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
-
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.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 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Plants and bacteria dont have brains and nervous systems on the level of humans and animals, they are more like chemical reactions in that they are almost completely restricted to growing in the path of least resistance and have no ability to chose to do something for any reason like curiosity.
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.Mark Hamill wrote: »Personnally, I feel an immense physical repulsion to killing things, even the killing of insects makes me feel a little sick.
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?
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.0 -
-
-
CerebralCortex wrote: »Oh you shouldn't that would be unethical. I wouldn't want anyone to have an easier life at my expense, although that happens all the time but in the case of abortion, when you really think about it, is one making their life easier at the expense of anothers? I'm actually not able to conclusively answer that question myself but I'm beginning to incline towards no. I wasn't self aware at best at least until I was half a year old I have no memories of being alive in the womb I think due to the fact that I wasn't a fully formed being at that point. What use are rights to me at that point? I'm actually not sure and in the process of writing the post I'm back on the knife edge of pro life/pro choice I must admit.
I think that the use of those rights is what allows people to make it as far as adult human beings. And remember that those rights are (or arent) given by people viewing the baby. The choice is more about how those people view the foetus than what stage the foetus actually is. The foetus, regardless of what stage it is at, will end up as a full human, who, nobody here I would think, would deny human rights to, its only a matter of time, there isnt even a choice element to it, the foetus itself cant stop it.When I view a foetus, I know it will become a human, if allowed to grow. It wont just stay a ball of sentience-less cells. Thats why I am against abortion, it is killing a human.CerebralCortex wrote: »It would be great if their could be more than one choice.
I believe there is more than one choice. I am both pro-choice and pro-life. I dont believe in denying choices to people, as preventing someone from making a certain choice they want to make, doesnt make them the same as a person who makes a different choice. I think people should have the choice for an abortion if they really want it, but I think that if everyone had the right support they would choose not to.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 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »But this arguement has nothing to do with nature.
Nature doesn't give a hoot if you kill your foetus, there is a good chance nature will do that before you even get a chance.Mark Hamill wrote: »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?
The impression I got, and I may be wrong, was that Sam was implying that the egg and zygote are completely different by using the different terms as some kind of justification for this position. But the terms are just human classification. They don't mean anything to nature. Our classifications reflect nature not the other way around.Mark Hamill wrote: »But everything they advertise a pc can do only works when the pc is turned and has some kind of opertaing system.
A PC without an operating system is simply waiting for the OS to be installed. That is a stage on the road to using your PC. The PC does not fundamentally change when you do this, nor is it worthless before you do this.
The egg cell is simply waiting. It is waiting have a trigger of fertilisation and it will then start doing stuff such as multiplying. The embryo does similar things, so does the foetus.
It is a staged system of progression that evolution has designed in order to increase the chances of a healthy successful baby. The egg isn't doing something wrong by waiting for the DNA from the sperm. It is doing what it is supposed to do.Mark Hamill wrote: »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.
It isn't the same, like a PC without an OS isn't the same as a PC without a monitor. But choosing that step is arbitrary.
The egg has the potiential to become a fully grown human and so does the zygote. An awful lot of stages have to be successfully completely for the embryo to grow into a fully grown human (and 2/3 don't) so what is the difference.
It is like looking at the steps for a PC- Deliver the box
- Open the box
- Take everything out
- Assemble motherboard
- Assemble CPU and RAM
- Install harddrive
- Install PSU
- Install DVD
- Plug in
- Boot OS install disks
- Install OS
- Boot OS
- Install virus checker
- etc etc
And arbitrarily picking "Install PSU" as the bit where your paper weight turns into a "PC". Or "Assemble motherboard" or "Install OS"
None of these bits are more or less necessary to get a functioning PC that I can give my mum. Until all the bits are completely you don't have a functioning PC.
Why pick fertilisation over any other complicated stage in the process. Again the only reason I can see for doing this is that we have something to do with fertilisation and after that nature does things herself away from us. But we are nature as well, are stage is just part of the plan.Mark Hamill wrote: »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.Mark Hamill wrote: »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.
What the egg cell has taken on is the blue prints of the new body is it is going to grow, the same way that a boat takes on a course heading. It still grows the body, the egg cell.Mark Hamill wrote: »It fundamentally changes the functionally of the pc, which is whats important.Mark Hamill wrote: »Did you not say that the point at which a life begins is when the brain is formed?
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.
The human is already alive and was never not alive. But simply being alive by itself has never been something we value that highly (I'm not crying for the million of so living bacteria I'm crushing to death by typing these words)Mark Hamill wrote: »Is that not a fundamental change, in your view, Simply because of the functionality afforded by the brain?Mark Hamill wrote: »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.
And? The egg needs a sperm which is exactly how evolution designed it. I fail to see why that means the fertilised egg is fundamentally different to a fertilised egg.
