What's wrong with this picture?

Prozacman kind of beat me to the punch. I was going to note that an additional problem with that photo is that it contained not only just men, but only Xtians.In another abortion thread, I argued my position on abortion with reference to development of the entity from fertilized egg to (at some point) full human being.In this thread the matter of human "beingness" is being argued by Xtians based on the existence of a soul. I believe this is an important difference because it does short circuit arguments based on development.Clearly if souls are real, and souls are what must be protected from harm (it is what makes a human a human "being"), and souls are inserted at point of conception, then fertilized eggs are just as much human beings as someone 30 years old.But these are a lot of ifs. I think for those arguing along this line, a few questions must be answered...1) What objective proof is there of a soul, and if there is none, is this not a purely religious position (which is not to say "wrong", just one of faith), and so its adoption into law an advancement of religion?2) Assuming souls to be real, when is their introduction to the physical host? Given that (if I remember right), over 60% of fertilized eggs do not make it through to birth, is it true that souls manifest at that stage?
++2a) Why would souls enter (or be placed in) at a point when they are unlikely to reach existence?
++2b) If they do enter at conception are all these souls of the (60+%) unrealized babies "lost"? As in, are they truly destroyed?
++2c) If not, then why would abortion (which destroys the material body as much as a natural loss) destroy these souls?
++2d) If abortion does not destroy the soul, then what harm is being done beyond what happens during gestation so as to constitute murder?3) Assuming souls are real and conception is the point they "enter" the body and they are harmed in some way, does this not mean that all anti-implantation contraceptives (IUD, the pill) are forms of murder as well?It is clear that the men pictured in that photo believe the "soul" argument, and this is what is more chilling to me than the outlawing of a procedure in late development (which may be acceptable to those using development criteria and why they chose to start there).What is being introduced, in this piece of legislation as well as the language of laws to "protect" the fetus from criminals and poor health coverage, is terminology regarding a singular faith and its specific ideas regarding a connection between "life" and "souls" and a specific "creator". This sets precedent to waylay arguments based on development alone later down the line.Because this is often the background position on "fetal" issues, I view "pro-choice" not simply to mean the right of a woman over her own reproductive system, but the ability of a woman to choose her own religious beliefs.The photo depicts a Xtian majority's victorious first step over having to accept and allow other religions and philosophies regarding life. Those who do not believe in a soul and base arguments/definitions regarding life on development have been undercut.That is NOT the way democracies are supposed to work, specifically in the United States. With all due respect to Buz, the founding fathers were not unanimous in anything regarding religion, and certainly not regarding the status of souls in the development of the fetus. They recognized that a religious majority should not be allowed to vote down minorities and impose their world views.Even at the state level, democracy was to be the mix of people coming together to write laws which allow the empowerment of all religions and philosophies.I understand that to persons which hold modern Xtian viewpoints, from the moment of conception onward the entities we are discussing are considered to be human beings endowed with a soul. While I might argue against that belief, I could not think of voting it away or a person's ability to choose based on that belief.I think what is necessary (and unfortunately is lacking) is reciprocity. Fundamentalists must understand that there are those with completely opposing views on this matter, and that they must not be prevented from choosing based on their own religion or philosophy.This can only be maintained by leaving the decision up to doctors and patients, and allowing them access to as much information from all sides, so as to make up their minds.As a parting comment, I will only point out that not more than 500 years ago people believed sperm were little "people", and that that is where the souls are. That is one of the reasons the "loss of sperm" through masturbation and other nonprocreative acts were considered crimes against nature, and in a sense... murder. Now we have advanced to realize this is not true, and the little humunculi have been pushed into the fertilized egg. I wonder at the hubris of those that can say that they understand even today, given the lessons of the past, that they truly know when life and souls begin.------------------
holmes

I'd be interested in your opinion on my post #47 when you get the time (and if it interests you).------------------
holmes

