Nose scratching is mass genocide?

 
M is for Malapert
 
Avatar
 
 
M is for Malapert
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  23-09-2006
 
 
 
08 January 2008 12:56
 
frankr - 08 January 2008 05:18 PM

Abortion is the leading cause of infant death. A spontaneous abortion is a micarriage. It is a natural death.

What color ribbon does their charity have? 

If anyone REALLY believed this, there would be billions of dollars thrown at prevention.

I agree the killing of children is repugnant both in and out of the womb.

Yes, we can tell how agitated you are about this.

 
 
M is for Malapert
 
Avatar
 
 
M is for Malapert
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  23-09-2006
 
 
 
08 January 2008 13:05
 

To take just one example:

“Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term ‘embryo’ is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy.”
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

“That is growing into another individual of the species”. 

As I’ve said before, if x is in the process of becoming y, x is not now y.

The rest is mostly opinion or misinformation, as the cloning experts pointed out.  Mature eggs are diploid, not haploid.  The genes of egg and sperm never meet in the zygote.  There is no single-nucleus, new-DNA being until after the first cell division.

Remember that oogenesis and fertilization only started being understood in the 1930s, Frank.  (A biologist at Woods Hole thought it was unfortunate that fertilization was first studied in sea urchins, since for them fertilization does lead to the existence of a new independent organism.  This has led to all kinds of subsequent misunderstandings.)

New research is ongoing and new things keep being discovered all the time.

 
 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
08 January 2008 14:19
 
frankr - 08 January 2008 05:18 PM

Abortion is the leading cause of infant death. A spontaneous abortion is a micarriage. It is a natural death. Your logic seems to be embryos die naturally what difference is it, if we kill them. Old people die as do the sick and the infirm, let’s kill them too. I agree the killing of children is repugnant both in and out of the womb.

I’m no scientist but this human being went from a zygote to an embryo to an infant to a child awfully quick, it hasn’t left the womb yet, has it?

Is life a continuum? Of course it is. A sperm and an egg from two human beings who are of age to produce those things, the meeting of the two through the act of coitus (or artificial nowadays), all the stages of development previously described herein, etc., etc. Miss any link in this continuum, then there’s no life.

Obviously, each stage of development is different than the other with respect to its level of functioning. This fact should be taken into consideration from a moral and legal aspect in allowing abortion, and when considering abortion.  But how does all this prescribe the right for anyone providing input here to make the ultimate and difficult decision for a woman who’s circumstances you know nothing of and, since it’s her body, reserves the right for herself?

One can see where out of the womb presents a whole other set of principles with each stage and circumstance being different also, such as euthanasia, artificial prolongation of life, exercising the death penalty, etc.

 
 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
22 January 2008 10:03
 

And the states determine when there is personhood.They put restriction on abortion in the last semester.
Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy: through reason, we determine at what stage we begin and stop. Here the states decide.Through reason, we start with consciousness to determine if there might be personhood.
So, Goodygraydrub is so right.

 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
22 January 2008 10:04
 

And the states determine when there is personhood.They put restriction on abortion in the last semester.
Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy: through reason, we determine at what stage we begin and stop. Here the states decide.Through reason, we start with consciousness to determine if there might be personhood.
So, Goodygraydrub is so right.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
jackdav
Total Posts:  5
Joined  23-01-2008
 
 
 
23 January 2008 20:40
 
mcalpine - 05 January 2008 03:33 PM

Now is a good time to test the “life begins at conception” issue. On December 31, any woman who is pregnant should claim an extra dependent for income tax purposes. No guts, no glory.

I’m a tax preparer and no one has ever claimed a fetus as a dependent yet! grin

 
Ecurb Noselrub
 
Avatar
 
 
Ecurb Noselrub
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
24 January 2008 15:37
 

Let’s throw a little crime into the mix. The Texas Penal Code, Section 1.07 defines “individual” as “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.” Then, section 19.02(b)(1) defines murder as “intentionally or knowingly taking the life of an individual.”  So, in Texas, you can be prosecuted for murdering a fetus. Should a person who intentionally shoots a pregnant woman in her 36th week and intentionally kills the almost-ready-to-be-born-fetus (but not the woman) be prosecuted for murder? I say “hell yes.” But I’m from Texas.

