A rock is just protons, neutrons, and electrons in a particular configuration. A sperm is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration. A zygote is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration. A cat is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration. A living adult human is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration. A dead adult human is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration.
When a hurricane blows down houses, it is just matter and energy acting according to the laws of the universe, resulting in reconfiguration of other matter. When a person kills a person, it is just matter and energy acting according to the laws of the universe, resulting in reconfiguration of other matter.
Why is it ok to freely reconfigure matter that is in one configuration, but not touch it at all in another? Why is it ok for matter to be reconfigured by other matter and energy, but not ok if the matter or energy appears to be controlled by a sentient being?
Just to quote an idea from Tezuka and Dr. Manhattan. Every human being by itself is a miracle at work.
A rock is just protons, neutrons, and electrons in a particular configuration. A sperm is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration. A zygote is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration. A cat is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration. A living adult human is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration. A dead adult human is just protons, neutrons, and electrons arranged in a particular configuration.
When a hurricane blows down houses, it is just matter and energy acting according to the laws of the universe, resulting in reconfiguration of other matter. When a person kills a person, it is just matter and energy acting according to the laws of the universe, resulting in reconfiguration of other matter.
Why is it ok to freely reconfigure matter that is in one configuration, but not touch it at all in another? Why is it ok for matter to be reconfigured by other matter and energy, but not ok if the matter or energy appears to be controlled by a sentient being?
Just to quote an idea from Tezuka and Dr. Manhattan. Every human being by itself is a miracle at work.
I often wonder if this is really so or whether it is just a symptom of our own hubris. I'll bet that garden slugs say to other garden slugs, "Each individual garden slug is precious, and possessed of a divine spark."
Wait, absolute right to abortion? Even if the spawn is carried to practically full term?
There should be no law against it. Otherwise, you risk doctors being forced to weigh legal issues in the event of a serious late-term complication endangering the mother's life. Better to ere on the side of a right than on the side of restriction for everyone's sake.
I am against abortion for personal reasons. Because of a certain event I decided to never do it myself. On the other hand I don't think the government should say you shouldn't or should despite my own opposition.
Wait, absolute right to abortion? Even if the spawn is carried to practically full term?
There should be no law against it. Otherwise, you risk doctors being forced to weigh legal issues in the event of a serious late-term complication endangering the mother's life. Better to ere on the side of a right than on the side of restriction for everyone's sake.
I agree that the mother's well being should allow someone to get a late term abortion, but that legal protection can exist without a blank check for late-term abortions.
Abortion should be an option, but is not a replacement for birth control. Voluntary euthanasia should also be allowed, but that's another topic entirely.
I would consider any embryonic cell with 23 (or more, due to mutation or weakness of their spindles) pairs of chromosomes that rose directly from the union of a male gamete and a female gamete to be human.
What if we had the technology to build an embryo from scratch? We put together the molecules, proteins, et cetera in some configuration we copied from another embryo. It is identical in every way to one made the old-fashioned way, atom for atom. Yet you would not consider this human life. Why?
You see, I look at their potential and not at what they are.
Do an unfertilized egg and a bunch of sperm not have potential as well? An egg or sperm cell alone? Every time you masturbate, you kill a million potential humans.
You see, I look at their potential and not at what they are.
Do an unfertilized egg and a bunch of sperm not have potential as well? An egg or sperm cell alone? Every time you masturbate, you kill a million potential humans.
Not to mention that by your logic Erwin every sperm which fails to implant in the egg is a dead potential human
P.S Damn it StarFox, I was going to post pretty much your exact post
I would consider any embryonic cell with 23 (or more, due to mutation or weakness of their spindles) pairs of chromosomes that rose directly from the union of a male gamete and a female gameteto be human.
What if we had the technology to build an embryo from scratch? We put together the molecules, proteins,et ceterain some configuration we copied from another embryo. It is identical in every way to one made the old-fashioned way, atom for atom. Yet you would not consider this human life. Why?
You see, I look at their potential and not at what they are.