Lizard, you have given no argument of why the unborn are in any way similar to born entities.The argument for CHOICE in abortion is that the parent and NOT THE STATE has decision making powers regarding the unborn, specifically because those entities are stuck INSIDE and a PART OF the parent, and not the state.Such a situation ends once the child is born.Your argument (and the one made by the Nazis) is that the state has the right to control reproduction (including terminating the unborn) and the right to take life of those that have been born.If the pro-choicers have their precedent set, your nightmare scenario cannot happen. If you have your way (and so government gets say over all life from conception to death) that is the only way for the nightmare scenario to begin.------------------
holmes

Liz, you seem obsessed with saying people MUST accept your argument, that it is the only logical possibility, but it is not.Whether we are just chemicals or not, humans have concepts of "worth" and "sacredness". Concepts such as these are what guide individuals to protect human life with laws.You use this fact alone to formulate a "kill all or nothing" dilemna.However, humans also have diverse concepts regarding what is thought of as human life (or more accurately a full fledged human being). While Nazis may have blurred this line based on grounds of human vs animal, what we are talking about here is not the same thing. Once born, there is no question that the person is a fullfledged human being. Euthanasia is similar only as people consider individuals that lose mental capacity to the degree of brain coma or death as essentially being dead.No matter your personal view point, other people do not view a clump of cells as the same thing (having the same rights) as a fully developed child. This is something you simply have to accept.Most people who are prochoice have this viewpoint. They may be prolife in that they do view the fetus as a form of life, and generally do not think abortions are the best choice for avoiding unwanted children. In fact, they may not even desire to have an abortion themselves (when faced with that choice). They key is that they view the growing form as something different than the form once it reaches the end of its gestational period.During that gestational period the fetus is not the same type of entity as its mother, and the mother's right to life supercedes the right to continued development of the fetus. More than this, as a reproducing being the mother (the gestational host) has a right to control whether she will reproduce or not, including the right to terminate the development of a child before it finishes its gestational cycle.You cannot argue past this. From conception till some time near birth (and arguably slightly after that), children are in a gestational phase. This separates them quite clearly from humans who have moved well past that stage and through accident or age, no longer have full physical control of their body.ProCHOICE argues that individuals should retain full control over their own bodies and more specifically their reproductive cycles (which old people are not part of). This allows devout Xtians to choose to have a child, as well as letting those of different philosophies (or level of devotion) have a child (or not), depending on their personal concepts of "sacredness" and "worth" regarding gestating entities.ProLIFE, first of all makes the State dominant over the individual regarding matters of their own bodies and specifically their reproductive cycles. Secondly, that stance does what its name suggests and stamps one particular personal concept of "sacredness" regarding the nature of gestational human life on everyone else.You may argue that individuals could abuse the choice given them, but that is incompatible with fears that the state will become a eugenic killing machine.In contrast, it is giving the state control over our bodies and worse still what religious concepts we all have to embrace regarding human life, which can lead to forced eugenics or indoctrination programs (for potential parents).I am unsure what evidence you have for some thriving "abortion industry". I would love to see it. Even more important would be evidence that this industry is trying to encourage people to use unsafe sexual practices in order to get women pregnant to keep the business going.The irony here is that all of those men in the photo who are proLIFE are the ones promoting no contraceptive education for the young or the poor. Bush has even stripped such necessary information for sexual health education overseas.ProCHOICE advocates are the ones trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies through proper use of contraceptives.And in the end if you wanted to stop this supposed "abortion industry", we could pull all of the profitability out of it by:1) having a national healthcare plan that would bring such prices down
or
2) make the procedure nonforprofit.------------------
holmes

1) Who are you, superman? With the exception of scientists matching sperm to egg under a microscope I don't think anyone has ever known the exact moment of fertilization. If you can somehow know this, you might want to start farming yourself out as a living EPT test.2) What you are undoubtedly referring to is the effects of IMPLANTATION on the female system. I suppose if you shifted your assessment of when life begins from conception to implantation you'd be making a little more sense (a greater number of those entities survive).3) You just shot your own theory to hell. Remember your argument that babies were totally separate entities from the mother? Now you acknowledge they have a very real connection to the mother and on her bodily resources. This points up one of the vast differences between abortion and euthanasia. Find me an elderly person effecting another person's vital functions just by their very existence.------------------
holmes

