Keep abortion out of Ireland

Festus

dj357 wrote: »

Why can we not agree to allow abortions up to the point at which reasonable people on both sides of the debate are unable to point and say that is or is not a baby, ...

That is a reasonable question. At what point do reasonable scientists and doctors say that a new human being comes in to existence?

dj357 wrote: »

...and no longer a clump of unfeeling cells?

Ignoring the disingenuousness, all human beings go through a stage where they are a clump of cells called a morula, which then becomes a blastocyst. Indeed all living creatures that reproduce sexually do. I won't bore you with the details but if you are really interested there are plenty of resources on embryology a few clicks away.

As to making a determination on the ability to feel, well, that's just ageist. The child is in a developmental stage. What about people with a congenital insensitivity to pain. Should they be legally killed arbitrarily?

GarIT

Festus wrote: »

Women who have abortions know deep down that it was their child that was killed. Women who have abortions can and do talk but amongst themselves. There are help groups for women who have had abortions. Many convince themselves that it wasn't really a child but they can't keep that lie up forever.

I do however know women who have had abortions, and some don't have an issue talking about it openly. Unfortunately there are some who talk about it in the presence of women of have suffered miscarriages or stillbirths.

Many people don't see a foetus as a child. They would say that you are telling yourself a lie that a foetus is a child.

I do agree and feel a lot of simpathy for mothers that suffered miscarrages with your last point but I don't see its relevance to the legalise vs not.

doctoremma

Festus wrote: »

That is a reasonable question. At what point do reasonable scientists and doctors say that a new human being comes in to existence?

I'm a scientist, of the developmental genetics type. It's utterly unfathomable to me how a clump of cells can be regarded as a 'human being'. I wouldn't argue about 'human' but not a 'being' and not a 'person' (certainly not a baby or child). Every day, I experiment on, manipulate and examine human cells. Every day, I experiment on, manipulate and examine developing embryos (not human ones). They are bags of chemicals - there is no sentience, no knowledge, no 'magic', just the inevitability of chemistry.

I don't imagine for one minute that everyone thinks the same. But on this point, I can't even see the POV which says that a fertilised embryo is a human being. That doesn't mean I don't accept that some people think that. But it's so alien an idea to me. We obviously have some different wiring going on.

IMO, you need a brain, at the very least, to even start being a human being. Involuntary reflexes can be seen in tumours so I couldn't accept things like hiccupping, yawning, etc.

I'm not sure where the line should be. IMO, 12 weeks is plenty early but 24 weeks uncomfortably late (for me).

Festus

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm a scientist, of the developmental genetics type. It's utterly unfathomable to me how a clump of cells can be regarded as a 'human being'. I wouldn't argue about 'human' but not a 'being' and not a 'person' (certainly not a baby or child). Every day, I experiment on, manipulate and examine human cells. Every day, I experiment on, manipulate and examine developing embryos (not human ones). They are bags of chemicals - there is no sentience, no knowledge, no 'magic', just the inevitability of chemistry.

I don't imagine for one minute that everyone thinks the same. But on this point, I can't even see the POV which says that a fertilised embryo is a human being. That doesn't mean I don't accept that some people think that. But it's so alien an idea to me. We obviously have some different wiring going on.

IMO, you need a brain, at the very least, to even start being a human being. Involuntary reflexes can be seen in tumours so I couldn't accept things like hiccupping, yawning, etc.

I'm not sure where the line should be. IMO, 12 weeks is plenty early but 24 weeks uncomfortably late (for me).

Have you condsidered getting pregnant so you could take it out and experiment on it in your laboratory?

doctoremma

Festus wrote: »

Have you condsidered getting pregnant so you could take it out and experiment on it in your laboratory?

Honestly? That's how you feel it appropriate to discuss this issue?

Festus

doctoremma wrote: »

Honestly? That's how you feel it appropriate to discuss this issue?

You brought it up. You like experimenting with embryos and you do not see human embryos as human beings or valuable, but nothing more than a bags of chemicals and clumps of cells. So it is entirely appropriate to ask you if you, given your beliefs, erroneous as they are, would consider gettng pregnant to provide yourself with experimental material.

Or is it that case that given the opportunity you would experiment on human embryos as long as they were not yours.

