Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The All New Abortion Spin-Off Thread...
Comments
-
Life and death are just human classification. Nature doesn't care if you are a live or dead.Mark Hamill wrote: »By that argument, life and death are just human classifications and to argue any differences is just being pedantic, so why imprison people for murder?
Given that imprisoning people for murder is a human value, it doesn't matter. Nature doesn't care if you kill someone. The trees are going to slap you around the place.
It is a fallacy for people to think that the names of things or states we give to the natural world mean something in the wider sense, independently to human classification.
You see this a lot in the Creationist debate, with Creationists using mistakes in human classification of species to attack evolution as it humans making classification errors some how means something to nature.Mark Hamill wrote: »But a pc without a full operating system is just a box, an expensive paper weight.
It is not a paper weight. Do Dell advertise paper weights? No, they advertise PCs. They don't say "This is a paper weight, but as soon as you power it on it becomes a PC". No, they say this is a PC. You get it home and power it on and it is still a PC, it is just powered on now.
I'm a fan of Linux so I tend to buy PC's without a Windows OS installed, or build my own. I don't consider the PC without an OS "just a box" or a paper weight. I don't consider that I only have a PC after I have installed the OS. I don't think something fundamental happens when I install the OS that makes me change at a fundamental level the idea of what I have (it was a paper weight now it is a PC)
The same with what happens to the egg cell. It is not nearly as fundamental a change as Sam is making out.
But no one thinks because of that it isn't a PC.Mark Hamill wrote: »Before that you do not have the capability of using the box as pc
Someone else said that this idea is liking thinking you don't have a light bulb until you turn on the electricity, and when you turn off the light again your light bulb stops being a light bulb. Which is silly.
The egg cell is designed not to do anything until it gets genetic code from the sperm, in the same way that a PC is designed to require an OS. But it is still fundamentally the same thing at this stage as it is afterwards. It is a step, nothing more.
Installing an OS does not fundamentally change what you have into a PC. It is a PC already, you are simply completing a step require to get it to work.Mark Hamill wrote: »It is worthless as a pc without the full operating system.
It is not worthless, it costs 2 grand. Try buying a PC without an operating system installed and see how willing Dell are to give it to you for free
The egg has as much potential as the zygote. It requires certain stages to take place, such as fertilisation from the sperm, in order to continue, just like a PC requires an operating system. But so does the zygote, the zygote requires a lot more to happen after fertilisation and in fact they now think that 2 our of every 3 fertilised eggs die before implantation.
I think possibly why people see the fertilisation stage as fundamentally different to other stages is actually because it requires action by us (someone has to have sex) and people naturally tend to view natural processes differently to how they view things we do. So people have a natural tendency to think that as soon as our bit, the bit we choose to do, is over then that is the start of the natural bit.
But, as related to what I said above, this would be a mistake.
As far as nature is concerned two humans having sex as a natural a stage as the embryo implanting in the womb wall. Nature designed sex for this purpose. Sex is simply a stage.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Life and death are just human classification. Nature doesn't care if you are a live or dead.
Given that imprisoning people for murder is a human value, it doesn't matter. Nature doesn't care if you kill someone. The trees are going to slap you around the place.
It is a fallacy for people to think that the names of things or states we give to the natural world mean something in the wider sense, independently to human classification.
You see this a lot in the Creationist debate, with Creationists using mistakes in human classification of species to attack evolution as it humans making classification errors some how means something to nature.
But this arguement has nothing to do with nature. No-one (i think) is arguing that its unnatural to have an abortion, might as well its unnatural to have infertility treatment so that shouldn't happen either. The argument concerns wether or not humans should take it as wrong to have abortions, and while that is obviously going to be something completely based on human classifications, so what? Everything that matters to humans is based on human classifications, laws are created when enough peoples made up classifications overlap and general agreements can be eg Killing is bad, those that do should be stopped and punished.It is not a paper weight. Do Dell advertise paper weights? No, they advertise PCs. They don't say "This is a paper weight, but as soon as you power it on it becomes a PC". No, they say this is a PC. You get it home and power it on and it is still a PC, it is just powered on now.