Do you have any idea that the zygote needs, or how often they do not get it and simply die off?
There is a reason a lot of people see life starting at implantation in the womb because so many fertilised zygotes simply get flushed away by the woman's body, (something like 60% to 80%).
So what is the difference between that and the odds of an unfertilised egg meeting a sperm?Mark Hamill wrote: »But zygotes will grow a brain, and it only takes a few weeks to begin.
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.Mark Hamill wrote: »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.
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).Mark Hamill wrote: »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?
Consciousness, higher brain activity, self awareness. All that good stuff. As for insects I doubt they have any awareness as we would understand it.Mark Hamill wrote: »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.
Well it is not simply a matter of defending yourself. Eating killings hundreds of thousands of bacteria (that is what a lot of your poop is, dead bacteria).0 -
Sam was implying that the egg and zygote are completely different by using the different terms as some kind of justification for this position. But the terms are just human classification. They don't mean anything to nature. Our classifications reflect nature not the other way around.
The fundamental difference between an egg and a zygote is that the only thing an egg alone can do in terms of producing a baby is hang around for a few days waiting and then die, ie it cannot under any circumstances produce a baby. That's why there's only ever been one recorded case of that happening, a certain Mary.
Whereas immediately upon coming into existence a zygote begins the process of mitosis which, provided it receives enough nutrients, will grow into a baby.
In short an egg can never produce a baby no matter how much you feed it but a zygote can provided it doesn't have some kind of genetic error preventing it beginning the process of mitosis that only it is capable of. Which is kind of an important difference don't you think?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 subject0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I believe there is more than one choice. I am both pro-choice and pro-life. I dont believe in denying choices to people, as preventing someone from making a certain choice they want to make, doesnt make them the same as a person who makes a different choice. I think people should have the choice for an abortion if they really want it, but I think that if everyone had the right support they would choose not to.
This would mirror my standpoint also. I could never abort a zygote I helped conceive, but my reasons for this are arbitrary and subjective. But I accept that every other human should be allowed to make up their own mind on the matter.
I personally don't smoke, find it a health risk and hate the smell of it. But I would never think it wise to enforce this opinion on others by law and removal of individual freedoms.
I agree, with the correct pedagogy, abortions would rarely occur, but the right would still be allowed for those that would choose to use it.The difference between an egg and a zygote cannot be dismissed as arbitrary
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.
Imagine a triathlon, what you are effectively saying is that if you trip up an athlete while he is running it is of less consequence then if you throw a stick between his spokes when he gets on his bike. In both situations you stop the athlete from finishing the race and the end result is the same, yet you are arbitrarily picking the moment at which he gets on his bike as the only point of importance.
Every step in the process is of equal importance, if you apply more importance to one step over the others then you are being arbitrary.0 -
Advertisement
-
The difference between an egg and a zygote cannot be dismissed as arbitrary
It is not being dismissed as arbitrary. No one I think is denying that the egg cell changes by fertilisation. What is being dismissed as arbitrary is picking this stage as having much greater significance than any other stage and saying that this is where a new individual life form is created.The fundamental difference between an egg and a zygote is that the only thing an egg alone can do in terms of producing a baby is hang around for a few days waiting and then die, ie it cannot under any circumstances produce a baby.
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.Whereas immediately upon coming into existence a zygote begins the process of mitosis which, provided it receives enough nutrients, will grow into a baby.
"Zygote" is just a human name for a fertilised egg. The cell already existed. The cell itself was created long before that.0 -
That is my point.
Nature doesn't give a hoot if you kill your foetus, there is a good chance nature will do that before you even get a chance.
But my point is so what? Nature doesn't "care" about anything people do because nature isn't sentient, its just the existence of living things that people happen to like to anthropormorphise because they are afraid of it. Even if it wasnt, nature doesn't seem to care about any human laws, should we abondon those too?So people cannot elevate their arguments to some grand universal space by appealing to nature.
The impression I got, and I may be wrong, was that Sam was implying that the egg and zygote are completely different by using the different terms as some kind of justification for this position. But the terms are just human classification. They don't mean anything to nature. Our classifications reflect nature not the other way around.
They cannot elevate their arguments by appealing to nature as some kind of all powerful entity, who actually posessess an opinion, which we should all heed, but to appeal to actual physical differences and the human value of them is not the same thing. It still means they have to explain the importance of the human value, wether or not it can be actually measured, but it doesnt mean it doesnt exist (much like human morals exist even though a god doesnt exist to give them to us).That still doesn't mean that a PC without an operating system is worthless does it?
A PC without an operating system is simply waiting for the OS to be installed. That is a stage on the road to using your PC. The PC does not fundamentally change when you do this, nor is it worthless before you do this.
