Poll

What

is
0 (0%)
your
0 (0%)
stance
0 (0%)
on
1 (9.1%)
abortion
0 (0%)
?
10 (90.9%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Author Topic: QUESTION  (Read 6544 times)

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2008, 10:11:03 PM »

The idea behind my statement was that a fetus is not a human as we perceive humans, people try to humanize them because they know it will someday become a human. The decision to abort isn't usually made on behalf of the fetus, it is usually made on behalf of the mother. Every sperm in the future could be a person, should we make a law against masturbation or safe-sex practices which kill sperm? Every egg has the ability to become a human, why aren't we arresting women for murder once a month?

Quote
It is not until the egg and the sperm have joined that the individuality of the person is determined. A sperm is half a potential person; an egg is half a potential person; the two joined together make a potential person.

Gorgon has a huge point here. You are simply writing off the sperm and egg when both are need to create zygote. Furthermore, only certain sperm have the correct proteins needed to fertilize an egg as well as only some eggs are viable for fertilization. By your logic we should find these certain eggs and sperm inside each human and make sure they are not wasted because it is these components that add up to a potential human life.



I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. Im sure of it. Come. It is time to die. Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar

SarahG

  • Level 13
  • *
  • Posts: 544
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2008, 10:16:27 PM »
Gorgon has a huge point here. You are simply writing off the sperm and egg when both are need to create zygote. Furthermore, only certain sperm have the correct proteins needed to fertilize an egg as well as only some eggs are viable for fertilization. By your logic we should find these certain eggs and sperm inside each human and make sure they are not wasted because it is these components that add up to a potential human life.

My point was that the individuality of a person is determined by DNA.  That DNA is first seen in the zygote formed by the egg and the sperm.  That is why I believe a fetus is a person, but an egg or a sperm, individually, is not.
He ate my horse.

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2008, 10:53:18 PM »
Darn I wrote a response but had a network error and lost it and now I have lost the heart to retype it.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2008, 11:01:39 PM »
Gorgon has a huge point here. You are simply writing off the sperm and egg when both are need to create zygote. Furthermore, only certain sperm have the correct proteins needed to fertilize an egg as well as only some eggs are viable for fertilization. By your logic we should find these certain eggs and sperm inside each human and make sure they are not wasted because it is these components that add up to a potential human life.

My point was that the individuality of a person is determined by DNA. That DNA is first seen in the zygote formed by the egg and the sperm. That is why I believe a fetus is a person, but an egg or a sperm, individually, is not.

Agreed. Well I kind of agree anyways. DNA does determine most of the PHYSICAL individuality of a human being but the jury is still out on how a person becomes who they really "are". (Nature vs. Nurture) If you believe the common theory that it is a little of both then a person can not really be an individual until experiencing life with at least some of the mental capacity of a human being..... My point in the last post was where do you draw the line when it comes to allowing the government to rule over ones own body?
I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. Im sure of it. Come. It is time to die. Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2008, 11:37:25 PM »
Thats a good question but why ask it. Why do we have to draw a line or better yet why does the government. I dont feel they have the right to outlaw something of this nature.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

Emillith

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • Joyful Light of the Stargarden
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2008, 03:30:15 AM »
I love the nature versus nature debate. Personally I'm in the both camp, however, I don't believe experience is everything, because a five year old is as much a person as a sixty year old with more experience. :) I happen to fall into the both category, mostly because of the twin studies I've read. Though, admittedly those were rare and selective and could have been chosen to prove the point as opposed to disproving it.


Quote
where do you draw the line when it comes to allowing the government to rule over ones own body?

That's a tough question. The way I view that is somewhat cynical, because what I would want, even with voting, things may not go the way I want. However, the way I see it is that most things are cyclical and while I may disagree with how things go at one point in time, we have a wonderful governmental design allowing things the opportunity to change at a later date.

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2008, 05:08:54 PM »
Gorgon has a huge point here. You are simply writing off the sperm and egg when both are need to create zygote. Furthermore, only certain sperm have the correct proteins needed to fertilize an egg as well as only some eggs are viable for fertilization. By your logic we should find these certain eggs and sperm inside each human and make sure they are not wasted because it is these components that add up to a potential human life.