But everything they advertise a pc can do only works when the pc is turned and has some kind of opertaing system. If they advertised a pc that they say does plays blu-rays, top of the range games, and multiple similtaneous programs but when you get it doesnt actually have an operating system, then it cant do those things and the advertisers would get in trouble for false advertising. While the pc may have the potential to play blu-rays etc, until it has an OS, it cant and cant be called the same thing. In much the same way, while an egg has the potiental to become a human, it wont until it gets the chromosones from the sperm, its not the same as an zygote which does have the full set of chromosones.I'm a fan of Linux so I tend to buy PC's without a Windows OS installed, or build my own. I don't consider the PC without an OS "just a box" or a paper weight. I don't consider that I only have a PC after I have installed the OS. I don't think something fundamental happens when I install the OS that makes me change at a fundamental level the idea of what I have (it was a paper weight now it is a PC)
The same with what happens to the egg cell. It is not nearly as fundamental a change as Sam is making out.
But until the box has an OS, it cant be used as a pc. While this is stretching the analogy to the limits of its application to this discussion, I think this could be likened to a genetic scientist who can build up his own genetic code and artificially insert it into an egg. There is still a fundamental difference before the genetic code is inserted and after.Someone else said that this idea is liking thinking you don't have a light bulb until you turn on the electricity, and when you turn off the light again your light bulb stops being a light bulb. Which is silly.
Yes it is silly, however until you combine the light bulb and the electricty you wont get light, which is the product of the combination. A human is the product of the combination of an egg and a sperm and the first stage of that human, the zygote, is as fundamentally different form an egg or a sperm as light is different from electricity or a light bulb.The egg cell is designed not to do anything until it gets genetic code from the sperm, in the same way that a PC is designed to require an OS. But it is still fundamentally the same thing at this stage as it is afterwards. It is a step, nothing more.
Installing an OS does not fundamentally change what you have into a PC. It is a PC already, you are simply completing a step require to get it to work.
It fundamentally changes the functionally of the pc, which is whats important. Did you not say that the point at which a life begins is when the brain is formed? Is that not a fundamental change, in your view, Simply because of the functionality afforded by the brain?It is not worthless, it costs 2 grand. Try buying a PC without an operating system installed and see how willing Dell are to give it to you for free
Its worthless as a pc. Sure the individual parts are valuable, as replacements for others, but its useless as a pc if its incomplete.The egg has as much potential as the zygote. It requires certain stages to take place, such as fertilisation from the sperm, in order to continue, just like a PC requires an operating system. But so does the zygote, the zygote requires a lot more to happen after fertilisation and in fact they now think that 2 our of every 3 fertilised eggs die before implantation.
Potential of the egg is infinitely different from the zygote. The egg needs a sperm, out of millions, to make from the male to the female and successfuly impregnant it, and this must happen during the two weeks that the egg is viable to be impregnated before being expelled during menstration. That is before becoming the zygote.Neither do zygotes.
Surely if the requirement for value you place on something that is living is that it has a brain and a nervous system and is aware and capable of choice and decisions, something that does not have this ability is not considered valuable.
But zygotes will grow a brain, and it only takes a few weeks to begin. Bacteria and plants will never grow brains, no matter how long they life. You cant just look at the value of something at one instance and assume that value is the same for its entire existence.Well I'm sorry to break it to you but simply by being a live you are killing things right now. Thousands of bacteria are dying in side you due to what you are doing, either moving or eating.
I imagine you don't feel really bad about this. Or when you kill a plant.
So what is the difference. Why feel bad about killing an insect but not about killing 20 million bacteria?
Bacteria arent alive even in the same ways as insects. Insects have brains (albet very simple ones), a bacteria is just a self replicating reaction, like a living polymerisation.You have to think about this stuff rationally, why do we value some things and not others, what about them causes us to assign value to them. Because it is impossible for a person to lead their life without killing something that is living. Even killing yourself would kill all the micro (and some macro) organisms that live inside you.
You are completely right, but as you say, you cant live without killing things that may be considered alive. So you have to look at what life is, what levels of life are important, worth keeping alive. Where do you make the distinction? I make it at the level at which you can defend yourself without always necessarily killing. You can avoid animals, use chemical compounds that deter insects and if I could i would do the same with the micro-organisms that attack my body.0 -
-
-
No, I said the point at which the thing we value in human life (and possibly other intelligent animals) begins to exist is when the brain is formed.