Perhaps in your defence you could present a scientific argument that supports your belief as to when a human being comes in to existence..

GarIT

Festus wrote: »

You brought it up. You like experimenting with embryos and you do not see human embryos as human beings or valuable, but nothing more than a bags of chemicals and clumps of cells. So it is entirely appropriate to ask you if you, given your beliefs, erroneous as they are, would consider gettng pregnant to provide yourself with experimental material.

Or is it that case that given the opportunity you would experiment on human embryos as long as they were not yours.

Perhaps in your defence you could present a scientific argument that supports your belief as to when a human being comes in to existence..

That is just a crazy idea, no matter how the poster felt about their own embryos why would someone get pregnant for testing material when its already widely available.

Festus

GarIT wrote: »

That is just a crazy idea, no matter how the poster felt about their own embryos why would someone get pregnant for testing material when its already widely available.

Since when as the availability of something made it right, moral or ethical?

Besides there are precedents - Leeuwenhoek for one.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Women who have abortions know deep down that it was their child that was killed.

Er no. People who object to abortion know, deep down, that what is being destroyed is not a child.

I know this because of looking at the response people have to the fact that 8 out of 10 conceptions end in failure to implant or early mis-carriage.When anti-abortion campaigners are faced with this truth they do not recoil in horror at the huge loss of life, as one might when shown statistics for child death due to malaria or malnutrition in 3rd world countries.

Nope. Instead they (and you) shrug, dismissing this as simply natural deaths, and continue on. Doesn't bother then a jolt, hardly worth a second thought. Or in other words, you don't care, it is not a child that just died, it is just a collection of cells. When the woman's body is naturally aborting the foetus it is not a child to the anti-abortion campaigner. It is just a by product of an unsuccessful pregnancy.

If it is not a child if it dies of natural causes then demanding that it be treated as a child when it dies by the mothers actions is hypocritical. But then anti-abortion has always been far more about the dislike of the idea that a mother would not want her child, and that sex wouldn't have consequences, than genuine consideration that this collection of cells is a child that in of itself should be protected.

Wh1stler

Festus wrote: »

Have you condsidered getting pregnant so you could take it out and experiment on it in your laboratory?

I have reported this post and I intend to take it much further in the dispute resolution forum.

To make such a suggestion is reprehensible and I now have a suggestion for you:

Why don't you 'abort' yourself' as an experiment to find out whether or not there is an afterlife?

Let Mystic Meg know about your findings.

GarIT

Festus wrote: »

Since when as the availability of something made it right, moral or ethical?

Besides there are precedents - Leeuwenhoek for one.

I never said the availability made it either moral or ethical. What I was saying was if someone supplies water to your house do you go to a lake to get a cup of water? So if someone hands you embryos for testing why would you get pregnant to get embryos?

Festus

GarIT wrote: »

I never said the availability made it either moral or ethical. What I was saying was if someone supplies water to your house do you go to a lake to get a cup of water? So if someone hands you embryos for testing why would you get pregnant to get embryos?

Nepotism

yammycat

Is a miscarriage an abortion carried out by God ?

Wh1stler

Festus wrote: »

Or is it that case that given the opportunity you would experiment on human embryos as long as they were not yours.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/jun/08060901

So, the same industry that provide abortion services also perform in-utero surgery.

God intended for the pregnancy referred to above to result in the amputation of the legs or the death of that baby; shouldn't the medical profession have just stayed out of it? Shouldn't they have just let 'nature take its course?

Or do you think that this kind of 'experimentation' on foetuses is acceptable?

I mean, does science know what it is talking about or doesn't it?

Wh1stler

yammycat wrote: »

Is a miscarriage an abortion carried out by God ?

In effect, yes.

And ectopic pregnancies are attemted murder by God.

Indeed, it could be said that anti-abortionists do not reflect the morality of God at all.

doctoremma

Festus wrote: »

You brought it up.

Experimenting with human embryos? No I didn't, you did.

Festus wrote: »

You like experimenting with embryos

Where did I say that that?

Festus wrote: »

and you do not see human embryos as human beings

To a certain point in development, that's true.

Festus wrote: »

or valuable

You clearly haven't read any of my other posts where I've repeated that I don't view human embryos to have 'no value'.

