What's wrong with this picture?

quote:

---

Fertilized eggs travel along the fallopian tubes and down into the uterus where they may implant themselves into the uterine walls.
Roughly half of all fertilized eggs never become implanted and are therefore flushed out of the woman's body when she menstruates.
It's disturbing to me that you are in your mid-teens but you don't seem to understand the basics of how babies are made.
Here's a link:
http://www.femalehealthmadesimple.com/FileTwoFinal.html

---

Believe me I know all about how babies are made, (Health Class for half a year) the term unimplantes confused me a bit. I would have guessed the eggs that were not fertilized.

quote:

---

So, when you said above that, "I SAID IT IS BEYOND MY JUDGEMENT, IT IS HER OWN DECISION!", if that woman went on to have an abortion, would you send her to prison for any length of time for murder?
What about the doctor and nurses who saved this mother's life by terninating her pregnancy? Would you send them to prison?
See, these are the logical and practical consequences of what you are saying.

---

Of course not. The mothers life was saved, the baby’s was not, it is beyond my judgment if the abortion was wrong in the aspect of killing the baby.

quote:

---

Well, lots of other people don't believe in your God and what your God has to say about sex. Nothing is stopping you from following what your god wants you to do, but you cannot demand that everyone else follow suit.

---

I’m hoping people will see that my God is also their own. Yes, I am aware that people disagree with my opinion

quote:

---

Well, perhaps I misunderstood when you said:

---

Pretty Large misunderstanding eh? But sorry for flippin out on ya.------------------
"I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." -JesusJohn 3:3This is Prophecyexclaimed, new name.

quote:

---

If you mean that the end of the gestational period (when it no longer has to be hard wired to anything or anyone) is a good place to draw a line well ok I’ll give you that.

---

Yep, and thanks. Not to try and add to the confusion but for accuracy I believe the true gestational state lasts a little bit longer than that, but it is certainly a point of convenience to choose independence from the host for the purposes of law (I guess its one of the key points indicating the gestational period is almost complete).

quote:

---

I’m looking for an admission that my line is not an outrageous place to draw the line (regardless of a soul).

---

If you mean the fertilization of the egg, I just cannot bring myself to admit that it's not outrageous. It is certainly the first key point in the beginning of a human life. However it is so nondefinitive regarding where it is going to end up, that I cannot consider it a being at all.

quote:

---

It would be immoral to subject humans to that kind of pain in a laboratory, and so research for human cloning will probably never be realized.

---

And this is the kind of bizarre conclusion which force me not to accept your line of argument. What do you mean by "that kind of pain"? What pain? There is no pain involved with fertility clinics, except the needless emotional suffering of people imagining that fertilized eggs have the ability to suffer.------------------
holmes

i was talking about the pain that would be caused by experiments to improve human cloning. So because of our unspoken rule that making suffering humans (whatever the benefit may later be) experiments to further human cloning is immoral and unacceptable.again, IF the line is drawn at the fertilization of the egg, then it would also be immoral to create, and then throw out these humans... and so research to improve fertility clinic’s methodology would probably be limited, or eliminated. I never suggested fertilized eggs at fertility clinics are suffering.

I guess I understand now. I was referring to fertility clinics for people just trying to conceive, not for experiments in cloning. So I guess we were talking past each other.Unfortunately the problem stands, fertility clinics (dealing only with conception) would get shut down because of an arbitrary reasoning than a fertilized egg is a protected human being.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

quote:

---

is there a reason why 16 should be the cutoff for a driver's license?

---

​

Sure, maybe since its generally the age at which puberty has set in or maybe its the age at which teenagers start to need/want cars. But there are reasons to put that line at 16or 18 or 21 or 25 maybe even 12.

---

Ah. So you agree that we should place a driver's license at an arbitrary cutoff for when there is a balance point between individual civil liberties, and a greater moral value (the safety of the public). Good. Now apply the same reasoning to abortion.We don't give drivers licenses at the most "significant event" in the person's developing the ability to drive (that would be their conception... right?). We place it at the moral balance point.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're trying to claim that we should value the design plan for a human as much as what the design plan produces.

---

​

were looking for a definition of human. I havent accepted that a fertilized egg is just the design plans.