What something may do is irrelevant to the properties it has no in this moment.
My sperm has a likelihood of implanting an egg cell the next time I have sex, but I stop that by using a condom. I don't feel bad about this because I'm not destroying something of value that exists now, simply stopping it from existing in the future.
How many potential brains, potential children, have people stopped from existing simply be using a condom or heck deciding they have a headache, not to night dear.
Why not? I value current reality, I don't put much value on things that may exist (if I did I would never use a condom).
Consciousness, higher brain activity, self awareness. All that good stuff. As for insects I doubt they have any awareness as we would understand it.
Having read most of this thread (I avoided the obscure metaphors), this line of thinking is the most rational in my opinion and it echoes the incipient thoughts I already had on the subject
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »I really can't understand why you are having such a hard time accepting this.
How is a sperm moving towards the egg a less important step then the steps that will follow it after it meets the egg.
And I can't understand why you are having such a hard time accepting this tbh. I'm starting to think this is an elaborate practical joke and you're all going to start laughing at me for getting worked up about you saying the sky is green. I find it absolutely amazing that you and Wicknight cannot see that anything before conception is very obviously not beginning of growth of a new life form and anything after is arbitrarily picked based on your own personal preference.
Firstly, remember that I'm not talking about rights so what you assign value or rights to isn't really relevant. The process of mitosis that starts with one cell splitting into two and ends with an old age pensioner begins at conception, therefore a new life starts growing at conception. Regardless of whether you assign rights to it at that stage I honestly cannot fathom how you fail to acknowledge that
I know the cell already existed, please stop pointing that out. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. The component parts of the zygote existed but the zygote did not exist. That's like saying that if you have some eggs, flour and raisins then you have a cake, when in reality all you have is the component parts of the cake and the cake does not exist until you put them together and cook it.
The zygote does not "come into existence"
"Zygote" is just a human name for a fertilised egg. The cell already existed. The cell itself was created long before that.
If I said "planes can fly", no one would argue with me but in reality a plane can only fly:It cannot produce a baby unless the stages that evolution have developed take place. You can say the same for a zygote. A zygote without a whole heap of thinks happening, such as implantation in the womb, will die. In fact the vast majority do just die (possibly as many as 80%).
A zygote will not survive on its own external the vast machinery of nature around it any more than an egg will. Fertilisation of the egg from the sperm is no different to implantation or any of the other stages required to produce a foetus.- If it has fuel
- If the fuel tanks are attached properly
- If the electrics are working
- If the engines are working
- If the wings aren't broken
- If there is a pilot available
- If the pilot is not drunk or in some way incapacitated
- If the plane was not in the vacuum of space where its wings don't work
- If the weather is not too bad
- If there is a runway available for it to use to take off
- etc
- They are tiny irrelevant details that do not change the validity of the statement
- No one has a vested interest in the statement "planes cannot fly"
Growth begins at conception, therefore a new life form begins at conception. End of story. Whether you assign rights to it at that stage is a completely separate issue but denying that fact because you want abortion to be ok is no better than a christian denying evolution because it doesn't fit with his holy book0 -
I've had this argument at length with Wicknight before...Growth begins at conception, therefore a new life form begins at conception. End of story. Whether you assign rights to it at that stage is a completely separate issue but denying that fact because you want abortion to be ok is no better than a christian denying evolution because it doesn't fit with his holy book
I recommend you agree to disagree. 0 -
-
As much as I'm wary about wading into this debate again, I just wanted to point out something (it's "medical" Sam, you'll be happy to hear!) that I think you are overlooking by ignoring everything before fertilization as unimportant in the process:
The unique genetic identity of the final human that may ultimately form from the fertilization of an egg is determined during the production of the gametes. During fertilization, chromosomes from each parent are combined together but remain independent; i.e. every chromosome in a diploid cell can be traced to one parent and not the other. Only during meiosis (when the haploid gametes are formed from the diploid parent cells) do these chromosomes cross over, exchanging bits of DNA to form unique genes not found in either of the parents.
Just floating that nugget of information out there as I think that is a significant part of the process that you are ignoring...
