I believe that when an organism is capable to obtain nutrients from its surroundings, and have metabolic functions is alive. A brain dead person is dying it can't obtain nutrients from its surroundings by itself, it can't even digest them. However, I will say that I believe that with technology it will be possible to revive part of the brain. You see, I do not know if it affects me because I can't see the future of the aborted fetuses of now or the present of the aborted fetuses of past. I have never argue about abortion. I just answer the questions I was asked to answer, I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am just saying what I believe and what I would do. The law is the law and one must respect it. However, I thing that the funny thing about law is that it changes according to society.
While the organism may be alive it is not sentient. If you refuse to damage a zygote or a fetus just because it is alive, then I ask you this: Do you kill, destroy or consume any organisms? Obviously, you do. So why is it okay to kill those organisms, but not a fetus or a zygote?
Hey, is anyone around for an impromptu Geekchat at around 7:30EST?
Ok Erwin, a few points, bear with me. Can a fetus obtain nutrients from it's surroundings by itself? Does this show further that a fetus is similar to a brain-dead corpse? [Sorry for sounding so morbid, this is a thread about abortion though.] If you follow the point of technology reviving brain-death, as we will probably have the ability to create or revive a human body as well by that time, would that be like saying, anyone who has ever died, hasn't died? Would any fetus ever aborted, ever, also be included?
On your point about the future, we can use statistics to work out what kind of lives aborted fetuses would have probably had. Are we doing potential future children a disservice by forcing them to be born into a life where they would be bound to suffer? We agree on your last point but then should societies view be on this? and how does society represent those actually effected by legislation? Both potential people born into both good and bad lives and the people who's lives they will change? i.e. Mothers, friends and family and in the case of those who turn to crime, society as a whole?
I believe that when an organism is capable to obtain nutrients from its surroundings, and have metabolic functions is alive. A brain dead person is dying it can't obtain nutrients from its surroundings by itself, it can't even digest them. However, I will say that I believe that with technology it will be possible to revive part of the brain. You see, I do not know if it affects me because I can't see the future of the aborted fetuses of now or the present of the aborted fetuses of past. I have never argue about abortion. I just answer the questions I was asked to answer, I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am just saying what I believe and what I would do. The law is the law and one must respect it. However, I thing that the funny thing about law is that it changes according to society.
While the organism may be alive it is not sentient. If you refuse to damage a zygote or a fetus just because it is alive, then I ask you this: Do you kill, destroy or consume any organisms? Obviously, you do. So why is it okay to kill those organisms, but not a fetus or a zygote?
Because a human zygote has a potential that germs or bacteria do not.
human zygote has a potential that germs or bacteria do not.
Define potential. Potential for creativity? Potential for success? A bacteria has goals too, they're just different. A single bacillus of XDR-TB has just as much potential at achieving its goals (make tens of thousands of copies and drowning people in their own blood) as an embryo has potential for making beautiful art.
Potential is an abstract, and as such isn't scientifically reasonable for use in any abortion debate.
Potential is an abstract, and as such isn't scientifically reasonable for use in any abortion debate.
I disagree. Used in a strictly scientific sense, it can be useful. Potential energy. The collection of future states something could find itself in. The universe is just one big rock rolling down the potential energy hill.
Potential is an abstract, and as such isn't scientifically reasonable for use in any abortion debate.
I disagree. Used in a strictly scientific sense, it can be useful. Potential energy. The collection of future states something could find itself in. The universe is just one big rock rolling down the potential energy hill.
I don't believe that Erwin was referring to potential energy. I would also say that humans won't really find themselves in that many more effective states than any other organisms; when it comes down to it, we eat, sleep, breathe, shit, and fuck, just like pretty much every other animal that exists, and all of our technological developments are there to facilitate the expansion of our capacity to do those things. We basically adapt to more environments, in which we then eat, sleep, breathe, shit, and fuck. We're not special.