My point was that the individuality of a person is determined by DNA. That DNA is first seen in the zygote formed by the egg and the sperm. That is why I believe a fetus is a person, but an egg or a sperm, individually, is not.

That would only be a logical argument if a person was the equivalent of his or her DNA.  This is untrue.  The DNA is a building block for the person, as proven by identical twins.

The nature Vs nurture debate has boiled down to behaviorists, who say that you are born with a tabula rasa (blank slate) and everything about your personality is learned.  This is a ridiculous statement, because studies have proven that some people have, for example, higher natural aggression.   Then there are those who say we are predetermined to be who we are, which is also proven wrong (most identical twin studies show nurture is more important than nature).  It comes down to most modern and reasonable scientists agree that it is a match somewhere in the middle, the question is is it 50/50, or mostly nurture?  I don't think I've run into many recent studies that try to say that who we are is mostly nature.

Imagine a person to be a nice radio, with bass, treble, left and right, volume and forward and backward tuners, an FM/AM switch and seeking track, favorites--all of the bells and whistles.  The DNA would be what everything is set at when you get the radio.  Then, over your life, you may change the presets according to your nurturing/the situations that you find yourself in.  Things like how you are raised, personal experiences, who you are friends with, etc. will slightly alter your radio to make it what we would really consider the person.

Nobody looks at a person and says, "He has blond hair and blue eyes, that is who he is."  What makes a human distinct isn't the DNA itself, but how the DNA is used to make a person.  The individuality of a person has very little to do with the DNA, as I'm sure you've met two people who are almost exactly alike, even if they look different.

And, according to your argument that origin of individuality is the point that we should consider it a person, it shouldn't be considered a person until it's experienced, which means probably not until birth or after.  That is, of course, ridiculous, because you could easily argue that a baby hasn't consciously experienced and started to gain individuality until the second, sometimes the third month, when it actively shows emotion and has a mostly fully developed brain.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

SarahG

  • Level 13
  • *
  • Posts: 544
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2008, 05:56:55 PM »
I did not mean to imply that I'm entirely on the nature side of the debate; like Emillith and most other people I believe that both are important to defining individuality and personality.  However, as you've pointed out, the experience factor is very tough to pinpoint, as to exactly how much experience it takes to make a person into the person they are.  After all, our personalities continue to develop throughout our lives.  So in my opinion it makes sense to take the other half of the equation, the DNA; for this aspect, it is much easier to determine the moment of beginning: conception.
He ate my horse.

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2008, 06:23:19 PM »
I did not mean to imply that I'm entirely on the nature side of the debate; like Emillith and most other people I believe that both are important to defining individuality and personality. However, as you've pointed out, the experience factor is very tough to pinpoint, as to exactly how much experience it takes to make a person into the person they are. After all, our personalities continue to develop throughout our lives. So in my opinion it makes sense to take the other half of the equation, the DNA; for this aspect, it is much easier to determine the moment of beginning: conception.


So, let me get this straight. You're saying the since it is EASIER to define the point in which the two haploid cells converge and make DNA that that should be used as THE reference point when making a law to prevent abortions?
I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. Im sure of it. Come. It is time to die. Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2008, 06:46:08 PM »
I think the more important question is: Should we allow a potential life to be forfeited because it is inconvenient?  And if the answer is yes, then why stop in the womb?  Maybe we should give every family 6 months after the birth to decide whether or not they made the right choice.  After all, a baby is completely unable to take care of itself, so is that where we draw the line?  There are certainly situations where abortion is a viable option, but it should definitely be tempered with wisdom and common sense.  I certainly believe that any fetus that makes it to the 2nd trimester should be allowed to go to term unless there is a direct threat to the mother, or the baby is not viable. 
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2008, 07:13:03 PM »
I think the more important question is: Should we allow a potential life to be forfeited because it is inconvenient? And if the answer is yes, then why stop in the womb? Maybe we should give every family 6 months after the birth to decide whether or not they made the right choice. After all, a baby is completely unable to take care of itself, so is that where we draw the line? There are certainly situations where abortion is a viable option, but it should definitely be tempered with wisdom and common sense. I certainly believe that any fetus that makes it to the 2nd trimester should be allowed to go to term unless there is a direct threat to the mother, or the baby is not viable.