Unique genetic identity isn't an issue for me
If being unique was a requirement then twins and clones would not be life forms. Every stage of the process is "important" because if any part of it fails then there will be no baby, just like how a plane can't fly without fuel. All I'm pointing out here is that a new life form is formed at conception as opposed to simply having cells from the parents because that's when growth begins0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »In this instance, the "life" that you speak of could more effectively be called "the process of growth", however, it would seem, that does not have the emotive weight that you wish to wield so I understand why you do not wish to use it. It is a life in the same way that a plant is a life, but you would be hard pushed to find someone who would say "I ended the life of a plant today"
But my whole reason for posting in this thread is to point out that the beginning of the process of growth is the beginning of life, by the medical definition of life
That it is a life in the same way a plant is a life is your subjective interpretation
It could be more effectively called "the process of growth" only if you have some reason not to give it it's proper definition, such as in this case, where giving it it's proper definition will result in some people giving it connotations that you don't want them to give it0 -
-
-
This reads to me that you are actually only disagreeing with the point only because of what you, or indeed some pro-lifer is going to read into it, rather than accepting the obvious (to me) idea that a fertilised egg is inherently different to a separate sperm/egg.
It's as if it is a conclusion you refuse to come to because of what the repercussions might be.
That is exactly the point Dades. I'd give you a hug but I'm far too macho
0 -
But my whole reason for posting in this thread is to point out that the beginning of the process of growth is the beginning of life, by the medical definition of life
Nothing is beginning, it is the continuation of the biological processes that forms a human. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, when they join the process enters its next phase which is also alive. Every stage in the biological process and growth is living.
The point that you are highlighting, at conception, is arbitrary. Let me also be clear. If the baby where born and allowed to be killed 1 day after birth, this would also be arbitrary. 10 years after birth... arbitrary... etc. You get the picture.
However, it is for society to decide at which point should arbitrarily be the cut off point. Some societies may indeed pick your point of conception. Whether it be using a condom or 60 years after the human is born. It is up to society to define this. There is no objective truth regarding this, only the whims of human morality.
I am not trying to say you are wrong, rather that there is no right answer here. Conception is of equal value to a separate sperm and egg or a 25 year old human male. Just because something is arbitrary does not mean that the majority of humans should not find it morally wrong, or right.0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Nothing is beginning, it is the continuation of the biological processes that forms a human. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, when they join the process enters its next phase which is also alive. Every stage in the biological process and growth is living.
The point that you are highlighting, at conception, is arbitrary. Let me also be clear. If the baby where born and allowed to be killed 1 day after birth, this would also be arbitrary. 10 years after birth... arbitrary... etc. You get the picture.
However, it is for society to decide at which point should arbitrarily be the cut off point. Some societies may indeed pick your point of conception. Whether it be using a condom or 60 years after the human is born. It is up to society to define this. There is no objective truth regarding this, only the whims of human morality.
I am not trying to say you are wrong, rather that there is no right answer here. Conception is of equal value to a separate sperm and egg or a 25 year old human male. Just because something is arbitrary does not mean that the majority of humans should not find it morally wrong, or right.
Then we have nothing more to discuss
I think the only problem we have had throughout this thread is that you have been talking about the conferral of rights and I have been talking only about the medical definition of when a life begins.
I'm not trying to change people's opinions on whether or not a life should have rights, whether it be a foetus or a 25 year old, black or white, male or female. That would be an almost impossible task because it is subjective
But a large number of people who are for abortion do consider ending a life to be morally wrong but use linguistic somersaults to fool themselves into thinking that a foetus isn't really a life. They think abortion is ok not because they see the foetus's life as no different to a plant's life but because they consider a foetus to be no different to a toe nail or an egg and that is provably wrong. That is not subjective so it is possible to change those people's minds 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »So you accept then that choosing the point of conception as the cut off point for stopping the biological process of a human life's development is arbitrary. Or do you still think that universally this should always be the cut off point?
I have said nothing about the cut off point for stopping a human life's development. As I keep pointing out I am not having an abortion debate, just pointing out that a new life begins at conception and what connotations you want to add to that is your own business. Whether you want to believe that ending a human life is wrong or not is beyond the scope of my point, I am simply trying to establish that it is a human life
Although, since a human life's development does not begin until conception it's not really possible to stop the process before that point. You can, however, prevent it from starting 0
Advertisement