Festus wrote: »

So it is entirely appropriate to ask you if you, given your beliefs, erroneous as they are, would consider gettng pregnant to provide yourself with experimental material.

You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be 'pro-choice'. It isn't, despite what people might try to suggest, 'pro-abortion', it doesn't mean having a wilful neglect for human life.

But more than anything, your suggestion that I whimsically get pregnant in order to terminate and happily experiment on the resulting embryo demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of how women feel about being pregnant and about the choices they might make.

You appear to be portraying people like me as some kind of modern day Mengel. I let you judge how offensive that is.

Festus wrote: »

Or is it that case that given the opportunity you would experiment on human embryos as long as they were not yours.

By human embryo experimentation I'm assuming you mean the growing and experimenting on of a whole embryo, rather than parts thereof e.g stem cells? No, I wouldn't. Nobody I know would. It's unnecessary, completely against the principles of biological studies using animals and frankly, far too politically-charged to even consider.

If you mean experimenting on a human embryo to mean any part of an embryo, then I have less problems with that.

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps in your defence you could present a scientific argument that supports your belief as to when a human being comes in to existence..

In my defence? Wasn't aware I needed one. And it is obvious to both of us that any paper I present outlining brain development, neurological outputs, pain perception and so on are going to be rejected by you. It goes without saying that you maybe should have read around this subject anyway.

It is scientifically incontrovertible that, biologically, a very early human embryo is no more than a clump of cells. There is no capability for anything more than response to the chemical signals going off in each cell. There are multiple studies to show that the embryonic brain only begins to demonstrate intrinsic activity remarkable late in development. Somewhere in between the 'clump of cells' stage and the late brain development, the embryo begins to sense pain and there is debate over when that might be (I've seen figures from 18-24 weeks).

If you wish to argue that a fertilised egg has a soul, the you carry on. If you wish to argue that the 'potential' for personhood is a tangible thing that should be considered as equivalent to personhood, then you carry on. For me, that's where the debate lies.

Festus

Wh1stler wrote: »

I have reported this post and I intend to take it much further in the dispute resolution forum.

To make such a suggestion is reprehensible and I now have a suggestion for you:

Why don't you 'abort' yourself' as an experiment to find out whether or not there is an afterlife?

Let Mystic Meg know about your findings.

The poster made the claim to be a scientist who works on embryos and also suggested that human embryos are not human beings in her opinion, an opinion that flies in the face of scientific consensus. If that is the case I can see nothing reprehensible.

yammycat

I'm ok with abortion but i think the 'it's not human' argument is a bit silly, implying there is a moment in time when it switches from not human to human, I can't distinguish this from any other supernatural claim.

PDN

yammycat wrote: »

I'm ok with abortion but i think the 'it's not human' argument is a bit silly, implying there is a moment in time when it switches from not human to human, I can't distinguish this from any other supernatural claim.

I would think the debate is more about the point at which an unborn child should be viewed as "a human" rather than just "human".

After all, fingernails and hair are human.

Festus

doctoremma wrote: »

Experimenting with human embryos? No I didn't, you did.

I never said you liked experimenting with human embryos. I said you liked experimenting with embryos.

doctoremma wrote: »

Where did I say that that?

Perhaps you don't "like" it but you did say:

doctoremma wrote: »

Every day, I experiment on, manipulate and examine human cells. Every day, I experiment on, manipulate and examine developing embryos (not human ones). They are bags of chemicals - there is no sentience, no knowledge, no 'magic', just the inevitability of chemistry.

doctoremma wrote: »

To a certain point in development, that's true.

But scientifically incorrect. A human being is a human being from conception.

doctoremma wrote: »

You clearly haven't read any of my other posts where I've repeated that I don't view human embryos to have 'no value'.

so what value do these bags of chemicals have?

doctoremma wrote: »

You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be 'pro-choice'. It isn't, despite what people might try to suggest, 'pro-abortion', it doesn't mean having a wilful neglect for human life.

It is about the right to kill unborn humans though, isn't it.

doctoremma wrote: »

But more than anything, your suggestion that I whimsically get pregnant in order to terminate and happily experiment on the resulting embryo demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of how women feel about being pregnant and about the choices they might make.

