What's wrong with this picture?

Rei, i don't see how answering no to both those questions is logically inconsistent with being against abortions. It's possible a fertilized cell is greater than the sum of its parts.a store owner is probably ok with people picking up merchandise in her store, and is also probably ok with people walking out of her store, but is not ok with someone combining those two actions unless the person pays for the merchandise.The implication being that there are more parts to the whole than you suggest. One of those parts could be the existence of a soul... but on a more original note: The abortion of a fertilized cell is the destruction of a few human cells with a unique DNA signature, however that destruction destroys ALL of that unique DNA. It is not just a part of a whole; all of that unique human DNA is lost forever.

not necessarily something "magic". The new element (not really new, just not mentioned) is that the abortion of a fertilized cell would cause the destruction of a unique set of human DNA. The moral rule could be that human DNA is sacred, and (once fully formed) should be preserved as much as possible. Actively destroying that unique set is morally wrong, and the only acceptable way for an entire set of human DNA to be destroyed is by natural causes (death, miscarriage, etc).Now all we have to do is find someone who actually holds this moral value, and they would be justifiably pro-life.p.s. actually the above reasoning sounds like a religious viewpoint (just not one that belongs to any modern religions) so instead murder would have to re-defined to something along the lines of actively destroying all the cells that contain a unique set of DNA.

is it any more arbitrary than the law now? or 10 years ago? in the past you had to be outside the womb to be human, and consequently, for your killer to be held accountable for his or her actions. but what is the difference between a baby inside and outside the womb? The hard wiring to the mother is just a matter of convince. C-sections, and premature births show that the only difference between babies (of identical ages) in a womb, and babies outside of a womb is simply that. One is inside, the other is outside.As technology advances, and our knowledge of the human body increased we learn that the actual defining (important) moment is when the sperm fertilizes the egg... or when the egg implants... or when the brain/spinal cord start to develop... or when the heart starts beating...The point being: Defining someone as human just because they are outside a woman's uterus is (as probably everyone will agree) a largely arbitrary and outdated definition. So where does the line get drawn? When does a clump of human cells become human, and consequently subject to the protection of the constitution? That is the subject of this debate. Is it such an outrageous idea? No other human cell contains the pattern of human DNA contained in a fertilized egg. That unique nature of the cell (and the fact that it belongs to our species we have a habit of favoring our species when it comes to basic rights) is what makes it unlawful for another human to take away its [the unique set of DNA] right to life. This isn’t quite clear to me are you saying that the importance of these fertilized eggs are less important since nature doesn’t preserve every single one of them? If that’s what you mean well are adult lives any less valuable when hurricanes, earthquakes, stampedes, or tornadoes end them? Since nature is fine with randomly killing people, we shouldn’t be concerned when war or cereal killers help nature out.If you’re not saying that, please elaborate.

right, there is no magicl line... but we have drawn one anyway. I'm saying it's not an outrageous concept to draw that line between 2 separate sex cells, and a fertilized egg. It is a long way from an just born baby, but it's a moment of major change, and therefore arguably a place to draw a line. interesting. So you've drawn the arbitrary line between moments before the second trimester and the second trimester. for what reasons?also, the counseling requirements seem to only address the mother/parent's reaction to the loss of the fetus... i think the more pertinent discussion is weather the fetus is human or not... and not so much what to do about the parents (granted it's important, just something that should be addressed after the decision had been made weather they’ve just removed some cells, or killed a person) ppft, speak for yourself. ok, bad analogy. can i try another? people who grow old and [if left to] care for themselves would die, are taken care of by their family or the general population. That life may fail, but they are not simply left to die because they can no longer care for themselvesI'm arguing that the percentage of fertilized eggs nature keeps to babyhood does not have (and should not have) any impact on what our rules an laws are. Humans defy nature all the time (assuming humans and human inventions are not natural).edited for clarity[This message has been edited by TheoMorphic, 11-12-2003]

