What's wrong with this picture?

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

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?

quote:

---

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.

---

Ah, so let me see if I understand your line of argument. We agree that there is no "magic line". Seing as you accept that there is no magic line, you interpret this to mean that we should choose your magic line, without explanation, in a most civil-liberties, suffering-inducing position. Pardon me if I don't bite "It's a long way from a just born baby" is no exaggeration - it's about as far from a just born baby as a blueprint is from a skyscraper. You can't live in a blueprint. A fertilized egg isn't a baby, and isn't even *remotely* close. Your task should be to evidence that it is. (boldfaced for emphasis).

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's a steadily progression of increasing counseling requirements until mid/late 2nd trimester and onward it is only ever allowable for health reasons. You can make a line "softer" by splitting it into multiple lines.

---

​

interesting. So you've drawn the arbitrary line between moments before the second trimester and the second trimester. for what reasons?

---

You're starting to get cerebral activity at this point. It's not fully formed cerebral activity, but it's a start, so it's probably a good point to place a line at.

quote:

---

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 theyve just removed some cells, or killed a person)

---

The harder the councelling requirements, the less likely there is to be an abortion. If a woman will go through incredibly stringent requirements, she *really* is serious, and this is the sort of woman who likely would kill herself or have a backalley abortion otherwise. The requirements are harder later on because there's more of a moral issue, and there's the "Why didn't you do something sooner?" issue (although that isn't always an option). The requirements earlier on are more focused on making sure the woman won't regret it. There's more of a moral issue concerning the humanity of the fetus later on; when we're dealing with a simple, nerveless or minimally nerve-containing embryo, the moral issue is more on just making sure that this is what the woman really wants, and won't regret.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And? DNA is just a blueprint, not a person. As I've stated several times, a person has things such as a "mind", or even "nerve cells"

---

​

ppft, speak for yourself.

---

Explain why DNA is more than a blueprint for a human. If you agree that it is merely a blueprint, explain why you think there is some sort of moral issue in destroying a blueprint (vs. destroying what a blueprint would otherwise create).

quote:

---

ok, bad analogy. can i try another?

---

No!!! hehe, ok.

quote:

---

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 themselves

---

Yes. People make the choice to take care of their elders. Just like most women who become pregnant make the choice to keep their child. Just ignoring the fact that their elders are undisputably fully developed humans with fully developed minds (except for the mentally infirm), while embryos are not, it is not a crime to refuse to assist your parents when they get old.

quote:

---

I'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).

---

If you don't support a "natural" argument, then why do you stick with "natural" when it comes to choice in allowing part of the reproductive system to spawn a blueprint to create a new person in your body or not to?Again, it all comes down to the boldfaced section above.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

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.

quote:

---

I cant 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".

---

Eh? When have I voiced that?

quote:

---

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.

---

As I stated earlier, we both agree on the latter point. However, your solution to this is the absurd "it's arbitrary, so we're going to draw it as early as physically possible". Saying "there's a slippery slope, so we're going to skip the slope all together" leads to preposterous results. Do you support allowing newborns to get drivers licenses? After all, there's no reason why 16 should be a defining cutoff, so why not just make the age 0? Or never let anyone get a license? That's a ridiculous line of reason, and I think you should realize that.Also, cancer has a unique set of human DNA. Twins don't. Try again . Is it not OK to kill cancer? Is it OK to kill one twin, as long as we keep the other alive?

quote:

---

the fertilization of the egg to make the original cell is the most defining moment in a person's life.

---

The notion to create a building, and the design of the blueprint, are the most defining moments in creating a skyscraper. But they're not a skyscraper.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The harder the councelling requirements, the less likely there is to be an abortion.

---

​

to clarify, the councelling comes before the abortion... correct?

---

Correct. Afterwards, it's too late.

quote:

---

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 I have to be.

---

bl?

quote:

---

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.

---

Same with a person sketching up a plan for an entire skyscraper. Never been seen before. If they try again, it'll be similar, but not the same. Exactly the same as with fertilization.

quote:

---

coupled with the fact that it's a set of human DNA

---

"coupled with the fact"? You're coupling two things (destroying a unique organism (my #2), and destroying human DNA (#1)) that you don't care about individually. You need to do better than that.

quote:

---

it is not outrageous to consider this unique "thing" as human (human is generally thought of as a walking talking adult...