It is worthless as a pc though. No matter how many disc drives you add, no matter what size harddrive you have, how powerful a CPU is there, until an operating system is installed, you cant use it as a pc, the functionality, the usefulness comes with the OS.The egg cell is simply waiting. It is waiting have a trigger of fertilisation and it will then start doing stuff such as multiplying. The embryo does similar things, so does the foetus.
It is a staged system of progression that evolution has designed in order to increase the chances of a healthy successful baby. The egg isn't doing something wrong by waiting for the DNA from the sperm. It is doing what it is supposed to do.
The embryo and the foetus arent doing similar things as the egg. Neither are waiting for a fertilisation which only has a two week window to happen.It isn't the same, like a PC without an OS isn't the same as a PC without a monitor. But choosing that step is arbitrary.
The egg has the potiential to become a fully grown human and so does the zygote. An awful lot of stages have to be successfully completely for the embryo to grow into a fully grown human (and 2/3 don't) so what is the difference.
The potential for the egg and zygote are far, far different. The zygote has a much better chance than the egg as the egg still has to go through the stage of becoming a zygoteIt is like looking at the steps for a PC- Deliver the box
- Open the box
- Take everything out
- Assemble motherboard
- Assemble CPU and RAM
- Install harddrive
- Install PSU
- Install DVD
- Plug in
- Boot OS install disks
- Install OS
- Boot OS
- Install virus checker
- etc etc
And arbitrarily picking "Install PSU" as the bit where your paper weight turns into a "PC". Or "Assemble motherboard" or "Install OS"
None of these bits are more or less necessary to get a functioning PC that I can give my mum. Until all the bits are completely you don't have a functioning PC.
Its not that one of these stages is more necessary than the others to get a pc, its that one of stages actually results in going from something without the functionality of a pc to something with the functionality of pc. The importance is based purely on the outcome of each stage and the stage that finally gives the fully functioning pc is the most important.Why pick fertilisation over any other complicated stage in the process. Again the only reason I can see for doing this is that we have something to do with fertilisation and after that nature does things herself away from us. But we are nature as well, are stage is just part of the plan.
Nature doesnt have a plan, its not sentient. And whats wrong with picking the stage that people actually have some control over as being the stage we make our decisions at? If you dont want kids, dont fertilize an egg. If you want to take chances with contraception, then fine, good luck, but dont don't come whinging to me when the odds are against you, you knew what would happen, get over yourself.Yes but do you not have a light bulb before you do that? Does the light bulb fundamentally change when you do this? Does it become worthless when you dont?
When you turn on th electricty is becomes a lit light bulb, and becomes useful if used in the dark. If the light bulb has no electricty, then it is worthless in the dark. (Dont get too caught up in analogies in this, you could start talking about how you can turn off the electricty and you still have a light bulb, but that wouldn't exactly have an application in the original issue and would just confuse the original issue and not get us anywhere)It isn't fundamentally different at all. There is not basis for saying this. The zygote is 99.9 exactly the same as the egg cell (it is the same cell).
A fundamental difference doesnt have to be big, it just has to be there. The genetic difference between every human on the planet is minisculely different, but it still results in everyone having a different unique personality.What the egg cell has taken on is the blue prints of the new body is it is going to grow, the same way that a boat takes on a course heading. It still grows the body, the egg cell.
But without the sperm, it wont grow. Its not as if the egg could get the chromosones somewhere else, like the sperm is just its first choice, but it could just make them up itself as it goes along if it could, it needs the sperm.Important for what?
For this argument.No, I don't think the foetus becomes fundamentally different after the brain has formed. It just now has a brain, and that is what I see as valuable. It is still a human foetus growing in a womb.
But is has value with a brain, wereas without a brain, it has no value. Is that value not a fundamental difference, at least to you?And? The egg needs a sperm which is exactly how evolution designed it. I fail to see why that means the fertilised egg is fundamentally different to a fertilised egg.
Do you have any idea that the zygote needs, or how often they do not get it and simply die off?
Do you seem to realise that everything the zygote needs, the egg will need aswell, that the fundamentla difference comes from how the zygote doesnt need the sperm anymore, the egg still needs to go through that step?There is a reason a lot of people see life starting at implantation in the womb because so many fertilised zygotes simply get flushed away by the woman's body, (something like 60% to 80%).
So what is the difference between that and the odds of an unfertilised egg meeting a sperm?
Are you really asking this? Lets say the odds of an egg meeting a sperm is n. Lets say the odds of a zygote surviving till birth is m. Wether n>m or n<m isnt actually important. Whats important is that the odds of an egg surviving till birth is n+m.This is why the zygote is fundamentally different from an egg, it has gone through what the egg needs to go through to become a zygote, it has beaten those odds.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.
So if you ordered your pc in parts, but before you put it together, someone robbed it from you, would you not care, because its value as a pc hasn't been realised yet?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).