Liz, you said you could watch the changes in women's bodies from the moment of conception. That means you somehow had to know when the egg was fertilized.Could you deal with the other two points? Most importantly the fact that women are in fact tied physically with their unborn child, and so they are not two wholly separate entities. And then that that is a significant difference between the unborn and the infirm.------------------
holmes

I'll tell you what, I'm willing to accept the label of "proAbortion" if you are willing to accept the label of "proStateReligion".Without the gobbeldygook... proLife= proStateReligion= forcing one definition of life regarding the unborn on everyone else, specifically a religious definition.That way both positions will be equally unappealing!------------------
holmes

Heyyyyyyy... Why did you compliment Ned regarding souls and NEVER addressed my post (#47) which raised several questions to proLifers on that subject?As it is it also dealt with the religious aspects of the proLife cause: This is why I argued that proLife is proStateReligion. When every single proponent I have ever heard, has the idea that fetuses have souls, and souls are a purely religious construct, how do you avoid saying proLife is NOT enforcing a religious definition? Whew, you mean those guys in the picture have not lost all respect for the human life of pregnant women, sacrificing them at the alter of the unborn "holy fetus"? How about creating the Patriot Act to spy on people that like naked women and drugs, and sending troops into Iraq (a secular state by the way) so that they may die to spread "holy democracy" (never mind killing 3x as many innocents as we lost on 9-11)? How about restricting science research into medicine because it offends their God? Or how about altering education so that modern scientific theories are replaced with creationist claptrap?The only difference between the guys in that picture, and Islamic Fundies is the nature of extremism they want to have in this country. Please explain what that difference is, when you are telling women they must risk their own lives in childbirth--- or give birth to a child under conditions they would not want their offspring born into--- just because their unborn fetus has a "soul" given by God and that means the State has a right to override her individual rights? First of all you are assuming the child will make it through to childbirth. When over 60% of conceptions do not, this is not such an easy assumption. And to make matters worse, this assumes the mother will not be injured or killed in this process (and thus the child will die).This is the whole point of terminating the pregnancy early on. It decreases the risk to the mother for a child which may in fact never be born alive.Second of all you are actually imposing the ridiculous proLife "what if the baby is Jesus" argument, onto evolution and proChoice (to which I might add evolution is not why people would be proChoice). If a baby is going to be born with mental retardation, please explain how we will get Einstein or Hawking? How about drastic physical defects which will prevent it from living a healthy enough life to learn or be productive? How about a child being born into poverty so that there is little chance that it will get a good education, or an environment conducive to learning?Third you have just moved into the very State controlled horror scenario I described. You are saying that the State should be able to force living people to risk their lives in order to serve mankind by possibly producing an Einstein. I will only add to this that your very argument (though not referring to Einstein and Hawking) was used by Hitler and the Nazis.State control of individual choice is the only path to extermism as it IS extremism. Preserving ndividual choice (which is always diverse) is the antidote. Then there is no ducking sidelined's argument. If the ball of unwanted children is in the proLife court, you better come up with a reasonable scenario for growing those Einstein's you promised.------------------
holmes