Do an unfertilized egg and a bunch of sperm not have potential as well? An egg or sperm cell alone? Every time you masturbate, you kill a million potential humans. Well, if we had the technology to create an embryo from scratch we would be either mad men or gods. It is really an impossible question and I doubt such a person would ever exist. However, I would consider it human. but alas, would you destroy something that took you a lot of effort to make, trust me it would take a lot of effort to make a human beign from scratch. Your second question about masturbation made me laugh, I mean really, a sperm in the wrong enviroment by itself does not have any potential at all is not even a diploid cell, it can't divide, and embryo in the other hand divides constantly. But I will say that in the right enviroment each sperm fight to survive and become one its egg and that is something to be admire. You can only kill what is alive. What does it mean to be alive? Acording to biology at its simplest form it needs to eat, reproduce and die. I would consider sperm as a biological entity at the moment since it does not absorb nutrients from its enviroment (eats), can't replicate (miosis 2 is not replication). However, I need to do some more research and I need to take the bus now ciao :P
My girlfriend, Rosy Palmer, has had millions of abortions. Billions, maybe.
Classy!
Maybe not the classiest, but the point is that if you want to take the definition of life back to conception or pre-conception in the traditional Judeo-Christian manner, ejaculation is logically murder. This is why the religious argument is so silly; the extreme is an obvious example of their flawed logic. The problem, as it has been for decades, is to determine the exact biological point that coincides with the moral prohibition on abortion. At what point, exactly, does the embryo gain sentience? That seems like the logical cut-off point for any abortive measures.
It is really an impossible question and I doubt such a person would ever exist.
Barring the destruction of our continuous racial existence, I'd say it's a given that we will eventually have the ability to create life equivalent to our own from scratch. It's an inevitability.
Barring the destruction of our continuous racial existence, I'd say it's a given that we will eventually have the ability to create life equivalent to our own from scratch. It's an inevitability.
Dude, did you see the new iBaby? It comes with a 5.6 TB hard drive now.
Your second question about masturbation made me laugh, I mean really, a sperm in the wrong enviroment by itself does not have any potential at all
It has the potential to be moved into the "right" environment. By your own arguments, not allowing it to reach the right environment is "killing" the potential for a future human.
By the same token, a woman who chooses not to get herself pregnant when she has an ovum is also "killing" the potential for a future human.
I hadn't thought about this before, but this points out an extremely amusing hypocrisy in the Catholic religion - if contraception is wrong, then for a woman, abstinence must also be a sin. Damn, I need myself some Catholics to point this out to.
The problem, as it has been for decades, is to determine the exact biological point that coincides with the moral prohibition on abortion. At what point, exactly, does the embryo gain sentience? That seems like the logical cut-off point for any abortive measures.
Indeed. Sadly, this seems nigh-impossible, especially since I expect sentience also comes in shades of grey. Consequently, I think other factors need to be considered.
Googled: "abstinence is a sin" - 5 results. I'd really like a blog post with that headline. I don't have a blog and I doubt I'll bother to do it myself, but it would be great if someone awesome did one. It seems to me like it would be easy to make some great satire out of that point, but I'm lazy and don't feel like setting up a blog when I only feel like making one post.
It would probably be best in the faux-religious style, the type that people often can't distinguish from real religious people writing. The post would begin with something like, "As a devout Roman Catholic, I've thought a lot about the Church's positions on sexuality, particularly contraception." What is frightening is that I think that many religious people would be like "Hmm, you're right."
An example I just came up with:
We all know that it's wrong for us to decide when a new life to begin, and this is one of the most immoral aspects of contraception. However, it is always said that "Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of contraception." Surely as long as there is a chance of the contraception failing, then the decision is still truly in God's hands? Abstinence, on the other hand, leaves nothing to chance.
As a result of my laziness, if someone else feels like taking this idea, feel free. Keep in mind that most people in this forum would have to make a new, anonymous blog in order to be believable. Also, there is one major problem - Catholics' other main issue with contraception is sex itself. So you would have to specify that the argument applies only to married women, and step carefully around the issue of sex itself - just make the connection from marriage straight to children. The point about "new life", particularly the loss of the ovum, would have to be central to the argument though. i.e.
