With the exception of that which commenced almost 4 billion years ago, life doesn't begin again or re-begin, it "splits" or "branches" (for the lack of knowing better words of describing it) into new generations at conception. If people want, they can say "when does new life begin", at least that would be a little more clear - that's essentially my point.
i get your point, and i have no argument with it. sure life began about 4 billion years ago, in the first cell in which life was first breathed, i think thats how darwin put it. and it has been a continuous unbroken line since then. every living cell can ultimately trace their lineage back to that one, first primordial living cell.

however, thats generally not the point of the debate. pro choicers always acknowledge that a foetus is alive, is composed of living cells, thats never denied. what is denied is that this small collection of cells does not constitute a person. its not yet a human being. its living cells, but its not a 'human life'.

my argument is always that we should be consistent, and my position remains consistent with this issue, and with any other issue. the individual, the new person, the 'human life' begins when their brain turns on. human beings are defined by our brain. its the brain that forms our consciousness, its where our feelings happen, its where our thoughts occur, it is the seat of our mind. essentially we are our brains. and the human brain doesnt start doing any of this until 20 weeks gestation at the absolute earliest.

we decide that a persons life is over when their mind, the neurochemical activity in their brain, ends. thats really the only criteria. lets be consistent and agree that a persons life begins when their mind, the neurochemical activity in their brain, starts.
Thanks from catus felis and goober
hot dragon is offline  
Old November 14th, 2017, 09:33 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
No I essentially don't agree. I don't refer to it as murder, though, because of the legal definition; I prefer just calling it manslaugher or slaughter, so I'll be using that word in place of "murder" to express my position.

Why does it (the baby, fetus, empryo, zygote, or whatever you want to call it before it's born) necessarily have to be slaughtered? Why can't it be a procedure that repositions the zygote or embryo (I'm not sure what stages have what impact, but I would imagine they play a role), if it can be done? Even if that's not a feasible option, why can't it simply be removed without having to tear or cut it up? Why can't it be removed as one undamaged piece to die peacefully?

I suppose there are legal reasons for why it's executed before it's removed from the mother, but that can be fixed by simply writing or rewriting the laws so they won't encompass certain situations that aren't intended by the purpose, point, or spirit of the law in question.

What if we develop the means to transfer these pre-birth stage "babies" to surrogate mothers (or "surrogate fathers" - I can already see the TV show or movie scripts/plots for this one)? Suppose one day we invent a synthetic womb and we can trasfer these pre-birth stage "babies" to them, in the situations where they can't be repositioned or transferred to the appropriate position in the mother's uterus?

The point is I don't get the reason for ever slaughtering or "murdering" them, per se. If it has to come to it, just let them die "naturally".
the technology to remove an ectopic pregnancy alive and undamaged simply doesnt exist. we can remove it quite easily but it is by neccessity destroyed in the process.

maybe one day we will develop such technology, maybe ectopics can be moved to the uterus, or an artificial womb/ incubator. maybe. that solves a problem for a few people in a distant imagined future. right now though, whenever there is an ectopic pregnancy, it is killed.

allowing it to die naturally nearly always results in the mother also dying. thats why they are removed. but the foetus itself is a normal, healthy foetus, it is a unique member of its species, just like any other foetus, it isnt deformed, it was naturally concieved and is, according to any pro life argument, an unborn child. and this child is killed to save mums life.

imagine a scenario where a woman has a baby, but also has a fatal congenital heart disease. the only way to save her life is a heart transplant. thankfully, her baby is a normal healthy baby and also a compatable donor, so the baby is killed (and its heart harvested) to save the life of the mother.

now i would hope you would be aghast at such a suggestion. but this is the same situation as an ectopic pregnancy: mum will die if we do not do a procedure that will inevitably kill the baby. the only difference is the age of the baby, one is a born child, the other is a 6 week old embryo. killing one of them is evil, killing the other is ok.
Thanks from catus felis
hot dragon is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 02:38 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,246
5 year young girl isn't alone in USA right women and guys ??? Is crap with alone in big city in every country in planet Earth as youngster. This I wonder with youngsters in planet Earth. They can failure against crime.
McCoy is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 02:46 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,246
I am 31 in ages in lived in house with personnal with food time maximum 3 time in food time per day then it's evening food time and coffee time 15.00 and 19.00 in my lived house even I lived alone in 400 dollar rent it's clearer with old humanity they can lived alone even not 100 percent alone with old family mother, father, Brother and sister and sisters Children + new friends with me old foreign friends never want me after one I don't care about with my old foreign friends he wanted to kill me Before how isn't best for me so he's dumbass from Poland.
McCoy is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 02:54 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,246
I leaving one poles in educating then I am not with him friends how were my old foreign friends this foreign friends are anti America but we lived in same city in South so we can meet without my friend just are poles with kill feeling because they lose WW2 against Nazi Germany this poles will revange me because I am not Communist as him gang membering both Communist and Progressives and anti Nazi but this gang likes rap Music and blacks in America. Gang is scarred about White Americans they never know this people. Isn't anti Nazi Christian terrorism ??? Clearly not real democracy with anti Nazi !!!

This are since WW2 with this gang. And they never loving soccer.

Last edited by McCoy; November 15th, 2017 at 02:58 AM. Reason: non idendity
McCoy is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 02:59 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,246
Aren't Nazi better than Racism but Americans are smaller part of Nazism because are many black citizen ???
McCoy is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 04:28 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,246
I say VP in White house is against abortion.
McCoy is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 11:09 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
i get your point, and i have no argument with it. sure life began about 4 billion years ago, in the first cell in which life was first breathed, i think thats how darwin put it. and it has been a continuous unbroken line since then. every living cell can ultimately trace their lineage back to that one, first primordial living cell.

however, thats generally not the point of the debate. pro choicers always acknowledge that a foetus is alive, is composed of living cells, thats never denied.
I get that it isn't the point. What I'm taking issue with is how the wording is being structured & misused as a component to make a point or argument, or ask a question such as "when does life begin". My point is that that's not a relevant question; the relevant question is this: when does a new life begin? The answer is simple and unambiguous, a new life begins at conception.

If everyone can agree with that, I'm totally willing to move on beyond the "quibbling" & splitting hairs over semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
what is denied is that this small collection of cells does not constitute a person. its not yet a human being. its living cells, but its not a 'human life'.
What does "person" or "human being" mean, and what difference does it make whether or not someone somewhere decided to slap a label or not slap a label on something? It's what it is (or isn't) and what someone wants to do to it that matters, not what someone wants to call it or doesn't want to call it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
my argument is always that we should be consistent, and my position remains consistent with this issue, and with any other issue. the individual, the new person, the 'human life' begins when their brain turns on.
Why is that the criteria? Who decided that that's the criteria? Maybe it is, and maybe it's a good criteria; I don't know. What I'm asking is how do you take things we know, understand, accept & agree on, then go from there to draw any conclusion. Show me how I can start from a foundation to draw the same conclusion and I'll go along with you. Until then, I have nothing to defend such an argument & that's what I'm looking for.

I've actually changed my position on abortion because I took new aspects into consideration. I used to consider anything we did to intentionally end a pregnancy (prematurely, leading to the death of the unborn child, etc.) as abortion and as something unacceptable. Later on I took into consideration that we have a right to put whatever we want to in our mouths (i.e. what we eat or drink), and if that happens to be some herbal tea or drink that can induce a miscarriage, that's nature's fault & not something I can say is unacceptable (otherwise I'd have to be telling people what they're allowed to eat & drink, and I don't want to do that).

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
human beings are defined by our brain.
I get where you're trying to go with this, but technically I disagree. I'd rather say that human beings are defined by their DNA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
its the brain that forms our consciousness, its where our feelings happen, its where our thoughts occur, it is the seat of our mind. essentially we are our brains. and the human brain doesnt start doing any of this until 20 weeks gestation at the absolute earliest.

we decide that a persons life is over when their mind, the neurochemical activity in their brain, ends. thats really the only criteria. lets be consistent and agree that a persons life begins when their mind, the neurochemical activity in their brain, starts.
Who's "we"? I don't necessarily agree with these premises, or definitions (that's what they really are). That isn't a problem of consistency or inconsistency. It looks like you're coming up with the definitions you want to apply to words and you want people to go along with your meanings & interpertations, and when you refer to being consistent you're talking about people accepting or agreeing with your definition. But whether or not people agree or accept your definition or interpretation, etc., even though that is a matter of being consistent, has nothing to do with the issue, which is whether or not it is acceptable to kill that which has existed since conception.