Why is that? Isn't birth (to you) the "natural" indication that a fetus has become a baby?And ironically enough, since you say people must not do anything "unnatural" to the unborn, you are then against C-sections, right? After all, at that point nature is going to kill the mother, the child, or both.Or does this proscription only count when taking the life of the unborn? Why should helping a fetus develop when it is going to die be considered "natural" and ending the development of a fetus that is still growing "unnatural"?Personally, I loathe "natural"/"unnatural" arguments because they are basically arbitrary definitions used for ad hoc moralizing. Every single interaction humans have with the objects and processes around them are either ALL natural or ALL unnatural... take a pick! Then set out a reason why natural or unnatural, mean right or wrong.I do agree that a baby at the same level of development as another is not really different if it is inside and the other is outside. As it stands, babies continue to develop for a short period of time after birth, so the argument is less proper to consider the one inside a human, then the one outside not fully human yet.And still, the best your argument can get is not terminating a pregnancy once an unborn child reaches the point of viability outside the mother. It could be considered "finished" at that point. That idea is patently outrageous.Identical twins (or more) share the same DNA, does this mean killing all but one would be okay with you, because at least the DNA would be preserved?There are many unique DNA "patterns" which will not survive till birth, and many more may be strong enough to get to birth yet not be able to live a functional life at all. Preserving ANY and ALL DNA combinations is worthy of protection by law?Does this mean all fertilized eggs in fertility clinics must be saved until they can be brought to term? You are equivocating. From the point of fertilization, till when the child can sustain itself that human life is in the state of development. Since we are unsure what to consider these developing life forms as compared to fully-developed human life, and nature routinely (more than 60%) ends their development. It seems less important to have to consider them the equivalent of fully-developed self-sustaining human beings.Nature eradicates 100% of all fully-developed human beings, but that does nothing to answer how we are to treat developing human beings which are by definition, something OTHER than a fully-developed human being.Abortion is the termination of a gestational process. Murder is the ending of an autonomous human life. They are different.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-12-2003]

Let me start by apologizing for creating a strawman (at least in part). I reread everything and figured out I had made a mistake. I'll address the parts which actually made sense.

quote:

---

human intervention to prolong life is generally ok by me, and human intervention to end life is generally not ok by me.
  —theo

---

I was picking up that this is what you were saying and so read into other comments, which led to the natural/unnatural thingy.But my question to you would be why? And why just because YOU believe this, should it be enforced on others?When the "life" you are referring to is a gestational entity, meaning it is not a fully formed autonomous being, why is it not best considered part of the mother's reproductive system/cycle and its further development able to be ended at that point according to her desires?You had referred to the child's connection to the mother as a matter of convenience, but that is actually a matter of necessity as it is the function of her sexual reproductive organs, and without it the child would cease developing.

quote:

---

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"?
  —theo

---

While you were arguing this position, I was saying that it was inaccurate and that the best argument you could get based on a "significant moment" differentiation, is viability outside the womb. Two sex cells merging don't make anything, neither does a fertilized egg implanting in a woman's uterus. The MOST significant line between nonlife and life (as an independent being) is the ability to live by itself.The arbitrariness of choosing fertilization just seems too great. The fertilized egg quickly dwindles to nothing without a host, or some pretty damn good refrigeration.

quote:

---

My reason for mentioning this definition of human was that a fertilized egg could be seen as more than the sum of its parts,
  —theo

---

Yes it could, but it is also quite clearly less than the total number of parts necessary for it to be a separate living entity. For nearly nine months that fertilized egg is going to need all the parts of its female host in order move beyond a small cluster of cells that is about to die.During those nine months it will... if the DNA blueprint and nutrients from the mother work together properly... grow more parts such that it can become independent of its host. However it still has not finished assembling the parts necessary for continued life as an autonomous being.Only after childbirth, are the final "parts" put in place for a functioning independent life.Unique DNA in a cell membrane is merely the potential for a potential life form that may eventually develop into a full life form.

quote:

---

To answer your three questions above:
  —theo

---

You still need to answer them.Most people have a problem with fertility clinics throwing out fertilized eggs, not keeping them. My assumption is that you have a problem with them throwing out the eggs. The only alternative is freezing them until one day they can all be brought to term. Isn't this just a tad unrealistic?You mentioned nothing about DNA that leads directly to dead babies and/or crippled existences. You believe these unique DNA patterns have some value and so must be preserved? Why?I can only assume you were joking about twins. Really, answer the question. I am pretty sure you would not want them destroyed, but the DNA argument gives you no out.

quote:

---

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.
  —theo

---

That's actually what I was saying. Essentially all arguments based on natural/unnatural labels get us nowhere. We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.I think we should determine our own fate. And women in particular should have the ability to affect their own personal and reproductive fate.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

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.

---

Because that makes absolutely no sense. Birth may be an acceptable arbitrary point because it is pretty close and is now disconnected from the mother, but the rest are based on what?What possible workable definition of "gestational" as compared to "fully developed individual" would have its end at any of those points you mention (all involve still greater development)?

quote:

---

invalids are not independent, but i'm sure you'll agree they are alive, and human.