---

And how do you get that? Do you have some sort of deep love for one of its golgi apparatuses, or is there a need to cuddle its mitochondria? (please excuse the sarcasm It's just to emphasize the differences).

quote:

---

there are exceptions to general rules. Is this an exception?

---

Actually, in *every* killing of what is *indisputably* a person, the circumstances are weighted, to determine whether it was something the state actually *assigned* a person to do, whether it was completely an accident, was a negligent accident, was intentional but not premeditated, or was premeditated.

quote:

---

Is there some threat that must be neutralized that is more important than the loss of an innocent life?

---

1) Add the moral value of the "innocent life". Are its surface proteins going to suffer? What about the hopes and dreams of its phospholipid bilayer?2) There *Is* a *Huge* moral issue concerning the woman who is in desparate enough of a situation to consider an abortion. Let me tell you something: this is never a situation a woman would go into if she didn't consider her entire life to be hinging upon it.

quote:

---

Is the fetus consenting to an operation and aware of the risks of failure?

---

Does the fetus even have a cerebrum at this point? Or a brain at all? Or even a single nerve cell? No, but it has a nice quantity of cytoplasm. It is a blueprint in a bag of organelles; please evidence otherwise.

quote:

---

By black and white I mean (once the line is drawn) abortions at certain points will be murder, and abortions at other points will be legitimate choices made by the pregnant woman. (it would only NOT be black and white if you had varying degrees of punishment for sort-of-murder)

---

Actually, if you'll read what I proposed, its a series of lines, to soften the black-and-white nature to more of what it really is like: a steadily increasing moral issue, until the moral concern over something that is finally beginning to have human thought overrides the moral concerns over the mother's well being. When the risk of driving women to extremes such as backalley abortions and even suicide becomes outweighed by the concern over something that has finally proceeded from being just a blueprint, into the start of a thinking being.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So while both people and buildings go from schematics to finished product, the consequences of destroying the work in progress are very different.

---

​

That's what you're claiming - but also what you're not evidencing.

---

​

because destruction of a building in process equals a variable loss, while destruction of a human in process is either murder, or not murder depending on where the line is.

---

Once again: That's what you're claiming, but also what you're not evidencing. It's circular: You're saying abortion is murder. I show why it shouldn't be considered murder, because we're comparing a blueprint for a human with a human; and you try and defend your claim with the premise that abortion is murder. That's about as circular as you can get. And the funny thing? Under our law, it *isn't* legally murder. But, of course, the circularity is what I want to point out to you here.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Would you give inalienable rights to a Paramecium? What about a rat? What about a dog? A chimp? A human? You guessed it - "inalienable rights" are relative to the moral worth of the subject in question.

---

​

A human (one in the united states at least, since we are in control of our own laws) does deserve these inalienable rights. When does a human begin? At the point right after we draw the line.

---

Once again: as I evidenced above and you didn't dispute, "inalienable rights" are relative to the moral worth of the subject in question. As you have yet to indicate why a fertilized egg is somehow more than just a plan for a human being, as opposed to a design-plan DNA in a bag of organelles, you have yet to challenge this in any sort of reasonable manner.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm just showing how easily the blueprint is created, and how easily (and frequently) it is destroyed. Unlike a human. Yet another difference.

---

​

to clarify, should nature treatment of various things have an influence as to the moral value of said things?

---

Then drop the "easily destroyed" part out, and just look at how easily created the blueprint is.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was referring to the number of possible DNA combinations.

---

​

ummm arent there a near infinite number of possible humans too? Does this lessen their worth?

---

It lessens the worth of the plan, not the individual. After all, is it OK to kill one identical twin? (you've refused to answer this one - that's why I have to keep restating it.) If your answer is "no", then you might stop and think that maybee - just perhaps maybee - humans are worth a whole lot more than their deoxyribonucleic acid. Why do we value them more? Because of their thoughts, their dreams, their personalities, their hopes, their aspirations, their fears, their joys - their self.

quote:

---

I dont think you quite understood me. The argument works both ways because: pretend there is a woman who wants an abortion during the first trimester.

---

96% of abortions.

quote:

---

I say no you cant have an abortion and you say yes you can. If the line you support (second trimester) is deemed correct then my stance would be immoral (denying a woman control over her own body), and your stance would be moral (letting the woman choose for herself).