 
M is for Malapert
 
Avatar
 
 
M is for Malapert
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  23-09-2006
 
 
 
24 January 2008 16:54
 
Bruce Burleson - 24 January 2008 08:37 PM

Let’s throw a little crime into the mix. The Texas Penal Code, Section 1.07 defines “individual” as “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.”

This is just pro-lifery.

Then, section 19.02(b)(1) defines murder as “intentionally or knowingly taking the life of an individual.”  So, in Texas, you can be prosecuted for murdering a fetus. Should a person who intentionally shoots a pregnant woman in her 36th week and intentionally kills the almost-ready-to-be-born-fetus (but not the woman) be prosecuted for murder? I say “hell yes.” But I’m from Texas.

I say no, not murder, but attempted murder and anything else that can be applied to the actual person who has been so grievously harmed.

 
 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
30 January 2008 08:43
 

Mcalpine, indeed! Those who support enforced prgnancy should see the implications of their just so’s.

 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
30 January 2008 08:43
 

Mcalpine, indeed! Those who support enforced prgnancy should see the implications of their just so’s.

 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
30 January 2008 08:44
 

Mcalpine, indeed! Those who support enforced prgnancy should see the implications of their just so’s.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
14 April 2008 20:42
 

Actually this was discussed by Sam in End of Faith. He talks about how the blastocyst is only 150 cells, and it is terminated for embryonic stem cell research. Just to show how few cells that is, he is comparing that same number that is killed by scratching ones nose. Another words, 150 cells ain’t a human being and ain’t very many cells.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
18 April 2008 06:20
 

If “killing” embryos is unethical why are we creating thousands of them in fertility clinics and “discarding” the unused ones.  Why is it the Catholic Church supports this new creation of life?

 
 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
30 July 2008 16:18
 

The Vatican is the obscurantist organization whose temporal head, the Pope, addresses itself to defending the unfathomable so as to show that its divine head,  Yahweh, so unfathomable Himself [ the ignostic-Ockham thread] but who issues decrees through the Pope that upholds what ignorant men, like those who composed the Tanakh and the Testament, using their whims and tastes to impose judgments such as validating   miracles and saying no to contraceptives and the use of discarded embryos.Fortunately, most of its sheep just ignore the latter!
[ Yes to Wexler,lidajean!]

 
 
Avatar
 
 
AKirkland
Total Posts:  2
Joined  24-09-2008
 
 
 
24 September 2008 07:58
 

These sorts of conversations get people so upset, but at heart they are worthless. All we are doing is arguing semantics. What is a human life, at all? How much value do we place on the chemical aspects of human life if we are willing to turn off life support for people in a vegetative state? The only real points worth arguing for me are the capacity for suffering and the ability to think - the mind.

I can’t see the difference between turning off life support for a vegetable patient, and removing an unconscious embryo. Some might argue (and have done, right here) that the difference is the potential for growth, but as Sam has rightly pointed out that argument runs into difficulties off the bat. Is it a crime to refuse an opportunity of coupling because you are denying the potential for creating new life? Obviously not, it’s absurd.

I can’t deny that late abortions make me very uncomfortable, but only because it seems as though the embryo is “waking up” a bit. Of course, there are those much more educated in this area than me, I just don’t know enough about the biology of it to make a judgment as to when an embryo becomes “human”, which is to say, when it gains the capacity to think or to feel pain.

However, I am not at all convinced of the argument that because the baby is developing in the mother’s body, she has an ultimate power over it and should be able to make the final decision. If it could be proved that after a certain point the baby could think and feel, then the mother’s right be damned - that’s the point at which it really does become a murder of sorts. I’m reminded of an old science fiction story (forget the name) where a criminal business created clones of clients and then killed them to perform a brain transplant into the clone’s body so the client could live for a lot longer. The point is, just because the genetic material in the person is (partially) yours, that doesn’t mean you have total power over that person, no matter how small they are.

And I’m done.