---

Actually I believe the unborn are alive and human, they are simply in a gestational state, and thus not human beings.The idea that invalids are anything close to an unformed gestational being is rather odd. It is because they are fully developed human beings that need taking care of which is why they are taken care of. This is the same as newly born children. Neither are similar to an unborn fetus which is not yet a fully developed being.Advanced science will not change this, unless it can speed up the gestational period. Science may be able to grow a full baby right from the fertilized egg, but that will not change the fact that until a being is fully developed it is gestational (we'll just be able to watch it more clearly in glass tubes).

quote:

---

The MOST significant line between nonlife and life (as a unique being) is when the two sex cells meet.

---

A fertilized egg is not a unique being. It is a potentially potential being. It goes through a period where it must implant (most do not). Once it does this successfully (still most do not), it becomes a potential human being. It enters the true gestational phase where it takes in nutrients and that "unique" DNA pattern may result in nothing, or the host's body will reject the fetus, or the DNA will end up developing until a point where it is able to be freed from its host and go through final adjustments into a fully developed being.I'm unsure why this is unclear.

quote:

---

Or they could just never be made in the first place.

---

Whoaaaa... are you saying fertility clinics should not exist?

quote:

---

because they are unique human dna... isn't that reason enough in itself?

---

No way. Unique human DNA, as I have already pointed out, does not mean ALIVE human DNA. They are just blueprints of how nutrients are used. Some are self-defeating blueprints with no chance of life or a functional life no matter how many nutrients you pour in. And sometimes they are located in hosts which cannot provide the correct materials for the blueprint to work.

quote:

---

Can you just do me a favor and just not address the last part at all?

---

Sure, my pleasure. But that assumes you no longer advance the "Each DNA is a unique human being that must be preserved" argument against abortion. It has failed if you cannot properly address the issue of twins.------------------
holmes

"Human" means of our species. "Gestational" means in a state of development towards a complete being. "Human being" means a completed being of our species."Autonomous" and "independent" were meant as physical descriptors referring to a being which no longer requires a physical link to a host, in order to continue development.Thus a fetus is alive (as any collection of cells are alive), and is human (as long as it belongs to our species). It is gestational up until the basic body plan of a human being has been completed.It is true that gestational humans are able to, and generally do, become autonomous and independent before they complete gestation. The ability to be autonomous is viability. A child's becoming autonomous is childbirth.It may be convenient to use the point of autonomy from its host to mark "gestational human life" from "living human being", It would not be completely accurate, but it would at least be close.Autonomous and independent are not meant to indicate ability to take care of themselves. Ill or unconscious human beings are just as helpless as infants and the infirm. The difference between these and a fetus is none of them require a physical link to a host.Science may be able to create artificial hosts, but the gestational stage, including its ability to live physically separate from a host, will stay the same. Unless of course science can speed up the gestational process itself.I am unsure if you understand that premature babies are not simply "being taken care of". Doctors must create an artificial host until the gestational being reaches the same viable point it was supposed to reach before leaving the mother.I hope this clears up any remaining misunderstandings regarding my position.

quote:

---

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

---

You do acknowledge that we will only grow a baby outside a woman by building a replicate for the woman, correct? Gestation and viability (for autonomy) will remain the same whether we create fake women or not.

quote:

---

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).

---

This shows an unfamiliarity of why fertility clinics have so many unused fertilized eggs. Even for a single couple trying to have a baby, the first and second and third try at implantation (much less through to childbirth) may not work.Your suggested method would also eliminate research into improving fertility clinic methodology.

quote:

---

fertilized eggs aren’t alive?

---

They are alive as cells. What I meant by "unique human DN, does not mean ALIVE human DNA" was that the DNA blueprint may be for something that could never live.This is to say some DNA, when fed nutrients, builds something (fully according to that design) which will not finish gestation. Kind of a "suicide" design.Just as not every architectural plan is for a building that can actually stand, same goes for DNA. Thus the idea that unique DNA patterns are intrinsically special, or that they are a being, is sort of jumping the gun.------------------
holmes

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 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