I asked if you would consider it. I did not suggest it.

doctoremma wrote: »

You appear to be portraying people like me as some kind of modern day Mengel. I let you judge how offensive that is.

By human embryo experimentation I'm assuming you mean the growing and experimenting on of a whole embryo, rather than parts thereof e.g stem cells? No, I wouldn't. Nobody I know would. It's unnecessary, completely against the principles of biological studies using animals and frankly, far too politically-charged to even consider.

If you mean experimenting on a human embryo to mean any part of an embryo, then I have less problems with that.

If the hat fits. I do consider those who work on human embryonic material to be evil regardless of the source and especially if obtained through IVF or abortion and any stem cell lines grown from such sources. If you are offended that is your problem.

doctoremma wrote: »

In my defence? Wasn't aware I needed one. And it is obvious to both of us that any paper I present outlining brain development, neurological outputs, pain perception and so on are going to be rejected by you. It goes without saying that you maybe should have read around this subject anyway.

Focusing in on one specific area is not what this is about. It is about human beings and human life from conception.
Focusing on brain development is just you making it nice for yourself and ignoring the reality.

doctoremma wrote: »

It is scientifically incontrovertible that, biologically, a very early human embryo is no more than a clump of cells. There is no capability for anything more than response to the chemical signals going off in each cell. There are multiple studies to show that the embryonic brain only begins to demonstrate intrinsic activity remarkable late in development. Somewhere in between the 'clump of cells' stage and the late brain development, the embryo begins to sense pain and there is debate over when that might be (I've seen figures from 18-24 weeks).

It is still a human being from conception.

doctoremma wrote: »

If you wish to argue that a fertilised egg has a soul, the you carry on. If you wish to argue that the 'potential' for personhood is a tangible thing that should be considered as equivalent to personhood, then you carry on. For me, that's where the debate lies.

Why? I'm only interested in why some so called human beings want to arbitrarily kill and experiment on other human beings who are in the early stages of their development.

yammycat

PDN wrote: »

I would think the debate is more about the point at which an unborn child should be viewed as "a human" rather than just "human".

After all, fingernails and hair are human.

I meant a human, sorry for being unclear

doctoremma

yammycat wrote: »

I'm ok with abortion but i think the 'it's not human' argument is a bit silly, implying there is a moment in time when it switches from not human to human, I can't distinguish this from any other supernatural claim.

The nuance that I think is being missed, and that I've tried to clarify, is the difference between 'human' and 'human being'. It's not a scientific definition, simply a means of differentiating between non-sentient and sentient. Of course a human embryo is human. The individual egg and sperm are human.

Festus

doctoremma wrote: »

The nuance that I think is being missed, and that I've tried to clarify, is the difference between 'human' and 'human being'. It's not a scientific definition, simply a means of differentiating between non-sentient and sentient. Of course a human embryo is human. The individual egg and sperm are human.

A few scientific citations are probably in order again:

"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]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

Festus

Back in a week. Knock yourselves out

doctoremma

Festus wrote: »

I never said you liked experimenting with human embryos. I said you liked experimenting with embryos.

I never said that. Normally, I don't care what people might attribute to me but, in this context, I think it's important to be clear. I do not "like" experimenting on embryos. Please refrain.

Festus wrote: »

But scientifically incorrect. A human being is a human being from conception.

We are now into semantics. I don't use the word 'being' to describe simply existence, I use it to describe 'personhood'.

Festus wrote: »

so what value do these bags of chemicals have?

They have a theoretical value, a value based on potential, maybe. In themselves as a bag of chemicals, very little, if any.

Festus wrote: »

It is about the right to kill unborn humans though, isn't it.

Whatever. I view it as the right to choose you own life over the theoretical life of a ball of cells, you view it as child murder? Never the twain shall meet.

Festus wrote: »

I asked if you would consider it. I did not suggest it.

You have your answer.

Festus wrote: »

If the hat fits. I do consider those who work on human embryonic material to be evil regardless of the source and especially if obtained through IVF or abortion and any stem cell lines grown from such sources. If you are offended that is your problem.

I'm not offended, I could care less about the sweeping stereotypes and comparisons to Nazis. People who work on such things usually have very noble intent, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's and so on. You should be careful, you never know up when you might need to access their knowledge...