Erwin: To what "potential" are you referring? Bacteria are diverse little fuckers that serve numerous extremely important functions. I can think of several humans that serve few, if any, important functions.
And just to get this out of the way, there's no such thing as a "higher" form of life. At all. I don't think anybody's used that term, but I just want to emphasize that it's rubbish if it does get brought up.
human zygote has a potential that germs or bacteria do not.
Define potential. Potential for creativity? Potential for success? A bacteria has goals too, they're just different. A single bacillus of XDR-TB has just as much potential at achieving its goals (make tens of thousands of copies and drowning people in their own blood) as an embryo has potential for making beautiful art.
Potential is an abstract, and as such isn't scientifically reasonable for use in any abortion debate.
Wow, I do not know how many time I have explained what potential means. I mean a human being can change the world a single bacterium can't even kill you. Different species of bacteria need have a specific amount in order to produce infection and that is true to even extensively drug resistant tuberculosis. It is true that one can't measure potential but if we could life would be boring because we could now our limits. Also, I don't think that I am debating, I am just answering your questions.
Hey, is anyone around for an impromptu Geekchat at around 7:30EST?
Ok Erwin, a few points, bear with me. Can a fetus obtain nutrients from it's surroundings by itself? Does this show further that a fetus is similar to a brain-dead corpse? [Sorry for sounding so morbid, this is a thread about abortion though.] If you follow the point of technology reviving brain-death, as we will probably have the ability to create or revive a human body as well by that time, would that be like saying, anyone who has ever died, hasn't died? Would any fetus ever aborted, ever, also be included?
On your point about the future, we can use statistics to work out what kind of lives aborted fetuses would have probably had. Are we doing potential future children a disservice by forcing them to be born into a life where they would be bound to suffer? We agree on your last point but then should societies view be on this? and how does society represent those actually effected by legislation? Both potential people born into both good and bad lives and the people who's lives they will change? i.e. Mothers, friends and family and in the case of those who turn to crime, society as a whole?
I do not see anything morbid with your questions. A fetus use the umbilical cord to absorb the nutrients from the mother and it uses the same cord to send the waste back to the mom. Once the blood is absorbed is the fetuses job to filtrate it more in its liver and then pump it through its body. I do not know what is the fate of the aborted fetuses, I assume that one would only be "revived" if a little of its DNA is readily available and not contaminated. Sadly suffering is part of life just like death. I can't decide for others and I believe that many people in this world rose from suffering and changed the live of at least one person.
I'm getting slightly overwhelmed by the discussion that was originally Abortion which moved to the our understanding of what constitutes life to the current discussion of the "potentiality" of life.
Hopefully to move this discussion back on point, the discussion of Abortion attempts to divide individuals into 2 distinct camps:
Pro-lifer which argues a fertilized egg/zygote constitutes life which should be protected. Pro-choice which argues that it is the Woman/mother's choice whether to carry a pregnancy to term.
Now, there's a vast amount of gray areas that touch onto embryos so I'll just go more in depth into the discussion of abortion.
The pro-lifer's arguments are usually vastly flawed on many scientific levels. Embryos and Zygotes DO NOT have sentience. By their definition, fertilization clinics helping couples get impregnated essentially create 7-8 lives, pick 1 and kill the other human beings on a petri dish. Life DOES NOT Count at Conception or embryonic/zygotic stage.
The ONLY argument pro-lifer's can argue is a late term abortion. However, these can be negated if: 1: The baby found to have a genetic defect that will seriously inhibit its ability to live and the parents do not or will not support the baby through financially, emotionally and as parents. 2: The Child greatly endangers the live of the woman.