The story of Onan is an importante one; he was punished by God for spilling his seed upon the ground. However, we live in different times now, and we must understand that while God's teachings are infallible, we have to use the knowledge we have obtained as well to help us get closer to Him. Our God-given mental faculties have allowed us to discover so many new aspects of His Design. In particular, we know a lot more now about the human reproductive system than we did in Onan's day. In the same way that allowing semen to be lost is a sin, isn't it also wrong to allow an ovum to be lost without allowing for God's will?
Potential comes from one self. It does not come from others, on self unlock its own potential. A sperm by itself can't unlock its potential since it is not complete, it does not have the resources to be alive just yet and the same goes for the ovum. Now that we are speaking of impossible things. What about the transfer of an embryo to a fully viable artificial uterus from the DNA of the same fetus? If such a resource would exist are we still allowed to stop their potential? Also, if you believe that your sperm is alive and you want honor it well you should go to a fertilization clinic or a sperm bank. They give you good money for it. A bank near my University gives from $100 to $200 for your specimen (as long as is viable). You will be killing to birds with one shot :P
A sperm by itself can't unlock its potential since it is not complete, it does not have the resources to be alive just yet and the same goes for the ovum.
Refer to Rym's argument on the previous page. The very same argument applies to a fertilized egg - without the womb, a fertilized egg does not have the resources to be alive. The only viewpoint consistent with your justification is Rym's.
Also, if you believe that your sperm is alive and you want honor it well you should go to a fertilization clinic or a sperm bank.
No-one has stated that they hold that belief, though I think an argument could be made. This is irrelevant, though; we weren't arguing about life, we were arguing about potential for life. The two are completely different. Scientifically, with a clear definition of life (and of humanity), we can say that human life begins with conception. However, this is distinct from potential for life.
What about the transfer of an embryo to a fully viable artificial uterus from the DNA of the same fetus? If such a resource would exist are we still allowed to stop their potential?
This is a more interesting question. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the existence of a fetus removal process that preserves the fetus with no additional risk to the mother is available, I would say that this fetus removal process would be the only acceptable standard of abortion. After this point, if the mother doesn't want to keep the fetus together with an artifical uterus, I say that the mother should have absolutely no say in what happens to the fetus. That decision would be taken by experts, and would be based on the developmental status of the fetus, and its chances at a sufficient standard of life. I would say that eventually, society would be able to support this for pretty much all children and so abortion could safely be made illegal. However, I'll note again that the critical requirement is that attempting to keep the fetus alive does not pose significant additional risk to the mother.
Potential comes from one self.
This is a definitional argument at best. My understanding of the term was in terms of probability.
It was in kind since since satire or irony do not work well in native language. I remember back in my first year of biology when my Prof. describe us the characteristics of an embryo, it was basically a parasite and yet it had the potential to be a human being. As I stated before a fertilized egg can't survive without a womb but is complete. A sperm has a short "life" spam and it is not complete. Really, I am not here to change anybodies mind. I just wrote what I believe. If I answer to anything is because I was asked to and that is all. From what I have heard it is very hard to change someones mind about this kind of topics and it take a very strong experience to change his/her mind, and this goes for both side.
What about the transfer of an embryo to a fully viable artificial uterus from the DNA of the same fetus? If such a resource would exist are we still allowed to stop their potential?
This is a more interesting question. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the existence of a fetus removal process that preserves the fetus with no additional risk to the mother is available, I would say that this fetus removal process would be the only acceptable standard of abortion. After this point, if the mother doesn't want to keep the fetus together with an artifical uterus, I say that the mother should haveabsolutely no sayin what happens to the fetus. That decision would be taken by experts, and would be based on the child's chances at a sufficient standard of life.
I know right? I developed this idea along time ago. I thing it would make an interesting book or comic. I mean imagine what kind of world would that be. What if the government take "care" of those children. How society would be affected by them, etc.
It was in kind since since satire or irony do not work well in native language. I remember back in my first year of biology when my Prof. describe us the characteristics of an embryo, it was basically a parasite and yet it had the potential to be a human being. As I stated before a fertilized egg can't survive without a womb but is complete. A sperm has a short "life" spam and it is not complete.
You're still making an arbitary distinction. What does it mean to be "complete," and why does that even matter for the purposes of this argument?
From what I have heard it is very hard to change someones mind about this kind of topics and it take a very strong experience to change his/her mind, and this goes for both side.