Festus wrote: »

It is about human beings and human life from conception.

Perhaps it might help if you defined the criteria by which you judge a fertilised egg to a human being? Is it biological? Theoretical and potential? Spiritual?

Festus wrote: »

I'm only interested in why some so called human beings want to arbitrarily kill and experiment on other human beings who are in the early stages of their development.

I don't have any response to this. It's not worthy of one.

yammycat

doctoremma wrote: »

The nuance that I think is being missed, and that I've tried to clarify, is the difference between 'human' and 'human being'. It's not a scientific definition, simply a means of differentiating between non-sentient and sentient. Of course a human embryo is human. The individual egg and sperm are human.

If you have to be sentient to be a human being anyone in a coma would be in trouble, and I'd have second thoughts about going under anaesthesia by a doctor who thought i stopped being human when i blacked out, I'd also be a lot more careful with who i slept with.

All of these are temporary as is gestation, anaesthesia being far less and coma possibly being far longer, many years without sentience possibly.

Wh1stler

Festus wrote: »

The poster made the claim to be a scientist who works on embryos and also suggested that human embryos are not human beings in her opinion, an opinion that flies in the face of scientific consensus.

Where did she do that?

Festus wrote: »

If that is the case I can see nothing reprehensible.

But it's not, so you can.

Fanny Cradock

Wh1stler wrote: »

In effect, yes.

And ectopic pregnancies are attemted murder by God.

Indeed, it could be said that anti-abortionists do not reflect the morality of God at all.

Sorry, but how do you begin to back that up, wh1stler?

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

The individual egg and sperm are human.

But that, of course, misses the point being made by some people. I assume you are aware of this.

Wh1stler

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, but how do you begin to back that up, wh1stler?

If every conception and every introduction of a soul into the human is overseen by God, as has been suggested by some, then how can pregnancies naturally go wrong?

If nothing happens but by the will of God then how can we explain ectopic pregnancies except as an attempt on the life of the mother.

(For the record, I don't think God involves Himself with such things at all. Festus has just rubbed me up the wrong way today and I am sorry if I have caused offence.)

Fanny Cradock

Wh1stler wrote: »

If every conception and every introduction of a soul into the human is overseen by God, as has been suggested by some, then how can pregnancies naturally go wrong?

If nothing happens but by the will of God then how can we explain ectopic pregnancies except as an attempt on the life of the mother.

(For the record, I don't think God involves Himself with such things at all. Festus has just rubbed me up the wrong way today and I am sorry if I have caused offence.)

Yes, Festus is prone to doing that.

I agree in a very broad sense that nothing happens but by the will of God but I'll qualify that by adding "in so far as God sustains creation". The reason I add this is because if we are to look at both Jewish and Christian traditions it is evident that there are many things done that stand in direct opposition to the will of God.

Some might point to the Fall as the point in time that sin and death entered into existence, others might say that sin existed before the universe began and that creation was never perfect to begin with (again, Tom Wright, who I mentioned to you before, has more to say about the idea that creation was always meant as a staggered project) and there are more ideas (or variations on them) besides these. Whatever the case, I don't see that "God murders all unborn children" is our best and only option.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But that, of course, misses the point being made by some people. I assume you are aware of this.

I ddn't intend to. It was a comment made in the same vein as PDN's - to indicate that I, of course, accept an embryo as human in nature, just like sperm, eggs, toenails and hair.

qrrgprgua

doctoremma wrote: »

I ddn't intend to. It was a comment made in the same vein as PDN's - to indicate that I, of course, accept an embryo as human in nature, just like sperm, eggs, toenails and hair.

sperm, eggs, toenails and hair Don't have the possibility of becoming a person naturally. The Embryo does. We believe the person exists from conception which is why we hold that the principle of respect for life begins a conception.

doctoremma

yammycat wrote: »

If you have to be sentient to be a human being anyone in a coma would be in trouble, and I'd have second thoughts about going under anaesthesia by a doctor who thought i stopped being human when i blacked out, I'd also be a lot more careful with who i slept with.

All of these are temporary as is gestation, anaesthesia being far less and coma possibly being far longer, many years without sentience possibly.

Some interesting thoughts.

I agree that comas, anaesthesia and regular sleep may be regarded as non-sentient states (although I would assert that levels of neural activity in all are higher that in a developing embryo without a functional nervous system). I'm not sure I regard them as such.

However, I wouldn't describe them as only 'temporary' but more like 'temporary interruptions in normal sentience'. A person went into the state and a person will emerge from that state. They have past memories, a personality, they know what it feels like to laugh and cry, they are moral agents and thus have moral values applied to them. Anyone preventing that return to sentience (a rogue nurse, a bedfellow with a pillow) would rightly be regarded as having committed a crime. That's a lot different to a embryo which has never achieved sentience to begin with? An early embryo doesn't even have the capacity, the biology, for sentience, let alone actually be sentient.

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

sperm, eggs, toenails and hair Don't have the possibility of becoming a person naturally. The Embryo does. We believe the person exists from conception which is why we hold that the principle of respect for life begins a conception.

What do you mean by 'we believe...' - for whom are you speaking?

I understand you have a viewpoint, which you hold from strong personal conviction. I don't agree with it, and I have my own personal rationale for believing an alternative conclusion. I would never enforce to you to live by my own viewpoint. The same can't be said for your position.

Wh1stler

qrrgprgua wrote: »

sperm, eggs, toenails and hair Don't have the possibility of becoming a person naturally. The Embryo does. We believe the person exists from conception which is why we hold that the principle of respect for life begins a conception.

Sperm and eggs do have the possibility of becoming a person and indeed, a person could not develop wilthout them.

(Except for Adam and Eve of course.)

qrrgprgua

Wh1stler wrote: »

Sperm and eggs do have the possibility of becoming a person and indeed, a person could not develop wilthout them.

(Except for Adam and Eve of course.)

:rolleyes: intercert biology .. give me a moment to get my text book.

Zombrex

yammycat wrote: »

If you have to be sentient to be a human being anyone in a coma would be in trouble, and I'd have second thoughts about going under anaesthesia by a doctor who thought i stopped being human when i blacked out, I'd also be a lot more careful with who i slept with.

All of these are temporary as is gestation, anaesthesia being far less and coma possibly being far longer, many years without sentience possibly.

Being unconscious is not the same as lossing the ability to form sentience. It is the difference between turning off a computer (which can always turn back on again and continue from the same state it was in) and wiping a computer completely delete all files and programs.

This is why people who are declared brain dead and who have had irreversible brain damage are considered legally dead because the person they were is not considered to exist any more. Doesn't matter if the rest of the body is still alive and healthy and human and ticking away. If the brain degrades to the point where it cannot sustain the personality and memories of the person and cannot bring that personality back to sentience, then the person is considered to be "gone". This really should speak clearly to everyone about what we consider the valuable part of human existence.

There are two things that is considered important, the memory and personality stored in the human brain and the ability of the brain to sustain that personality and bring that personality to consciousness. This starts to form at about 26 weeks into pregnancy. It really only makes sense to start talking about the "person" from that point onwards. Until then you just have a shell, clumps of cells. And I don't think anyone genuinely consideres that as valuable as a person.

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

sperm, eggs, toenails and hair Don't have the possibility of becoming a person naturally.

Every single person on this planet started out as a sperm and an egg so that statement is blatantly false. There are 4 million people walking around this country demonstrating that a sperm can become a person naturally.

What you mean I think is that not every single sperm or egg will become a person naturally. But then 8 out of 10 embryos will die within their first week, so neither will they.

HemlockOption

If people believe strongly enough that a human being is in existence from the moment of conception, why then are they not lobbying strongly for a 'Register of Positive Pregnancy Tests'?

qrrgprgua

Zombrex wrote: »

Every single person on this planet started out as a sperm and an egg so that statement is blatantly false. There are 4 million people walking around this country demonstrating that a sperm can become a person naturally.

What you mean I think is that not every single sperm or egg will become a person naturally. But then 8 out of 10 embryos will die within their first week, so neither will they.

Does a Sperm become a person? an infertile woman no matter how many times she has sex will never become pregnant.

Per se. Sperm can't become a person. Same with an Egg.

Naturally on their own they can't. Put them together and both cease to exist and a new person is created in the form a unique DNA in a Zygote.

Havene't we had this argument before.