As you may see, I'm pretty pro-choice. There are a few reasons for my view. The first part is my level of education. The 2nd is that I'm vastly offended by Pro-lifers at my post secondary institution comparing abortions to the Holocaust. They are two vastly different issues as killing fully sentient Human beings based on religion is completely different from terminating a being that hasn't even gained sentience. 3rdly, Pro-lifers attempting to "convey" their message of the preciousness of life decided to display graphic images of aborted fetuses on massive posters. Does that seem enormously ignorant yet? They're even going as far as saying displaying these images is part of their freedom of speech. Basically, they created a backlash that condemns themselves as insensitive ignoramus's for a position that could have easily been won with like an image of a pregnant woman glowing with pride happy she's going to carry the baby to term.
FYI, they are currently being charged with Criminal trespassing as they chose not to remove their posters when ordered by the Post Secondary Institution.
I'm getting slightly overwhelmed by the discussion that was originally Abortion which moved to the our understanding of what constitutes life to the current discussion of the "potentiality" of life.
The two are very, very intertwined. I don't understand what you would be upset about.
I do not see anything morbid with your questions. A fetus use the umbilical cord to absorb the nutrients from the mother and it uses the same cord to send the waste back to the mom. Once the blood is absorbed is the fetuses job to filtrate it more in its liver and then pump it through its body.
So it is the same as a body on life support? The liver is still working as long as it keeps getting blood pumped to it by the heart, even when this is being caused by an external source, right? In either case, if you removed external help, both would quickly die completely, wouldn't they?
The problem here is that you have no possible means of determining if a human being (or anything) will change the world, let alone if the changes will be good or bad. As game theory so beautifully displays, in the absence of information, all decisions are arbitrary. As the nature of any possible changes arising from the continued existence of this possibly self-moving object cannot be known, and there is no possibility for historical information regarding past changes, any decision to continue or terminate its movement is itself entirely arbitrary. There is no net difference between the two possible courses of action.
Or, put more simply, the odds that you've aborted the next Hitler are exactly equal to the odds that you've aborted the next Gandhi.
There are not higher forms of life but I think that there are more sophisticated forms of life.
How is that different than a "higher" form of life? How are some forms of life more "sophisticated" than others?
Also, while a single bacterium cannot kill you, that one bacterium can give rise to more of itself. All you need is one cell with the right mutation, and you can shortly have an infectious dose of some new resistant bacteria.
All organisms have the ability to change their environment. Humans are no different.
A single bacterium can be easily be overcome by our immunology system, it really needs to be more than one to really affect us. Yes, it is true that all have the ability to change according to environments but it is also true that ones do it more than others. I mean sophisticated in the sense that humans are multicultural organisms have the need to control millions of different cells in coordination. I was amazed how our neurons send electrochemical information to our muscle cells and how this at the same time contract and relax depending of the change in Calcium in their membrane potential. An amoeba is so much simple, is just one cell. I think it would be the same as comparing an Intel 80486 cpu with a 3.2 GHz Cell broadband Engine.
I do not see anything morbid with your questions. A fetus use the umbilical cord to absorb the nutrients from the mother and it uses the same cord to send the waste back to the mom. Once the blood is absorbed is the fetuses job to filtrate it more in its liver and then pump it through its body.
So it is the same as a body on life support? The liver is still working as long as it keeps getting blood pumped to it by the heart, even when this is being caused by an external source, right? In either case, if you removed external help, both would quickly die completely, wouldn't they?
That is the thing, they die. I cannot kill a potential cell that is way on its way to become a human being.
I mean a human being can change the world
The problem here is that you have no possible means of determining if a human being (or anything)willchange the world, let alone if the changes will be good or bad. As game theory so beautifully displays, in the absence of information, all decisions are arbitrary. As the nature of any possible changes arising from the continued existence of this possibly self-moving object cannot be known, and there is no possibility for historical information regarding past changes, any decision to continue or terminate its movement is itself entirely arbitrary. There is no net difference between the two possible courses of action.
Or, put more simply, the odds that you've aborted the next Hitler are exactly equal to the odds that you've aborted the next Gandhi.