You must be really bad with money and the housing market then, what with value flucuations and all that.Consciousness, higher brain activity, self awareness. All that good stuff. As for insects I doubt they have any awareness as we would understand it.
Probably not, but I do have awareness, and I am aware that they dont want to be killed, so I dont kill them.Well it is not simply a matter of defending yourself. Eating killings hundreds of thousands of bacteria (that is what a lot of your poop is, dead bacteria).
Ah sure if they had any brains they would stay out of my food :pac:.0 -
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
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.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 -
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 -
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.
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...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 -
And I can't understand why you are having such a hard time accepting this tbh.
I guess it's because my mind is more clinical, I see things deriving from the product backwards.
What you are failing to see is that you are arbitrarily applying value to one step in the process. You keep saying that the most important step is when "a new life form" begins to grow.
Why? Who defined this stage as important and of greater value than all the steps that preceded it? Nature didn't.
Can you agree that if you use a condom and stop sperm from reaching the egg and if you remove a zygote from a woman after conception that a baby will not come into existence. I want you to accept that the product of both of these actions is identical.0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »You keep saying that the most important step is when "a new life form" begins to grow.
No I'm not doing that at all. All I am saying is that it is when "a new life form" begins to grow. I am not saying anything about whether that is important or not in terms of abortionGoduznt Xzst wrote: »Can you agree that if you use a condom and stop sperm from reaching the egg and if you remove a zygote from a woman after conception that a baby will not come into existence. I want you to accept that the product of both of these actions is identical.
The outcome of both actions is identical but one is preventing a life from beginning and the other is ending the life of a life form before it has finished growing. Can you agree that?0 -
The outcome of both actions is identical but one is preventing a life from beginning and the other is ending the life of a life form before it has finished growing. Can you agree that?
Yes I can agree that. But lets call it "ending the process of growth" instead of "ending the life". It's used emotively and conjures up the philisophical connotation of life which, you yourself said previously, you where not referring to.
I agree with it also because I see no objective distinction in the differences you outlined which affect the outcome so let me try and remove all subjective influence from the discussion. Analogies which refer to society, real world events and actions tend to be arbitrary and subjective in nature.
Of these 2 sums, which is of greater importance:
1 + 1 + 1 - 1 = 2
1 + 1 = 20 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »I agree with it also because I see no objective distinction in the differences you outlined which affect the outcome so let me try and remove all subjective influence from the discussion. Analogies which refer to society, real world events and actions tend to be arbitrary and subjective in nature.
Of these 2 sums, which is of greater importance:
1 + 1 + 1 - 1 = 2
1 + 1 = 2
The difference would be: If I don't want a car I can either:- Not buy a car
- Buy a car and drive it into a lake
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Yes I can agree that. But lets call it "ending the process of growth" instead of "ending the life". It's used emotively and conjures up the philisophical connotation of life which, you yourself said previously, you where not referring to.0 -
Advertisement
-
Neither of those is more important but I'm very specifically not using the word importance so it's not relevant.
You clearly do think it is relevant as you are drawing the distinction. You think the use of a condom is a lesser act than the aborting of a zygote and you are trying to define the moment of conception as having a greater value due to a new life form beginning to grow.
To myself what I see is that you are saying:
"1 + 1 + 1 - 1 = 2" is distinctly different from "1 + 1 = 2". One of them is adding a number then subtracting it whereas the other is not. One sum should be allowed while the other sum is objectively wrong so should not be allowed.I'm referring to the medical definition of life, if people want to give it philosophical connotations that are not intended it's nothing to do with me.
You are now being purposefully obtuse in requiring the use of a word that has multiple connotations. Your refusal to define a more appropriate description of what we are discussing leads me to believe you want the confusion to remain so as to give your argument an underlying emotive weight.
"Life", like a lot of english words, can be easily misunderstood in context. Take the word "love" for example. Without defining what it is that I love the reader would not be aware of what kind of love I was referring to, whether it be eros, agape, philia, storge or thelema.
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"0 -
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 -
Basically in abortion debates I have respect for people like JC 2K3 who acknowledge that they're killing another living being and use other justifications such "it has no effect on society" but people who try to convince themselves that it's not really a living being and use a variety of linguistic somersaults to define themselves out of a moral conundrum are just lying to themselves0
-
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »You are now being purposefully obtuse in requiring the use of a word that has multiple connotations. Your refusal to define a more appropriate description of what we are discussing leads me to believe you want the confusion to remain so as to give your argument an underlying emotive weight.
"Life", like a lot of english words, can be easily misunderstood in context. Take the word "love" for example. Without defining what it is that I love the reader would not be aware of what kind of love I was referring to, whether it be eros, agape, philia, storge or thelema.
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"
It's as if it is a conclusion you refuse to come to because of what the repercussions might be.0 -
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 macho0 -
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 minds0 -
-
-
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 starting0
Advertisement