er... i'm pretty sure i was clear about this. it might seem to be the "natural" line, but a more informed person wouldn't drawn the line at such an arbitrary and insignificant moment. (in the baby/organism's development that is) comeon, i'm pretty sure i haven't been advocating a stance of "nature is all knowing, and can do no wrong, we shouldn't meddle with her affairs". human intervention to prolong life is generally ok by me, and human intervention to end life is generally not ok by me.Could you use quotes to show what you are responding to? I re-read my post, and I’m pretty sure I never implied that natural = good, and unnatural = bad. are you responding to my post? i thought i was arguing that the significant moment could be when the 2 sex cells join. how did you get to the above "best your argument can get"?(on a side note, this is actually very close to the stance i actually hold. i believe the arbitrary line should be between a fetus that is dependent on the mother, and a fetus that is not dependent on the mother. One is an extention of the mother, the other is a potentially independent organism (not dependent on one specific person).) My reason for mentioning this definition of human was that a fertilized egg could be seen as more than the sum of its parts, and the additional part of the fertilized egg doesn’t necessarily have to be a soul.To answer your three questions above: Preserving all humans is important (rather: not murdering them is important), and so implementation of that rule depends on our definition of human (and murder). I’m sure there are people now who have problems with fertility clinics keeping fertilized eggs, so why do you make it sound so outrageous? And finally, yes twins (triplets, quintuplets, etc) are scum of the earth, and
n-tuplets are n-1 too many of the same DNA sequence. i said this in my very last post, but it seems you and Rei hold similar opinions about nature’s influence on our actions, so i'll say it again. I don't think nature's opinion matters all that much when dealing with human law and actions. Either we’re a part of nature, and so our actions/opinions are just as viable as what would happen if we didn’t interfere, or humans (and human interference) are unnatural, in which case we should decide our own fate anyway.

I'm almost positive i've never considered nature when deciding where my devil's advocate thinks the line between human and not human should be drawn. when i mentioned it it was just to speak of a general belief i held that in no way impacted what i was saying about the arbitrary line. If that was unclear before, i'll make it clear now, my hypothetical stance (that draws the line between fertilized egg and unfertilized egg) has nothing to do with what would naturally happen to anything. this is a matter of definition (the main discussion point, and when it is resolved, most other points will resolve themselves). you define the gestational period as the time before the entity is a fully formed autonomous being. Why not define the gestational period as the time before birth, or before the hearts starts beating, or before the brain is formed, or before the 2 sex cells meet.invalids are not independent, but i'm sure you'll agree they are alive, and human. Does independence (or really not even that... you mean potential independence, because even after the entity can survive on it's own, it still depends largely on the mother) really equal life? will the advancement of technology move your line between life and non life closer and closer to the moment of fertilization? when i mentioned the convenience at firs it was with regards to a child almost ready to be born, and a child that happen to be born a few moments earlier. the convenience part being that doctors don't take the baby out because it's fine where it is. They could take it out of the wanted to (and the baby would be fine), but it would require surgery, be more expensive, and ... well simply inconvenient to do so. again a matter of definition. The MOST significant line between nonlife and life (as a unique being) is when the two sex cells meet. Or they could just never be made in the first place. because they are unique human dna... isn't that reason enough in itself? we (US) have guaranteed every human the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the unique set of DNA contained in the mother is different from the mother, and so not simply an extension. granted, provided they do not take away the rights of another human being (again, the definition of that human being, and the definition of murder is the main discussion point... when this is resolved everything else will be fairly self evident). i was joking... mainly because i didn't have an answer. and still don't. well not one that is rigidly defined with a set unchanging rules that can be applied to every situation.but i can say just use common sense. Is it ok to kill? No. what if someone is coming at me with a knife? Well ok then it’s ok to kill. What if I think they are coming at me with a knife, but it’s really a comb?Ok ummm crap that was a horrible way to end a message. Can you just do me a favor and just not address the last part at all?

I can’t show that a fertilized egg is similar to a new born baby. You are the one who voices the equation of "baby like = human life".i'm working for the equation of "unique set of human dna = human life", and also trying to show that where the line is actually drawn is largely arbitrary. the fertilization of the egg to make the original cell is the most defining moment in a person's life. Every other influential moment is a more general molding to produce the end result. The sum of all these other influential moments may be greater than the influence of the original set of DNA, however no single moment holds as much influence as the first. to clarify, the councelling comes before the abortion... correct? that's what i get for mixing dry sarcasm with the internet and an otherwise serious post. The implication was that just because YOU are a person with that had things such as a "mind" and "nerve cells" doesn't mean bI[/b] have to be. because the blueprint isn't just a blueprint. it's a unique blueprint that has never been seen before, and will never be seen again. coupled with the fact that it's a set of human DNA, it is not outrageous to consider this unique "thing" as human (human is generally thought of as a walking talking adult... but it's the definition we're trying to re-define here), and give it the protection enjoyed by every other (stereotypical) human. er... well that "fact" is what we're discussing. but ok, lets ignore it. Just like it's not a crime for a mother to neglect her unborn baby (lets say by drinking alcohol, smoking, going on bumpy roller coaster ride, or any other actions that she would do normally).
But it is a crime to kill them (old people), and in turn should be a crime to kill a fertilized egg (temporarily ignoring the differences between the old and the incredibly young) who has the same level of dependency. because that choice could destroy a human life, which is not allowed by our law.and right, it does hinge on what our final definition is. I say fertilization is significant enough to draw a line. Most other issues will resolve themselves after that. If anything, please answer the defining moment portion above.