Well, it is true but then again it is not for me to decide who lives and who dies.
That is the thing, they die. I cannot kill a potential cell that is way on its way to become a human being.
The question I am still asking is, why can you kill one but not the other? What is the distinguishing factor between a body on life support and a fetus supported by it's mother? Is there a difference?
That is the thing, they die. I cannot kill a potential cell that is way on its way to become a human being.
The question I am still asking is, why can you kill one but not the other? What is the distinguishing factor between a body on life support and a fetus supported by it's mother? Is there a difference?
I wouldn't kill the death-brain person if that is why you ask. If it is in my hands I won't do that.
Erp.. I omitted the brain-dead part, my bad. What about now? Edit: Oh, you added it in. Never mind. Do you see what is wrong with that statement? Do you know why we keep brain-dead people alive?
Erp.. I omitted the brain-dead part, my bad. What about now? Edit: Oh, you added it in. Never mind. Do you see what is wrong with that statement? Do you know why we keep brain-dead people alive?
I know we I would keep one if it were in my hands. I do not know why everybody else does it. As I stated many times before on this topic I can only say and do what I accept. I can't answer for others. It is true that medicine can keep a person alive, a person that has had a live but if the technology wouldn't be in the first place those people at least got a chance at living, an aborted fetus never had a chance.
If he/she would have tell me (or written in a paper) that in case he/she would become brain death he/she would either be kept alive or disconnected. I would honor a person's last wishes. I was not the one making the decision, it was his/hers since the very beginning. If I do not know a person a.k.a John Doe, he carries a organ donor card and he has no family left and he becomes brain death but I know for sure that his organs would help other peoples lives at that very instant. I would honor his memory and disconnect him.
The problem here is that you have no possible means of determining if a human being (or anything)willchange the world, let alone if the changes will be good or bad. As game theory so beautifully displays, in the absence of information, all decisions are arbitrary. As the nature of any possible changes arising from the continued existence of this possibly self-moving object cannot be known, and there is no possibility for historical information regarding past changes, any decision to continue or terminate its movement is itself entirely arbitrary. There is no net difference between the two possible courses of action.
Or, put more simply, the odds that you've aborted the next Hitler are exactly equal to the odds that you've aborted the next Gandhi.
You missed a totally more fun argument here.
If you want to make the argument that a human can change the world and therefore every human life whether potential or actual is important, I could argue that you could say the same thing about every living thing on earth. What if that cow you just slaughtered and eat had a mutation that if it was allowed to breed would have solved world hunger or a whale killed by a whaler had achieved higher brain activity and was a new species. A insect we killed using pesticide could have been the next great pollinator. That pine tree you just cut down may have connected a gene that would have out completed all other trees in a new area. All these things would have great world changing consequences and everything Rym just said :-p
If you want to make the argument that a human can change the world and therefore every human life whether potential or actual is important, I could argue that you could say the same thing about every living thing on earth. What if that cow you just slaughtered and eat had a mutation that if it was allowed to breed would have solved world hunger or a whale killed by a whaler had achieved higher brain activity and was a new species. A insect we killed using pesticide could have been the next great pollinator. That pine tree you just cut down may have connected a gene that would have out completed all other trees in a new area. All these things would have great world changing consequences and everything Rym just said :-p
It's not just biological things either. Let's say there's a small boulder up a mountain. I notice it's precariously close to the edge. That's dangerous, so I roll it away where it is less likely to fall and hurt somebody. Potentially, I could have saved the life of the next Hitler.
If you want to argue about not interfering with potential, then you can't do anything. You can't move, eat, or drink. How do you know that the water you just drank didn't contain some mutation of a bacteria that would have cured all disease, but now you digested it?
I have not read this entire thread...but to those who see adoption as an option, why would you want to put someone through 9 months of irrecoverable body stress? They have lives too. Trust me, the world is not having a baby famine. There are plenty of children who need homes. Not all of them will get homes. Why add to it?