---

Human is generally thought of involving even things like "being able to contain a single conscious thought", let alone complex cerebral activity.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Just ignoring the fact that their elders are undisputably fully developed humans with fully developed minds (except for the mentally infirm), while embryos are not ...

---

​

er... well that "fact" is what we're discussing. but ok, lets ignore it.

---

Ignoring it for now works to your favor - otherwise, that would be yet another argument against your analogy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

it is not a crime to refuse to assist your parents when they get old.

---

​

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.

---

You're changing the analogy. This was on the topic of how more than half of fertilized eggs never even implant. You're now going back to the topic that we have been discussing above - whether a single cell is even remotely qualitatively human, or whether it's nothing more than a blueprint. Which it is, again, unless you think that time is an illusion. It bears virtually no similarities except for a single long carbon-based molecule and similar surrounding bag of organelles. Excuse me if I think that humans are a bit more than a big molecule and bag of organelles. Excuse me if I hold a higher standard for humanity than that

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you don't support a "natural" argument, then why do you stick with "natural" when it comes to choice in allowing part of the reproductive system to spawn a blueprint to create a new person in your body or not to?

---

​

because that choice could destroy a human life, which is not allowed by our law.

---

1) You're defining it as a human life, despite sharing only a particular "blueprint" molecule in a sack of organelles in common. I'm defining it as the (much more obvious) plan for a human.2) Abortion is not against the law - you're wanting to make it that way . If you think that what you're proposing is simply making law more "consistant" by taking out qualitative measurements, why not just take out other qualitative measurements from the law? Let's make shoplifting have the same sentence as grand theft auto. Let's make manslaughter have the same penalties as first degree murder. Etc. To make your case, you need to argue that the fertilized egg is qualitatively the same as your average human who does things like, walk, talk, or even things as simple as "bear a single thought".Again, we're back to the exact same single point that you're dancing around: You need to show that a fertilized egg is remotely similar to a human, or you'll never get anywhere.

quote:

---

I say fertilization is significant enough to draw a line.

---

And you say it without backing. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-13-2003]{Fixed a UBB "bold" code error - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-13-2003]

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.

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

quote:

---

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?

---

Correct.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'll restate the comparison yet again: if someone creates the blueprint for an entire skyscraper, and you destroy the only copy (i.e., the designer would have to start over from scratch, and even though they'll come up with a similar design, it's essentially impossible that the same design will occur again) is that some sort of tragedy - the same as destroying a skyscraper itself? Please answer this time.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, it's a critical time - probably the most defining in a life. But, just like the comparison between the a skyscraper's blueprint, and the skyscraper itself, destoying the latter is *far* more tragic than the former. Even though creating the blueprint for the skyscraper is the most important point in its creation.You have to draw the line at where the level of *tragedy* becomes unacceptable. Putting it at the easily-created, commonly created, commonly destroyed by nature point is a pretty bad in this respect. You're destroying the blueprint, not the skyscraper. Just like you're destroying a blueprint (of a seemingly infinite number of possiblities, not a person. Just like destroying a twin is the tragedy, even though their genetic blueprint still exists. Do you understand?Do you also understand how important it is that the line be as late as possible? Because if the level of tragedy of destroying one of a near infinite number of "design plans" for a human is minimal compared to the level of tragedy of destroying a developed human, the tragedy to an unprepared woman overtakes it. If you doubt this level of tragedy, I have people I can refer you to... and, if I can find the person's friend again, one who could tell you about it if she were still alive. Understand?

quote:

---

Im under the impression that brain activity makes the fetus (at least) *remotely* close to a baby hence the baby like = human life.