Ok, lets clear some things up first. Lets drop the "natural" line of this discussion since i never supported it, and responses to it are just getting mixed in with other main points i'm trying to make.Ok, so am i correct in assuming your main argument against the whole fertilized egg being human thing is that the egg is so far removed from any semblance of what is obviously human as to not be a valid place to draw the line?if that's right i'll respond... if it's incorrect can you tell me the main reason why you oppose the fertilized egg being human argument.The "blueprint" is important because the creation of the blueprint is the moment that contributes the most to what the finished product will be. Every moment after the formation of the blueprint is just another step in the gradual completion of the project.My argument is that this highly influential moment is more important than when all the wiring is connected, or when the foundation if laid, or when the people start to move into the office building. The creation of the blueprint is THE most significant moment, and thus worthy of a line. I’m under the impression that brain activity makes the fetus (at least) *remotely* close to a baby hence the baby like = human life. we’re dealing with the re-definition of human (where to draw the line) it doesn’t make sense to tell me this new definition of human has to be similar to an undefined term.I think what you mean is I need to show why my definition of human is a worthy definition see above.

I don’t quite get your first 2 paragraphs in your post but I think the following addresses your argument:the common definition of the gestational period is between fertilization and birth. But as we have agreed drawing a line at birth is a somewhat archaic definition of human life. 1 of 2 things are happeningyou said (post 151) either you mean to redefine the gestational period as the time between fertilization and when the clump of cells is able to live apart from the mother (your definition of human) in which case gestational period is simply not human, and a definition of human will tell us when the gestational period actually. The definition of human is being suspended for this discussion, so it makes no sense to invoke a term that depends on the definition of human.ORyou mean to leave the gestational period alone, and are criticizing me because I want to draw the line during the gestational period. Well if this second option is the case you are doing the exact same thing (stating human life starts when the organism is able to live independent from its mother which happens to be in the gestational period).Either way it’s not a sound argument, or rebuttal unless I made a mistake of what you were trying to say, or when you think human life should start. And if I’ve done that please correct me. what is the difference between a live human, and a human being? children aren’t even fully developed beings.it seems you’re drawing the line at fully formed, and able to be independent. As to that independence you mean 1 of 2 things, so I’m going to split up my responses again to take care of botheither you mean independent (you actually said autonomous) as in not dependent on the mother alone, in which case this point is variable in that as technology advances we will be able to remove the fetus from the mother at earlier and earlier stages, until (theoretically) we can grow a fertilized egg into a baby
OR you mean independent as in self dependent, and not dependent on anyone in which case children (along with old people) are not independent, and do not qualify as human (beings). I was pointing out that that condition you attached to life is incredibly influential as to when life starts. If your priorities are somewhere else (uniqueness, and not independence) then life is different.Also important, see above as to why independence (both types) isn’t a good place to draw the line. Either children don’t qualify as human, or the line will continually be moved back until we get to the fertilized egg. I’m saying if the new definition of human starts at a fertilized egg, then it would be immoral to kill (throw out) lots of people, and consequently might be better to just not create fertilized eggs (people) in the first place unless someone would want it (the person). fertilized eggs aren’t alive?