What would be consistent and relevant to the matter would be whether it is acceptable to kill something that has existed since conception or not, and to stick to that decision. If it's acceptable to kill a baby before it's born, then it's consistent that it's acceptable to kill a baby after it's born, and consistent that it's acceptable to kill a baby 1 year later, or a 10 year old child, or a 20 year old adult, or 30 or 40 or 50, etc. and everything in between. What would be inconsistent is to say that during this time it's ok but during that time it's not ok; that's just arbitrary.
Neil is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 11:26 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
the technology to remove an ectopic pregnancy alive and undamaged simply doesnt exist. we can remove it quite easily but it is by neccessity destroyed in the process.

maybe one day we will develop such technology, maybe ectopics can be moved to the uterus, or an artificial womb/ incubator. maybe. that solves a problem for a few people in a distant imagined future. right now though, whenever there is an ectopic pregnancy, it is killed.

allowing it to die naturally nearly always results in the mother also dying. thats why they are removed. but the foetus itself is a normal, healthy foetus, it is a unique member of its species, just like any other foetus, it isnt deformed, it was naturally concieved and is, according to any pro life argument, an unborn child. and this child is killed to save mums life.

imagine a scenario where a woman has a baby, but also has a fatal congenital heart disease. the only way to save her life is a heart transplant. thankfully, her baby is a normal healthy baby and also a compatable donor, so the baby is killed (and its heart harvested) to save the life of the mother.

now i would hope you would be aghast at such a suggestion. but this is the same situation as an ectopic pregnancy: mum will die if we do not do a procedure that will inevitably kill the baby. the only difference is the age of the baby, one is a born child, the other is a 6 week old embryo. killing one of them is evil, killing the other is ok.
I think I was able to follow along with you right up to the very end. Perhaps if you said "killing one of them is evil, killing the other is ok" with "killing one of them is unacceptable, killing the other is ok (or acceptable)", I'd be able to follow along. The issue I have is with the word "evil", which is essentially a word with a religious context, and I'm not religious. However, I do see from the dictionary definition that it can also mean harmful or injurious; in that case any killing is harmful or injurious & beyond, in both cases, equally. Isn't it a matter of being consistent, if it's ok to kill in an ectopic pregnancy then it shouldn't it also be ok to kill for a heart? What's the difference? BTW, if you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in a movie called "The Island" (2005) starring people like Scarlett Johansson, Sean Bean, Steve Buscemi, and the late Michael Clarke Duncan; it involves that sort of ethical issue/dilemma/situation.

Getting back to the surgery procedures issue, if we have any other disease or problem that requires surgery or other form of medicine, we throw money at it to look for a cure or treatment. If there is no procedure for dealing with ectopics without causing any damage, then maybe we ought to throw money at developing such technology as well. There might be parents out there who don't want to sacrifice their unborn child because of an ectopic pregnancy problem.

Last edited by Neil; November 15th, 2017 at 11:36 PM.
Neil is offline  
Old November 19th, 2017, 01:36 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post

...

I get where you're trying to go with this, but technically I disagree. I'd rather say that human beings are defined by their DNA.

...
Quote:

“An estimated 10^16 cell divisions take place in a normal human body in the course of a lifetime… Even in the environment that is free of mutagens, mutations will occur spontaneously at an estimated rate of about 10^-6 mutations per gene per cell division-a value set by fundamental limitations on the accuracy of DNA replication and repair. Thus, in a lifetime, every single gene is likely to have undergone mutation on about 10^10 separate occasions in any individual human being…”

...

In fact, “in a human body with more than 10^14 cells, billions of cells experience mutations every day…”


“Molecular Biology of the Cell”, Alberts et al.
So then, which variant of DNA would an adult human being be "defined by" when said organism has, quite literally, billions of cells all carrying unique genetic sequences of DNA?

Indeed, even a human blastocyst with merely 16 cells can potentially have cells with 16 unique genetic sequences. And, with regards to this scenario, how many human beings would said blastocyst be comprised of if, as you said, "human beings are defined by their DNA?"

Moreover, cancerous tumors in humans are also typically comprised of cells which carry unique sequences of DNA, quite often with just a single point mutation when compared with a normal human cell's genetic sequence. So then, in order to be consistent, shouldn't those particular cancerous tumors also be human beings?
Thanks from RNG and catus felis

Last edited by baloney_detector; November 19th, 2017 at 01:43 AM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Tags
antiabortion, crowd, question



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Time for the Anti-Gay Marriage crowd to give up RNG Political Humor 4 June 30th, 2016 08:06 AM
Abortion Rights Leader Nails Hypocrisy Of Anti-Abortion Activists LongWinded Abortion 3 December 14th, 2015 03:06 PM
Finally... A Good Idea By The Anti-War Crowd! Jefferson Warfare 2 November 21st, 2006 05:20 AM
Anti-War Crowd and Fascist Islam In Bed Together alias Warfare 37 September 6th, 2006 12:15 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.