How do you know that the water you just drank didn't contain some mutation of a bacteria that would have cured all disease, but now you digested it?
Yeah, good job, Erwin. Now we're all going to die of some pissant disease, because you ate all of the magical curing bacteria!
It's impossible to argue "potential" in this context. We can only argue what is, not what we think will be.
Doubt it I mean, with recombinant DNA we can very much use different vectors to transform different strains of bacteria in order to become a little bio reactor for the well being of humanity. The difference between the potential of a bacteria and the one of a human being is that a human being can create new awesome things, while bacteria does not. Humanity has a great potential for doing awesome stuff and horrible evil, but I can't allow myself to change/stop the future of a human being.
I have not read this entire thread...but to those who see adoption as an option, why would you want to put someone through 9 months of irrecoverable body stress? They have lives too. Trust me, the world is not having a baby famine. There are plenty of children who need homes. Not all of them will get homes. Why add to it?
I would do it if I were a woman, but I can't tell others what I want them to do. That would be tyrannic. Why would one add to it? Because, I think that life is a beautiful thing to experience.
Doubt it I mean, with recombinant DNA we can very much use different vectors to transform different strains of bacteria in order to become a little bio reactor for the well being of humanity. The difference between the potential of a bacteria and the one of a human being is that a human being can create new awesome things, while bacteria does not. Humanity has a great potential for doing awesome stuff and horrible evil, but I can't allow myself to change/stop the future of a human being.
Define awesome, in relative to a species attempting to survive in an ecosystem. One could argue that Bacteria's ability to continue to outpace our antibiotics is a pretty awesome feature. The sheer adaptability of bacteria to places as hostile and remote as volcanic vents deep underwater and possibly mars is pretty awesome. Awesome is a relative term, you'll have to define what you mean by awesome.
Doubt it I mean, with recombinant DNA we can very much use different vectors to transform different strains of bacteria in order to become a little bio reactor for the well being of humanity. The difference between the potential of a bacteria and the one of a human being is that a human being can create new awesome things, while bacteria does not. Humanity has a great potential for doing awesome stuff and horrible evil, but I can't allow myself to change/stop the future of a human being.
Define awesome, in relative to a species attempting to survive in an ecosystem. One could argue that Bacteria's ability to continue to outpace our antibiotics is a pretty awesome feature. The sheer adaptability of bacteria to places as hostile and remote as volcanic vents deep underwater and possibly mars is pretty awesome. Awesome is a relative term, you'll have to define what you mean by awesome.
That is not an ability, is just evolution. They reproduce at a way faster rate than humans can.
I am afraid to do ANYTHING... what if I destroy a single cell organism the has the potential to evolve into a unicorn!!! I love me some unicorns!
Also, unicorns would be awesome but what about unicorns with wings?
Comments
Ok Erwin, a few points, bear with me.
Can a fetus obtain nutrients from it's surroundings by itself? Does this show further that a fetus is similar to a brain-dead corpse? [Sorry for sounding so morbid, this is a thread about abortion though.]
If you follow the point of technology reviving brain-death, as we will probably have the ability to create or revive a human body as well by that time, would that be like saying, anyone who has ever died, hasn't died? Would any fetus ever aborted, ever, also be included?
On your point about the future, we can use statistics to work out what kind of lives aborted fetuses would have probably had. Are we doing potential future children a disservice by forcing them to be born into a life where they would be bound to suffer?
We agree on your last point but then should societies view be on this? and how does society represent those actually effected by legislation? Both potential people born into both good and bad lives and the people who's lives they will change? i.e. Mothers, friends and family and in the case of those who turn to crime, society as a whole?
Potential is an abstract, and as such isn't scientifically reasonable for use in any abortion debate.
Erwin: To what "potential" are you referring? Bacteria are diverse little fuckers that serve numerous extremely important functions. I can think of several humans that serve few, if any, important functions.