You’re jumping to moral hang ups part of the discussion the one where we decide if killing humans, or getting rid of clumps of cells is immoral, with out waiting for an agreement on what human actually is. Once the definition of human is decided on then this part won’t even be an issue. We all agree killing people is wrong.By asking this question you ignore the issue of where the line actually is. You say a building is obviously a human, and a blueprint is obviously not a human, but don’t give a better place (or reasons) to draw the line somewhere else.The analogy is also starting to break down. When dealing with buildings, it’s not so much a question of right and wrong, but rather how much money the company will lose. Destroying the finished product will result in a large loss, while destroying the blueprint will result in a small loss. When dealing with human cells and babies and human life, the matter has to be black and white. Either a person breaks the law by killing a person, or they don’t*.So while both people and buildings go from schematics to finished product, the consequences of destroying the work in progress are very different. in terms of how much raw material, time, and energy is lost yes there is an analogy but we’re talking about breaking the law, and denying an inalienable rights (where the answer is limited to yes or no not how much). If the tragedy we were talking about was a loss of resources, or time or money, then this makes sense. When the tragedy would be the death of a human being well that’s not even an issue. Killing a human being is unacceptable, and killing a non-human being is acceptable. When does the unacceptable tragedy occur? When what we are destroying is actually a human. When is it actually a human? The subject of this debate. Since the tragedy is dependent on the definition of human, this tragedy argument is not applicable to this discussion. We need another way to decide if something is human or not. I’m pretty sure we agreed to drop the nature part of this discussion, so if you’re re-introducing it I’m going to interpret it as you suggesting nature’s attitude towards various things should have an influence on our actions. Can you see the flaw in this stance? it’s not near infinite. What did you say? 60% of fertilized eggs miscarry? So we only see half of the fertilized eggs as fully developed babies? 12 billion is a far cry from near infinity. I’m not talking about every potential DNA combination I’m talking about the eggs that are actually fertilized. again, a non-issue once the definition of human is decided upon. You’re skipping the discussion. You’re saying something like if my line for humans was true, then your line would be immoral but that argument works both ways.*unless we have some kind of progressive scale of punishment dependent on how far along the pregnancy was note the punishment is not equivalent to your counseling since generally criminals are punished for breaking the law, and not submitted to counseling dependent on how severe the crime was.

comeon, is that really what you’ve gotten out of my ranting and ravings? I’m not saying well there is pretty much no difference between a baby in and out of the womb, so we can’t draw the line there and basically no difference between an 8 month and a 7 and a half month baby etc (NOT my argument). We’re looking for a significant moment to draw the line. I say the fertilization of the egg is significant enough (because it is the most influential moment in deciding who/what a person is, and the set of unique human DNA). Sure, maybe since it’s generally the age at which puberty has set in or maybe it’s 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. we’re looking for a definition of human. I haven’t accepted that a fertilized egg is just the design plans. We’re looking for a place to draw the line. Once we do questions about what can and can’t be done to pre-human stuff will be answered. there are exceptions to general rules. Is this an exception? Is there some threat that must be neutralized that is more important than the loss of an innocent life? Is the fetus consenting to an operation and aware of the risks of failure? Is an abortion an accident?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) 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. 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. if you’ve seen the arguments I’ve put forward as just it’s all arbitrary, so it might as well go here then I think I’m wasting my time. to clarify, should nature treatment of various things have an influence as to the moral value of said things? ummm aren’t there a near infinite number of possible humans too? Does this lessen their worth? I don’t think you quite understood me. The argument works both ways because: pretend there is a woman who wants an abortion during the first trimester. I say no you can’t 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). 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).You start with the assumption that your line is correct, and then point out the moral flaws in my stance. You can’t just skip the discussion like that. Once the line is drawn then all these other issues won’t even be issues any more. 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, I’m not saying it’s all arbitrary, so it doesn’t matter. You should know my reasoning by now). I’m making this up as I go along, but conception being the most significant moment answers this. I’ll 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 doesn’t change the fact that the creation of their DNA set is the most significant moment in their development.

I was under the impression that drawing the line at the end of the gestational period (when the fetus doesn’t have to be hard wired to a host) was significant because before this time the fetus is just an extension of the pregnant woman’s reproductive organs. Since the extension can not survive with out the woman, it’s up to the woman to decide what to do with the extension.And when these fetus become independent enough to not have to depend on a specific woman, this woman no longer has the right to decide the fate of the fetus.As technology advances the extensions will no longer be dependent on one specific woman. The extensions won’t need specific mothers any more, and can be cared for outside the womb provided the environment is correct in effect, taking the woman’s sole authority over the fetus away.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. So the ability to be independent is a significant moment. Is it a more significant moment than my life? Actually I’m not even trying to get you to accept my view I’m looking for an admission that my line is not an outrageous place to draw the line (regardless of a soul). you make this sound bad it would just be a natural consequence if the line is drawn where I purpose. Much like human cloning will probably never be a reality because the steps to perfect human cloning would probably produce deformed, sick, and suffering humans. 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.
If it is decided that human beings are created when eggs are fertilized, a natural repercussion would be that fertility clinics would not be permitted to create humans that will just be thrown away.

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.

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