---

Not just letting herself have control over her body. Stopping her from going to a backalley clinic or committing suicide to avoid having to have her life torn apart by a pregnancy. Let's put it in real terms, OK?

quote:

---

IF on the other hand the line I am purposing were deemed correct, then your stance would be immoral (the killing of an innocent human), while mine would be moral (not permitting the woman to take another human life).

---

Right - which is why we're at an "angels on the head of a pin" argument, as I discussed in my last post.

quote:

---

You start with the assumption that your line is correct, and then point out the moral flaws in my stance. You cant just skip the discussion like that.

---

No, I didn't. Not remotely. Re-read the "angels on the head of a pin" commentary. The "finite" versus "infinite" moral worth issue.

quote:

---

But until then you need to address why certain lines are more valid places than other, and more specifically, why my line is a worse place than yours (note, Im not saying its all arbitrary, so it doesnt matter. You should know my reasoning by now).

---

Your reasoning would give a driver's license to a newborn, because the most significant event in their life to you is conception. Pardon me if I don't accept it.You have to be logical about this. What we value about a person is not their genes - it is who they are. That they think and feel just like us. A fertilized egg does not. It has neither nerves nor thoughts. It is a *plan* for producing a being that *does* have nerves and thoughts - but time is an inherent property of this universe and cannot just be blinked away. You cannot destroy someone's blueprint for a skyscraper and then get fined the cost of the skyscraper. Because all you destroyed is the blueprint for one of trillions of possible buildings. The same goes here: That is one, easily created blueprint. You have yet to evidence why a bag of organelles with a design molecule of deoxyribonucleic acid is more than just a design for a person (those things with thoughts and feelings).Rei writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Care to address the "Twin Issue"? Is it OK to kill one identical twin? I mean, the plan hasn't been destroyed... In fact, let's take this one further. Let's say that we have a fertilized egg cell. What if we force it to cleave into two twins, then destroy one? Is that OK? Why - the end result (this unique blueprint developing into one person) is exactly the same as it would have been before we started. Why is it a moral tragedy, by your view?

---

​

Im making this up as I go along, but conception being the most significant moment answers this. Ill leave the unique set of human DNA as decorative sprinkles. Most of the time the fertilization of the egg means a unique set of human DNA is created. But two or more sets of a set of DNA doesnt change the fact that the creation of their DNA set is the most significant moment in their development.

---

Ok, so now unique DNA is irrelevant here (or minimally relevant). Good to see you admit that. So, what is being lost when you kill that second egg cell that you find as a moral tragedy? And let me add, if there *is* no moral tragedy, you better believe me that there is to the woman who has an unwanted pregnancy, so there better be one if you want to defend your line.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-15-2003]

Yeah, this is turning out horrible for me. I've lost interest in this thread because it's getting harder and harder to respond to your challenges... so i'm going to concede the point. No, actually... i'll put it in the back of my mind in case anyone actually tries to use it in place of the soul argument what ever happened to that lizard guy?But just a few things i want to understand about your stance... and some things i want to clear up. Are you sure about this? There must be some women who have used abortions as a form of late acting birth control because she didn't want the child. But the steadily increasing moral issue never address the killing of an innocent human (if a woman were to have an abortion after your second trimester line, that is what it would be). Your "softening" of the line only gives support to the mother thinking about the abortion.Children are not held completely responsible for their actions at first, but as time progresses responsibility shifts from the parents to them (the child), until (in the court) they are punished to the full extent of the law. Isn't it logical to have a similar sliding scale of punishment, or responsibility if what the pregnant women are doing is kill almost humans, or quarter humans? it's not circular. It's a black and white moral issue because (unless we have a sliding scale of punishment) the pregnant woman is either committing murder or not committing murder. ignore where the line is right now, or where i want to draw it, or where you want to draw it... destroying a building gives us a variable loss, while destroying a clump of cells (completly dependent on the line) is either murder or not murder. That is where the analogy is breaking down. According to our justice system, it is incredibly more important where the line is drawn. this still creates problems. Should we consult the natural frequency of things when deciding the moral worth of said things? i'm pretty sure a new born baby (undeniably human) does not have any of these things... maybe joys and fears... but what mildly complex animal doesn't have these? i don't quite understand the angels on the head of a pin argument. can you explain?I googled for it and found that story about the physics student who measured the height of a building with a barometer.peace

I think this one's gone on long enough.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads