A thread not for the easily offended

[Stuart]

The ethical (pro-life) argument is that human life is formed at the moment of fertilisation.

I just had to... however out of context this may be, I couldn't help it

"But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than more than one period is a serial killer!" - George Carlin

I'll look at replying more when I'm not at work, but Carlin is just being stupid here. There is a HUGE difference between human intervention and natural occurrences. It's the same as counting a woman who suffers a miscarriage as a murderer. That right there is an example of the "idiocracy" that rusty mentioned earlier. Guys who resort to those kinds of arguments lose all credibility in my eyes.

[hamin_aus]

There is a HUGE difference between human intervention and natural occurrences.

Of course

Human intervention = humans killing babies
Natural occurrence = God killing babies

[Prime]

you calling me a serial killer then....

but i think it depends on the "mother" when she sees her baby as something growing inside her or as a human...

Spoiler (show)

On a serious note, Don't scientists and bioligists assert that it's only considered a living organism once it displays consciousness - I'm have no luck digging up the topic on google. Consciousness has become a Hippie term

[JollyJamma]

I watched 'The genius of Charles Darwin' on BBC yesterday. Badly presented but entertaining. I agree with them in the disbelief that absolute fact is being completely ignored. Kinda like the fact that the earth rotates around the sun which was dismissed for years after it was proved.

The every religious person in the episode had opinions like this:

[lancelot]

George Carlin was a comedian and an equine rectum.

[Stuart]

On a serious note, Don't scientists and bioligists assert that it's only considered a living organism once it displays consciousness - I'm have no luck digging up the topic on google. Consciousness has become a Hippie term

Not the real honest ones.

Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) united with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell--a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

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.

Physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception.

It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive. . . . It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.

The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter--the beginning is conception.

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

It is possible to give "human being" a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to "member of the species Homo Sapiens. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and egg is a human being.

A human fetus is not a non-human animal; it is a stage of a human being.

The [embryo] is human; it will not articulate itself into some other kind of animal. Any being is human is a human being. If it is objected that, at five days or fifteen days, the embryo does not look like a human being, it must be pointed out that this is precisely what a human being looks like--and what each of us looked like--at five or fifteen days of development.

[jee]

Ironically, part of the reason bisexuality gets a bad rap and why so few people openly identify as such, is because it’s associated with many negative cultural connotations. For our purposes, I’ll define a bisexual as someone who is drawn to emotional and/or sexual relationships with different genders, although terms relating to bisexuality run the gamut and can include descriptors such as "pansexual," "queer," "ambisexual," "omni-sexual," and “Larry King.”

o..k

[Tribble]

interesting read that. Way more interesting than "when life begins."

[KALSTER]

interesting read that. Way more interesting than "when life begins."

Stuart: I don't think anyone is disputing that the zygote is the thing that will develop into a human and only a human or that this thing is alive. The question is of course at what stage is the growing thing worth saving at any cost and at what stage would it be "wrong" to kill it? This is obviously similar to the abortion question and has some ideological implications. How do you feel about artificial insemination? Because during that process the majority of embryos don't make it either.

Personally I think the fact that most zygotes die anyway and that a clump of matter, even if it is human, does not possess person-hood until the brain switches on, attains consciousness and starts processing its environment IMO, means I have no problem with researchers working with it. The potential benefits are simply huge.

[Stuart]

Stuart: I don't think anyone is disputing that the zygote is the thing that will develop into a human and only a human or that this thing is alive.

You see, you've immediately redefined it. A zygote is not a "thing" that will "develop" into a human. A zygote is a human in his/her earliest stages of development. Since human life (in my understanding) has intrinsic value, a zygote has as much value as a 26-year-old adult. If it's wrong to kill the 26-year-old adult, it's wrong to kill the zygote.

[rustypup]

A zygote is a human in his/her earliest stages of development.

so when it proves non-viable at 3 months does it magically cease to be a human being?..

as delightful as your faery tale may be to the various tjops out there which keep spouting it like it's fact, it is not a human.it is something which has the potential to become a human being but it is most assuredly nothing other than a clump of highly specialized cells... there is no brain, no cognition, nothing...

[KALSTER]

Stuart: I don't think anyone is disputing that the zygote is the thing that will develop into a human and only a human or that this thing is alive.

You see, you've immediately redefined it. A zygote is not a "thing" that will "develop" into a human. A zygote is a human in his/her earliest stages of development. Since human life (in my understanding) has intrinsic value, a zygote has as much value as a 26-year-old adult. If it's wrong to kill the 26-year-old adult, it's wrong to kill the zygote.

I am not redefining anything per se. There is a difference between "human" and "a human" in this context and "a human" is closer to "a person" in meaning, or that is how I have been using it. I originally thought you were saying the question is whether a zygote is a person, because whether it is alive and human is not in dispute.

A zygote or embryo in early development is not a person in the same way a brain-dead adult husk is no longer a person. Neither of them has minds. Are you against switching off the machines of a brain-dead person? And again, are you then also against artificial insemination? Saying that a mindless, formless clump of cells has the same value as a full blown person is simply bizarre.

[D3PART3D]

A zygote or embryo in early development is not a person in the same way a brain-dead adult husk is no longer a person.

They are totally different when you add a timeline?

[KALSTER]

A zygote or embryo in early development is not a person in the same way a brain-dead adult husk is no longer a person.

They are totally different when you add a timeline?

Not as different as you might think. As noted earlier, the vast majority of zygotes never come to term. When artificial insemination is done, the majority of embryos die, yet most of the people against stem cell research and/or abortion have no problem with it. Why? It doesn't make sense. On the other hand, you have a potential treatment where the suffering of actually conscious people can be alleviated. It is a no-brainer if you ask me.

If you don't like stem cell research, then simply refuse treatment when they are eventually developed, but don't try and prolong the suffering of thousands because of some dubious ideological standpoint. Will you really refuse letting your child be treated by treatments developed out of stem cell research? Will you watch your child suffer, knowing you can do something about it?

[Stuart]

so when it proves non-viable at 3 months does it magically cease to be a human being?..

Please explain exactly what you mean by "prove non-viable"?

as delightful as your faery tale may be to the various tjops out there which keep spouting it like it's fact, it is not a human.it is something which has the potential to become a human being but it is most assuredly nothing other than a clump of highly specialized cells... there is no brain, no cognition, nothing...

Unlike you who spout this theory as fact without seeking to defend it?

Furthermore, define what you mean by "cognition." If you mean the ability to think methodically, would you ascribe this ability to a three-day old infant? If not, does that mean that it is okay to kill the infant? Does human life increase in value as cognitive ability matures?

A zygote or embryo in early development is not a person in the same way a brain-dead adult husk is no longer a person.

The MAJOR difference here is that person who is declared brain-dead has suffered irreversible loss of all coordinated bodily function, including brain function. Not so with a foetus. There may be no brain yet, but there will be one shortly.

The key point is simply this: The embryo is in fact nothing like a brain-dead person because (unlike you and me and most of the human race, excluding lawyers, politicians and Nashua Mobile employees), an embryo doesn't need a brain to live. Something else co-ordinates the bodily systems of the embryo so that it functions as a coordinated whole. Embryos function as living organisms; brain-dead people do not.

[rustypup]

Please explain exactly what you mean by "prove non-viable"?

aborts... without intervention...

define what you mean by "cognition." If you mean the ability to think methodically, would you ascribe this ability to a three-day old infant?

personally, i'd peg cognition as the ability for a developed brain to spontaneously form new neural pathways based on stimuli....

an embryo doesn't need a brain to live.
<.snip>Embryos function as living organisms; brain-dead people do not.

you cannot be serious.... talk about moving the goal posts...

nobody denied the zygote's cells were alive... we're just challenging the notion that they're a human being... it would appear we're playing a game of "let's move the peg as far back as we can so when we're forced to concede we'll still be a universe away from those murderous pro-lifers" - pond scum has living cells... should we be wailing and gnashing our teeth when we catch someone scraping it out of the filters?

nothing is that cut and dried :/ until your little human has nestled comfortably into the uterine wall, it's going to be a no show... hard, undeniable fact... so is the zygote a people before or after implantation? once you concede, (as you must do), that until this particular event is successfully negotiated, the zygote is a little lost parcel of protein and enzymes looking for a home, then you need to move forward and evaluate the rest of your sentence... which implies that the brain is a minimum requirement for the brain-dead, but all a zygote requires is more than 2 cells... which is pretty damn hard on the brain-dead... because s/he has a damn sight more than just 4 stodgy cells...

then we have to look at the odds against the zygote staying put... i'm not going to hunt it down but the last figure i read on the issue pegged the failure rate at >40% under 3 months, and >3% thereafter... so let's say 43%... that's the chances of that little sod simply calling it quits before it has even started...

now, miscarriage has a number of causes not least of which is diet... so now you genuinely are calling every woman out there a murderer... because whether she was aware of her condition or not she killed a people with tequila shots!...

i'm terribly sorry but your argument is invalid by virtue of being borderline insane... understandable given where it comes from, but completely, utterly out there... the sort of arglebargle i'd expect to see spouting forth from the WBC...

[Stuart]

aborts... without intervention...

now, miscarriage has a number of causes not least of which is diet... so now you genuinely are calling every woman out there a murderer... because whether she was aware of her condition or not she killed a people with tequila shots!...

Wow, that's an impressive little straw-man argument you've built there. Let me see if I can do the same with our other favourite subject.

One day there was an amoeba floating around in a pond. He decided that he would like to see what was around him, and so--POP, POP--he grew two eyes. Deciding that he would like to navigate a little quicker under water, he decided to grow two arms: POP, POP. Later, he decided that he would like to go an see what was on the land and so--POP, POP--he grew too legs. When he got hungry and realised he needed to climb a tree to get food--POP--he grew a tail to help him. He spent some time swinging through the trees until one day he missed a branch and fell to the ground. He hit the ground with a thwack, lost his tail, and turned from a monkey into a man.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is what evolutionists believe!

It's nice when you can write off other viewpoints by simply ascribing some form of ludicrous thinking to them, isn't it Mr Carlin? I thought we already established that there is a difference between a foetus dying by itself and the actual, deliberate killing of the foetus. It seems you disagree?

you cannot be serious.... talk about moving the goal posts...

I'm sorry, but again I don't quite follow how this is moving the goalposts. KALSTER argued that a foetus is the same as a brain-dead individual on the basis that neither has brain activity. His point was that, since it can be generally asserted that human life ends with the cessation of brain activity, human life therefore begins with the commencement of brain activity. I am simply asserting that there is a huge difference between someone who has suffered irreversible loss of brain function and whose other bodily functions will therefore certainly shut down, and someone who has not yet developed a brain, but whose development has not yet irreversibly ceased. Surely you can see the difference?

pond scum has living cells... should we be wailing and gnashing our teeth when we catch someone scraping it out of the filters?

I'm sorry, but referring to a zygote to pond scum is completely ludicrous. One is a developing human being, the other is, well, pond scum.

I understand your argument about "non-viability" and spontaneous abortions, etc. but really when it comes to the issue of abortion you have to concede that we are talking about two different things here. We live in a sin-cursed world, where children in and out of the womb die--before and after the first three months of pregnancy. In my language, that is God's providence; in yours, it is the way nature works. Either way, it's a far cry from a mother choosing to deliberately end the life that is growing inside of her.

[hamin_aus]

We live in a sin-cursed world, where children in and out of the womb die--before and after the first three months of pregnancy. In my language, that is God's providence; in yours, it is the way nature works. Either way, it's a far cry from a mother choosing to deliberately end the life that is growing inside of her.

How do you know a mother aborting a baby is not God's providence?
Did He tell you it's not?
He already knew at the babies inception that the mother would want to abort...

If He is not happy about the abortion, let Him deal with the mother when her time comes.

Why people feel the need to do Gods bidding in matters beyond the scope of the bible is beyond me.

Where in the bible does it say a mother killing her unborn child is wrong (actual question, please answer, even if you ignore the rest of this post)

According to your own literature, when he gets gatvol of us he is more than capable of dealing with the situation. Just ask the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, or all the people who drowned in the great flood.

Unless He makes a personal appearance and denounces abortion, you cant say with any authority that He is against it.
This is the same deity who enjoys blood sacrifices and whose idea of a practical joke is to make parents want to kill their children...

[rustypup]

but again I don't quite follow how this is moving the goalposts. KALSTER argued that a foetus is the same as a brain-dead individual on the basis that neither has brain activity.

A zygote is not a "thing" that will "develop" into a human. A zygote is a human

zygote.... a zygote is NOT a foetus... are you sure you're qualified to be arguing this?

referring to a zygote to pond scum is completely ludicrous. One is a developing human being, the other is, well, pond scum.

first off, you're the one declaring that fitness for people-dom comes down to coordinated cell development:

an embryo doesn't need a brain to live. Something else co-ordinates the bodily systems of the embryo so that it functions as a coordinated whole. Embryos function as living organisms; brain-dead people do not.

now, call me mister silly but that particular definition includes anything with recombinant DNA... even these brain-dead people you appear to dislike so much have a multitude of cells working in concert...

the "Something else co-ordinates the bodily systems of the embryo" bit concerns me because it smacks of "magic"... ie, "something.something.magic happens! PRAISE THE LORTH!"

which is about as logical as toothpaste and fish jam sandwiches...

secondly, humanity is far too overrated... i'd re-quote my re-quote but it's clear this will have no impact on your POV... seriously... you're speaking about a species that pours multiple trillions into the outright retardation that is organised sport but couldn't scrape a few billion together to secure its own future... a species which values marketing and the opinions of talking bobble heads over the scientific community... a species which happily runs around blowing itself up in the name of various make believe skybeards...

frankly, it's an insult to pond scum...

We live in a sin-cursed world

sin is where you seek it... and if you believe in scary faery tales... designed to ensure the power grubbing oligarchy of organised religion maintains its position in the face of common sense and good taste... then, sure... let's blame "sin" but not "magic"...

why is it a "miracle" of birth but not a "miracle" of abortion?... surely the same force is in play?

it's a far cry from a mother choosing to deliberately end the life that is growing inside of her.

so you differentiate between accident and intention? which is worse... that she made a calculated decision not to raise another wife-beating jerry springer fan or that she stumbled and accidentally killed her people-passenger?

[lancelot]

You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13).

[lancelot]

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

This is what the LORD says—he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you...(Isaiah 44:2).

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).

And now the LORD says—he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44).

[GreyWolf]

[KatrynKat]

what if you knew, after doing tests, that the baby inside of you is going to be born with a defect or will be a down-syndrome child....
would you want to bring that child into the world where it will go through hard times, pain and suffering, not to mention what the parents will go through, or would you "murder" or end the life before it is too late to and the child suffers......
i can't imagine what it must feel like and hope that i never have to go through a situation like this or any that has been discussed here...

i see and understand both sides of the argument.... but one must realise that it is not society that decides the outcomes.... it's the parents...

[rustypup]

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

so his hands-on approach proves a few things:

• 1) he's anal retentive and can't trust his "perfect" creation to do the job itself
  2) his workmanship is sub-par... if i produced >40% failure rates i'd be drawn and quartered...
  3) if your zygote failed, it was personal - don't kid yourself... the good lord determined you to be an unfit parent long before he introduced the zygote... he was just teasing/testing...

:/

[JollyJamma]

Charles Darwin FTW. People who ignore blatant facts are idiots.

Do you know the difference between Science and religion? Science gives you questions, religion gives you answers. Answers even if they are wrong...like the earth being flat and at the center of the universe. Science is big enough to admit when it was wrong and will accept someone elses opinion if it can be proved. Try that with someone from religion and you get labelled really nasty things which isn't nice or good.

Oh and another thing that annoys me is when people do things 'In the name of God'. Pah. As if.