And just to get this out of the way, there's no such thing as a "higher" form of life. At all. I don't think anybody's used that term, but I just want to emphasize that it's rubbish if it does get brought up.
I do not see anything morbid with your questions. A fetus use the umbilical cord to absorb the nutrients from the mother and it uses the same cord to send the waste back to the mom. Once the blood is absorbed is the fetuses job to filtrate it more in its liver and then pump it through its body.
I do not know what is the fate of the aborted fetuses, I assume that one would only be "revived" if a little of its DNA is readily available and not contaminated.
Sadly suffering is part of life just like death. I can't decide for others and I believe that many people in this world rose from suffering and changed the live of at least one person.
Hopefully to move this discussion back on point, the discussion of Abortion attempts to divide individuals into 2 distinct camps:
Pro-lifer which argues a fertilized egg/zygote constitutes life which should be protected.
Pro-choice which argues that it is the Woman/mother's choice whether to carry a pregnancy to term.
Now, there's a vast amount of gray areas that touch onto embryos so I'll just go more in depth into the discussion of abortion.
The pro-lifer's arguments are usually vastly flawed on many scientific levels. Embryos and Zygotes DO NOT have sentience. By their definition, fertilization clinics helping couples get impregnated essentially create 7-8 lives, pick 1 and kill the other human beings on a petri dish. Life DOES NOT Count at Conception or embryonic/zygotic stage.
The ONLY argument pro-lifer's can argue is a late term abortion. However, these can be negated if:
1: The baby found to have a genetic defect that will seriously inhibit its ability to live and the parents do not or will not support the baby through financially, emotionally and as parents.
2: The Child greatly endangers the live of the woman.
As you may see, I'm pretty pro-choice. There are a few reasons for my view. The first part is my level of education. The 2nd is that I'm vastly offended by Pro-lifers at my post secondary institution comparing abortions to the Holocaust. They are two vastly different issues as killing fully sentient Human beings based on religion is completely different from terminating a being that hasn't even gained sentience. 3rdly, Pro-lifers attempting to "convey" their message of the preciousness of life decided to display graphic images of aborted fetuses on massive posters. Does that seem enormously ignorant yet? They're even going as far as saying displaying these images is part of their freedom of speech. Basically, they created a backlash that condemns themselves as insensitive ignoramus's for a position that could have easily been won with like an image of a pregnant woman glowing with pride happy she's going to carry the baby to term.
FYI, they are currently being charged with Criminal trespassing as they chose not to remove their posters when ordered by the Post Secondary Institution.
Or, put more simply, the odds that you've aborted the next Hitler are exactly equal to the odds that you've aborted the next Gandhi.
Also, while a single bacterium cannot kill you, that one bacterium can give rise to more of itself. All you need is one cell with the right mutation, and you can shortly have an infectious dose of some new resistant bacteria.
All organisms have the ability to change their environment. Humans are no different.
Well, it is true but then again it is not for me to decide who lives and who dies.
Edit: Oh, you added it in. Never mind. Do you see what is wrong with that statement? Do you know why we keep brain-dead people alive?
If you want to make the argument that a human can change the world and therefore every human life whether potential or actual is important, I could argue that you could say the same thing about every living thing on earth. What if that cow you just slaughtered and eat had a mutation that if it was allowed to breed would have solved world hunger or a whale killed by a whaler had achieved higher brain activity and was a new species. A insect we killed using pesticide could have been the next great pollinator. That pine tree you just cut down may have connected a gene that would have out completed all other trees in a new area. All these things would have great world changing consequences and everything Rym just said :-p
If you want to argue about not interfering with potential, then you can't do anything. You can't move, eat, or drink. How do you know that the water you just drank didn't contain some mutation of a bacteria that would have cured all disease, but now you digested it?
It's impossible to argue "potential" in this context. We can only argue what is, not what we think will be.
I love me some unicorns!