The only problem is by making a law you trample on the rights of the mother but if you don't make the law and you truly believe that a human life is produced at conception then you trample on the "babies" rights. I find it hard to call it a mere inconvience for the mother seeing how I'll never go through it and from my point of view carrying a baby to term looks like it takes a toll on not only the womans body but her mind as well. I believe that every zygote/blastula/fetus should have a chance at life but I just can't accept the government controlling what happens inside someones own body.
I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. Im sure of it. Come. It is time to die. Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar

Miyabi

  • Level 45
  • *
  • Posts: 3098
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Simple is the concept of love as eternity.
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2008, 07:40:06 PM »
I think the more important question is: Should we allow a potential life to be forfeited because it is inconvenient? And if the answer is yes, then why stop in the womb? Maybe we should give every family 6 months after the birth to decide whether or not they made the right choice. After all, a baby is completely unable to take care of itself, so is that where we draw the line? There are certainly situations where abortion is a viable option, but it should definitely be tempered with wisdom and common sense. I certainly believe that any fetus that makes it to the 2nd trimester should be allowed to go to term unless there is a direct threat to the mother, or the baby is not viable.


The only problem is by making a law you trample on the rights of the mother but if you don't make the law and you truly believe that a human life is produced at conception then you trample on the "babies" rights. I find it hard to call it a mere inconvience for the mother seeing how I'll never go through it and from my point of view carrying a baby to term looks like it takes a toll on not only the womans body but her mind as well. I believe that every zygote/blastula/fetus should have a chance at life but I just can't accept the government controlling what happens inside someones own body.
I completely agree.
オレは長超猿庁じゃ〜。

SarahG

  • Level 13
  • *
  • Posts: 544
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2008, 07:58:18 PM »
The only problem is by making a law you trample on the rights of the mother but if you don't make the law and you truly believe that a human life is produced at conception then you trample on the "babies" rights. I find it hard to call it a mere inconvience for the mother...

Perhaps it is more than an inconvenience, but surely you would not put pregnancy on a level with death, when it comes to rights being trampled?
He ate my horse.

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2008, 08:59:39 PM »
Yes but what death? The death of the fetus? I'm not sure. The reality is that the taking away of any rights at this point is just wrong. Ok so when a child is born and the mother has custody don't the medical arrangements go to the guardian? If so then say a child was born and needed life support, does this baby have the right to live forever on a machine? Or does the mother have the right to make the decision to terminate the care? I understand that later on in life a person who has the capacity to choose and write a living will would be able to handle the decision but until a child is old enough to consider what is being done then the decision falls to the legal guardian. Either prior to or during the pregnancy. All decisions come from the guardian. There should never be any legal intervention in that decision. Say someone had a child and due to the law against abortion chose to have the baby. Then the mother didn't raise the child right due to whatever the situation and the child lived a horrible life. Who is the government to decide the course of this possable life? Do they raise the child? No. And if they do, in some form of foster care do you think that's the way a child should be raised? Hoping that someone will take them in and truly care for them. I find it hard to think that people would want to take this choice away. I'm not saying that all babies should be aborted I'm just saying that some babies are better off aborted than being born into a horrible life that they cant change.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

SarahG

  • Level 13
  • *
  • Posts: 544
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #44 on: September 11, 2008, 09:09:45 PM »
It sounds to me like you're equating an unborn child with a born child - if this is true, you're already essentially pro-life, since that's the major distinction between the two sides.  Think about it.  If the pregnant woman is considered the guardian of the child in her womb, then she legally needs to consider what is best for that child, just as the guardian of a child out of the womb must consider that child's welfare.  You're saying that some fetuses, in some situations, would be better off being aborted.  If that's the case, are you also in favor of infanticide?  Say a mother bore a child, voluntarily, then a couple years later her situation changed (say, she became disabled and lost her job and her marriage dissolved) and she realized that the child would have a horrible life, whether with her or in foster care.  Should the government then allow her to kill that child?

I sincerely hope you do not say yes.  But yes is the only logical answer, based on your previous argument.
He ate my horse.