---

Notice I said coherent human cerebral activity. Even cerebellar activity takes a long time to start. Even brain stem activity does - it takes a month just to get a primative heart to beat - something even water fleas manage quite easily. For cerebral ("non-instinctive") activity, it's hard to put an exact date on it because there's a bit of random firing earlier than consistent activity begins, but it's probably some time between 16 and 24 weeks. Of course, there's still much more development needed to reach a normal human level of thought, but this is where the serious moral issues begin to form.Before a month, there is virtually no moral issue (it can't even manage automated heart beating electrical activity, a most basic primitive life process), let alone any sort of "thought", so the issue at this point should be, for the most part, concern for the mother - whether it would be something that she would regret. As I stated, in the beginning, councilling is mainly for the benefit of the mother. Later, it is much more rigorous and has strict qualifications, because the concern for the fetus - and after early/mid 2nd trimester, abortion is only allowed for health reasons.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-14-2003]

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.

quote:

---

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 dont give a better place (or reasons) to draw the line somewhere else.

---

And you continually return to your faulty reasoning of "it's a slippery slope, so let's avoid the slope all together". As I've mentioned before and you haven't addressed, is there a reason why 16 should be the cutoff for a driver's license? Of course not. So, should we let everyone drive, or let noone drive? Of course not. Your line of reasoning is, and pardon me for saying this, rather silly. It leads to bizarre conclusions. When there is a slippery slope, the proper response is "do the best that you can".

quote:

---

The analogy is also starting to break down. When dealing with buildings, its not so much a question of right and wrong, but rather how much money the company will lose.

---

Yes. It's about the value. Moral value or financial value is irrelevant - we have to make value judgements on everything in the world. We make value judgements on life, just as we do on property. We value a human more than a chimp. We value a chimp more than a rat. We value a rat more than a bacterium. Etc. You may not like it, but we do assign things values. You're trying to claim that we should value the design plan for a human as much as what the design plan produces.

quote:

---

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 dont*.

---

Note that you had to asterisk this. There should be many asterisks, because there's many weaknesses to it.1) "The matter has to be black and white" - only if you believe that there is no difference between a human and a long molecular chain of design information inside a bag of organelles. Which I find preposterous (I know you don't, but I'm still trying to figure that one out).2) Actually, it's not as simple as "You break the law by killing a person, or you don't", because I can rattle off a good list of exceptions. The military. Those who run execution chambers. Doctors who make a mistake on a patient (they may get sued, but that's different). Accidental deaths (they're either tried for manslaughter or simply not tried). I can go on, if you'd like. As you see, these things are *not* black and white. If you want, I can become far more cynical on the subject - for example, showing how much a life is worth in the US, and in various other countries, by going into how much our government typically provides as reimbursement for well-documented military killings of innocents. It ranges from the millions here at home all the way down to hundreds in backwater nations like Afghanistan. It's wrong, but it's about a different valuation of life.3) If a person crushes an ant, is there a punishment? Nah, they could kill trillions, and if anything they'd get a medal. What about if they crushed a mouse? You probably wouldn't have the ASPCA banging down your door, although if you went out and brutally killed millions of them, you'll start to get complaints. What if you crushed a dog? You'll get fined, and possibly some short jail time for animal cruelty. What if you crushed a human being? Well, you know Once again, we're back to the same point: relative moral worth. And, as we know, your relative moral worth defines a blueprint for a person to be worth as much as what that blueprint would eventually produce.

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. Why?

quote:

---

in terms of how much raw material, time, and energy is lost yes there is an analogy but were talking about breaking the law, and denying an inalienable rights (where the answer is limited to yes or no not how much).

---

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. And you are arbitrarily defining an easily-created blueprint for a person to have the same moral worth as a fully-developed person. Please excuse me if I don't accept your arbitrary "design worth as much as the product" definition.

quote:

---

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 thats not even an issue.

---

Once again, we're back to your arbitrary definition of the blueprint for a person being the same as a fully developed human. This only works if you consider time an illusion.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Putting it at the easily-created, commonly created, commonly destroyed by nature point is a pretty bad in this respect.

---

​

Im pretty sure we agreed to drop the nature part of this discussion, so if youre re-introducing it Im going to interpret it as you suggesting natures attitude towards various things should have an influence on our actions. Can you see the flaw in this stance?

---

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

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because if the level of tragedy of destroying one of a near infinite number of "design plans" for a human is minimal compared to the level of tragedy of destroying a developed human, the tragedy to an unprepared woman overtakes it.

