|
|
Post by Horace on Jan 22, 2003 17:38:25 GMT -5
But logically each sperm has the potential for life and I am aware that if it is combined with an egg then, just as you describe, it will eventaully become a baby. If I kill a sperm I kill a cell that has the potential to become a human being.
Can't write any more. Must run off to impregnate someone.
Why do you draw the line at the point when the sperm and egg meet? Why is killing a sperm and an egg OK a second before they combine, but not a second after?
After all, if you didn't interfere they would have combined and grown into a human.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mo on Jan 22, 2003 22:15:29 GMT -5
You know how silly your arguement is! At least I hope you do!
Saying that life begins at conception, is the only time that is NOT arbitrary and subjective. At that point the entire blueprint (DNA) is there. The sex, eye color, hair color, talents...all there!
What is "human" to you?
Number of cells? Does a fat person's life have more value, they have more cells?
Is composition really that important? Why not kill anyone? We are all made of the same crap that is in rocks and stuff. You know better!
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jan 22, 2003 22:30:18 GMT -5
You say I know better but you never answer my questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mo on Jan 22, 2003 22:56:29 GMT -5
A person with an egg, or a sperm, or a liver will not give birth to a child. A person who has conceived, will give birth to a child unless she has a violent operation.
If that does not answer the question, then perhaps I don't understand the question. It does not seem like a question to me, just a silly premise.
If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's butt a'hoppin!
|
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Jan 22, 2003 22:59:04 GMT -5
Sperm and egg may have that potential, BUT NOT ON THEIR OWN. Slime line, and a slim one to cross, but remember most pro-choicers, have pinpointed a time in gestation when a "fetus" becomes human, what 3 months, after conception? THAT seems more barbaric then a second before conception, becuase the second makes the difference between two seperate cells, and one potential of life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jan 22, 2003 23:32:40 GMT -5
I agree that it is problematic for the pro-choicers to draw a line at three months gestation (or anywhere for that matter) but that is not my problem.
I want to know why you draw the line where you do.
The problem for you is that two separate cells ARE "one potential life" in any meaingful sense of the phrase. They contain all of the DNA etc. necessary for life to form.
Why is it OK to kill them a moment before conception but not a moment after? It is all very well to say that conception "is the only time that is NOT arbitrary". Why not? Explain it to me.
The other question that has not been answered (might actually be on a diffrerent thread) was my question in relation to terminology. At the point that a zygote is only two cells do you think it should be called a "baby"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mo on Jan 23, 2003 0:13:41 GMT -5
When a woman finds out she is 3 weeks pregnant, and she could not be happier about, what does SHE call it? She calls it a baby! Of course it's a baby! It is sick to assign other names to a baby (like zygote or fetus) simply because the child came at a less then convenient time. Maybe if someone is in your way in a shopping center parking lot, you should just reason, "it's not a human it's just a pedestrian" and run them over! The Declaration of Independence does not give us the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, SO LONG AS WE DON'T INCONVENIECE anyone else! The fact is, most un-born children have a beating heart and brain waves by the time the women finds out she is pregnant. And abortions are being done to children who could live outside the womb. The case that made late term abortion legal, was all a big lie! www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/SHAKE/ShakeStories/SCanoProfile.asp |
|
|
|
Post by Foamy Dog on Jan 23, 2003 2:51:34 GMT -5
Why is it OK to kill them a moment before conception but not a moment after? It is all very well to say that conception "is the only time that is NOT arbitrary". Why not? Explain it to me. The other question that has not been answered (might actually be on a diffrerent thread) was my question in relation to terminology. At the point that a zygote is only two cells do you think it should be called a "baby"? Hopefully I can help a little in my own simplistic terms though Peanut and Moe, you two are doing great! Here's make take: The moment before conception, the sperm and the egg have not joined and are not going to grow into a life alone. But after they have joined, they are one life, growing as a human. So at this point, in my opinion, this is a baby, a human life. --FD |
|
|
|
Post by Peanut2 on Jan 23, 2003 13:43:31 GMT -5
(original peanut, i cant log on for some reason!) Good question Horace, i really dont know when i would consider it life. So i just believe, that's it's potential for life, is good enough for me. Why before conception, and not after, i think is simply becuase, before, they are two cells, after, they are one with the potential for humanity. I hope that answers your question.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlav02 on Jan 23, 2003 15:30:02 GMT -5
Hello everyone, I just came across this message board today and I wanted to say I have enjoyed reading the posts and seeing the progression of the discussion. I'm another pro-lifer and for those who might not be able to decide whether abortion is good or bad, just ask yourself if you have ever heard a parent you know say, "I wish I'd had an abortion." Probably not, but I'll bet you've heard of someone being haunted by their choice to have one. Also I wanted to find out (and some of you may not know what I'm referring to) what you think of Tim McGraw's song "Red Ragtop". I can't figure out if it calls abortion a sin, or if it's saying abortion's okay when a baby would make life "too difficult."