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Does a Sperm become a person? an infertile woman no matter how many times she has sex will never become pregnant.

Per se. Sperm can't become a person. Same with an Egg.

Naturally on their own they can't. Put them together and both cease to exist and a new person is created in the form a unique DNA in a Zygote.

Everyone (I hope) knows the biology of it. The issue hinges on the word 'person'. Zombrex gives a great illustration above - a brain-dead patient has everything absent that we associate with personhood, that's why we allow that switch to be flipped off.

How do you feel about the 'save the baby or the tank full of embryos from a burning building?' thought experiment?

qrrgprgua

doctoremma wrote: »

Everyone (I hope) knows the biology of it. The issue hinges on the word 'person'. Zombrex gives a great illustration above - a brain-dead patient has everything absent that we associate with personhood, that's why we allow that switch to be flipped off.

How do you feel about the 'save the baby or the tank full of embryos from a burning building?' thought experiment?

You save the baby.. Does not mean the embryos are any less important.

Its the principle of respecting life. Like the Father in Japan who was holding his 2 kids but due to the tsumani wave could only keep one. letting the other go. Real story.. The Dead child was not any less a Child.

Brain-Dead, The person has died, no matter what can be done to help the person can be help, the person is connected to a machine. Nature should take its course.

Abortion is not turning off the machine of a brain dead person, its killing a living person.

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

You save the baby.. Does not mean the embryos are any less important.

Its the principle of respecting life. Like the Father in Japan who was holding his 2 kids but due to the tsumani wave could only keep one. letting the other go. Real story.. The Dead child was not any less a Child.

Brain-Dead, The person has died, no matter what can be done to help the person can be help, the person is connected to a machine. Nature should take its course.

Abortion is not turning off the machine of a brain dead person, its killing a living person.

So what is your reasoning for saving the baby ?

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

You save the baby.. Does not mean the embryos are any less important.

Your actions suggest differently. In fact, not only do you choose a baby over an embryo, you choose one baby over hundreds of embryos. Why do you save one person instead of hundreds? How many embryos would there need to be before you saved the tank before the baby? For me, the answer is: never save the tank, regardless of numbers.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its the principle of respecting life. Like the Father in Japan who was holding his 2 kids but due to the tsumani wave could only keep one. letting the other go. Real story.. The Dead child was not any less a Child.

Do you have a link to that story, sounds like I should read it. Did he make a choice or was the choice made for him (one child ripped away during the mayhem)?

And if it's about respecting life, why not play the numbers game and save the most amount of life possible i.e. save the tank?

qrrgprgua

doctoremma wrote: »

Your actions suggest differently. In fact, not only do you choose a baby over an embryo, you choose one baby over hundreds of embryos. Why do you save one person instead of hundreds? How many embryos would there need to be before you saved the tank before the baby? For me, the answer is: never save the tank, regardless of numbers.


Do you have a link to that story, sounds like I should read it. Did he make a choice or was the choice made for him (one child ripped away during the mayhem)?

And if it's about respecting life, why not play the numbers game and save the most amount of life possible i.e. save the tank?

One thing is the Principle. Respect life, Do not kill.

Another thing is how this principle is applied day to day. Tank/Baby you do you best to save both.

Situations don't dictate that principles are wrong. Triage situations don't mean people are any less valuable than others.

HemlockOption

With respect, your response demonstrates to me how religion has succeeded over the centuries: pure obfuscation. And safe in the knowledge that the average person (flock) will just accept what is said.

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

One thing is the Principle. Respect life, Do not kill.

I respect that you believe this. The argument focuses on when 'life' is worthy of moral agency and thus of moral protection.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Tank/Baby you do you best to save both.

Maybe. I'd save it if there was no (or little) risk to me or the child under my arm, but that's more a reflection of the feelings I have to the putative parents of those embryos - I'd feel awful if I didn't try to preserve their dreams of parenthood.

Anyway, you can't save both and you've already said you'd save the baby. Why? If those embryos are truly people, truly children, why do you not try to save them instead?

Sin City

A brain dead person will never regain brain function so a coma patient would.be more apt , that is a coma patient that will make a full recovery over time

Sin City

Evolution would dictate.that we save the child most likely to survive and pass our genes on