---

​

its 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. Im not talking about every potential DNA combination Im talking about the eggs that are actually fertilized.

---

I was referring to the number of possible DNA combinations.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you doubt this level of tragedy, I have people I can refer you to... and, if I can find the person's friend again, one who could tell you about it if she were still alive. Understand?

---

​

again, a non-issue once the definition of human is decided upon. Youre skipping the discussion. Youre saying something like if my line for humans was true, then your line would be immoral but that argument works both ways.

---

Actually, this is a bit like an "angels on the head of a pin" argument. The issue is whether the value ascribed to an embryo is infinite or finite. If it is finite, then comparative levels of moral tragedy are quite relevant to the discussion. You are arguing that something that doesn't even have a nerve cell let alone a thought let alone a personality, memories, apsirations, dreams, goals, fears, joys, and all sorts of other things, but instead is just a design plan for something that could eventually have that, should be ascribed an infinite value. I disagree on so many levels.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?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Rephrase the question, more specifically what does unimplantes mean?
Sorry for the unknowledgeable reply

---

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.htmlWhen you reduce the number of available contraceptive options, what on earth makes you think that the number of unwanted pregnancies is going to decrease? By your logic, places where there is no contraception at all would have the lowest birth rates.
what do you think is the liklihood of this being true is?

quote:

---

Yes, I agree not very likely, but you must admit, women in general would be more careful.

---

Maybe they would, but being "careful" is a lousy birth control method.Using proven and safe contraceptives is a reliable birth control method.BTW, what do you mean by "being careful", anyway?How many do you plan to adopt later in life, then?

quote:

---

No idea, I don?t know where I?ll be at that time but honestly I don?t see it happening. I know it?s pretty bad, considering me being against abortion, more for the baby?s birth and adoption, but I seriously don?t know.

---

It's OK that you haven't made these choices yet, and I'm glad that you see the contradiction of your position; you don't want anyone to ever have an abortion, yet you think it's everyone else's responsibility to take care of resulting offspring, not you.I'll tell you, no matter if you ever adopt an unwanted child later in life or not if abortion is made illegal, you will pay in some fashion or another. Huge tax burden, higher crime rates, more homelessness, unemployment, poverty, etc.

quote:

---

Iron Man:I think women should think about this before it happens. And if it is out of their control, (or some complication happens threatening their lives, or the babies) I think that it is in God's hands, and when her life is threatened it comes down to who she would rather let live the baby or herself.?

---

quote: So, tell me why it is that the group of cells/zygote is considered 100% more valuable than the fully-formed woman which is incubating the cells?
Why is her life worthless to you beyond as an incubator to the fertilized egg?
Is that all you see pregnant women as? Fetus incubators with no inherent value of their own?

quote:

---

DID I SAY THAT? DID I SAY THAT A HUMAN BEING, THE WOMAN IS WORTHLESS? I SAID IT IS BEYOND MY JUDGEMENT, IT IS HER OWN DECISION! BESIDES, I WAS TALKING WHEN THE BABY IS AT LEAST PARTIALLY FORMED, IF NOT FULLY. PLEASE STOP STUFFING THOSE HATEFUL WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!! Wow? Sorry for the caps but this is horrid.

---

Well, perhaps I misunderstood when you said:

quote:

---

I think that it is in God's hands, and when her life is threatened it comes down to who she would rather let live the baby or herself.

---

I took this to mean that you believed that the mother should always die.I do think it is interesting, however, that when you are actually posed the tough questions, you become Pro-Choice:

quote:

---

I SAID IT IS BEYOND MY JUDGEMENT, IT IS HER OWN DECISION!

---

quote:

---

I would say life in prison is pretty harsh for any crime, but really I don?t know what to say? But yes It is murder, people have been killed In our legal system for murder. Not to say that murder is the choice, but it seems many people agree that murder deserves deeath, I don?t agree.

---

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.

quote:

---

God's view on sex?

---

Which god's view on sex?

quote:

---

Mine.

---

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.

quote:

---

Hmm, ok? But can you answer the question?

---

What question is that?

"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

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.