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jan 23, 2003 18:39:26 GMT -5
I entered this discussion with a question about the terminology that was being used. I do not think that you can seriously call a small collection of cells a baby. Call me sick if you will (Mo) but I am just looking in my dictionary. In any case I just don't think it is helpful to the discussion. It appears to be designed simply to sway the argument by the use of emotive language.
Granted, the collection of cells will become a baby. The question then becomes : at what point should a collection of cells acquire rights and what rights should it acquire?
As stated above, I agree that it is problematic to pick three months (or any time during gestation) as being the point up to which abortion is allowed. Such a point will always be arbitrary.
My problem is that I do not accept that the state of a zygote immediately after conception is such as to warrant the protection afforded to those of us who have already been born. I think that there is a fundamental difference between sentient beings and two cells stuck together (notwithstanding their potential).
And this is relevant in the abortion debate when you consider such options as the "morning after" pill. At that time you really are just talking about a blob of cells.
When an abortion takes place a potential person is destroyed. But, as I have argued, there are a lot of "potential persons" out there (in the form of sperm and eggs) that will never even be conceived.
Mo wrote: "Why not kill anyone?"
Well I think that the answer to that is apparent. It would make for a pretty miserable society. As things stand we live in a society that has had no trouble distinguishing between abortion and murder. If it were not so then there would be a strong argument against abortion on a public policy ground. As things stand the only poeple who seem to find it difficult to make the distinction are those who murder the doctors who perform abortions.
I do not think that the answers are easy but you will have appreciated by now that I am in favour of allowing abortions.
Up to what point in the gestation process? I do not know.
Under what circumstances? Well, I think you either allow abortions or you don't. If you think abortion is murder then you cannot allow it under any circumstances. If you think that abortion is permissible then it probably should be allowed in most cases where a woman determines that she wants an abortion. It is pretty much all or nothing (with a limited number of exceptions).
Finally, the suggestion by carlav02 that we should attach some significance to the fact that parents do not tend to state that they wish they had aborted their children is a nonsense. It is what I believe smart people call an ex post facto argument. I already know and love my children. To say that I wish they had been aborted is tantamount to saying that I wish they were dead. Had they been aborted I would not have known them and would have an entirely different view of the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Jan 25, 2003 1:00:39 GMT -5
Horace, i dont mean to be turning this argument around in circles, but why so much faith in your dicitonary? I mean, i dont know if you have kids, neither do i, but is your first reaction to your wife's news of "we're pregnant!" gonna be "tell me in a couple of months, when it's human". I dont think so, you're most likely gonna be thrilled, that she is pregnant, with YOUR CHILD? Or am i mistaken?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jan 25, 2003 1:35:13 GMT -5
I don't think amount of cells, size, or shape makes someone human. I'm not the same size or shape I was when I was an infant, and unfortunately, I'm not the same size and shape I was at eighteen!
I don't know where Peanut got the three month figure from. Here in the U.S. people abort viable infants.
The only ? is - is it a human life. If not a conception, then when?
To say that you're not sure when life begins but you are pro "choice" is like saying you're not sure if there are people in the abandoned building, but giving the go-ahead for the crew to knock it down with the wrecking ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foamy Dog on Jan 25, 2003 2:51:04 GMT -5
It seems pretty simple to me: The moment it starts growing, it has life; thus, it's a baby. To say anything else to me is like saying: "Well it starts out as a fungus and left untreated it wil turn into a human!"  --FD |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jan 27, 2003 19:39:16 GMT -5
To Peanut:
Why so much faith in my dictionary? Because it tells me what words mean. Do you have a higher authority?
And yes, I do have kids. My first verbal reaction when my wife told me she was pregnant was a coloquial expresion of surprise. Why would I say, "Tell me in a few months". That makes no sense (no matter what your view is about whether a foetus is a baby).
I was thrilled that we were GOING TO HAVE a child.
To Mo:
I do not advocate discrimination against the thin because they have fewer cells. So you can get that out of your mind right now.
I just ask why you think that two cells stuck together should be afforded the same rights as a person. There are obvious differences between you and a newly formed zygote. One of the most obvious being that you can think for yourself (after a fashion) and it doesn't have a brain.
As was pointed out by another poster, up to a point a human foetus is hard to distinguish from a fish foetus. I am aware that it will, one day, become a person but I am concerned at the lack of logic in the argument that says that you can easily draw a distiction between an egg just fertilised and an egg one second away from being fertilised.
To Foamy Dog:
You need to look at your dictionary.
|
|