I wouldn't say that this is true for every person. Sadly, however, it is true for all too many. Logic is all it should take to change a person's mind, not experience.
I know right? I developed this idea along time ago. I thing it would make an interesting book or comic. I mean imagine what kind of world would that be. What if the government take "care" of those children. How society would be affected by them, etc.
Comments
Had to be done.
Voluntary euthanasia should also be allowed, but that's another topic entirely.
Not to mention that by your logic Erwin every sperm which fails to implant in the egg is a dead potential human
P.S Damn it StarFox, I was going to post pretty much your exact post
Well, if we had the technology to create an embryo from scratch we would be either mad men or gods. It is really an impossible question and I doubt such a person would ever exist. However, I would consider it human. but alas, would you destroy something that took you a lot of effort to make, trust me it would take a lot of effort to make a human beign from scratch.
Your second question about masturbation made me laugh, I mean really, a sperm in the wrong enviroment by itself does not have any potential at all is not even a diploid cell, it can't divide, and embryo in the other hand divides constantly. But I will say that in the right enviroment each sperm fight to survive and become one its egg and that is something to be admire.
You can only kill what is alive. What does it mean to be alive? Acording to biology at its simplest form it needs to eat, reproduce and die. I would consider sperm as a biological entity at the moment since it does not absorb nutrients from its enviroment (eats), can't replicate (miosis 2 is not replication). However, I need to do some more research and I need to take the bus now ciao :P
By the same token, a woman who chooses not to get herself pregnant when she has an ovum is also "killing" the potential for a future human.
I hadn't thought about this before, but this points out an extremely amusing hypocrisy in the Catholic religion - if contraception is wrong, then for a woman, abstinence must also be a sin. Damn, I need myself some Catholics to point this out to. Indeed. Sadly, this seems nigh-impossible, especially since I expect sentience also comes in shades of grey. Consequently, I think other factors need to be considered.
I'd really like a blog post with that headline. I don't have a blog and I doubt I'll bother to do it myself, but it would be great if someone awesome did one. It seems to me like it would be easy to make some great satire out of that point, but I'm lazy and don't feel like setting up a blog when I only feel like making one post.
It would probably be best in the faux-religious style, the type that people often can't distinguish from real religious people writing. The post would begin with something like, "As a devout Roman Catholic, I've thought a lot about the Church's positions on sexuality, particularly contraception." What is frightening is that I think that many religious people would be like "Hmm, you're right."
An example I just came up with: As a result of my laziness, if someone else feels like taking this idea, feel free. Keep in mind that most people in this forum would have to make a new, anonymous blog in order to be believable. Also, there is one major problem - Catholics' other main issue with contraception is sex itself. So you would have to specify that the argument applies only to married women, and step carefully around the issue of sex itself - just make the connection from marriage straight to children. The point about "new life", particularly the loss of the ovum, would have to be central to the argument though. i.e.
Now that we are speaking of impossible things. What about the transfer of an embryo to a fully viable artificial uterus from the DNA of the same fetus? If such a resource would exist are we still allowed to stop their potential?
Also, if you believe that your sperm is alive and you want honor it well you should go to a fertilization clinic or a sperm bank. They give you good money for it. A bank near my University gives from $100 to $200 for your specimen (as long as is viable). You will be killing to birds with one shot :P
Scientifically, with a clear definition of life (and of humanity), we can say that human life begins with conception. However, this is distinct from potential for life. This is a more interesting question. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the existence of a fetus removal process that preserves the fetus with no additional risk to the mother is available, I would say that this fetus removal process would be the only acceptable standard of abortion. After this point, if the mother doesn't want to keep the fetus together with an artifical uterus, I say that the mother should have absolutely no say in what happens to the fetus.
That decision would be taken by experts, and would be based on the developmental status of the fetus, and its chances at a sufficient standard of life. I would say that eventually, society would be able to support this for pretty much all children and so abortion could safely be made illegal.
However, I'll note again that the critical requirement is that attempting to keep the fetus alive does not pose significant additional risk to the mother. This is a definitional argument at best. My understanding of the term was in terms of probability.
From what I have heard it is very hard to change someones mind about this kind of topics and it take a very strong experience to change his/her mind, and this goes for both side.