|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 18:53:24 GMT -5
Thing is I'm not sure zygotes or embryo's have souls, and I'm not sure about defining abortion as murder either. What I do know for sure is that Iraq, the war on terror and the economy do deal with fullgrown human beings that have souls. So when do you start caring? When the baby is still in the womb? When do you start believing the death of the baby is murder? We are talking about 44 million people here... Compare that to Iraq...
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 19:08:25 GMT -5
So when do you start caring? When the baby is still in the womb? When do you start believing the death of the baby is murder? We are talking about 44 million people here... Compare that to Iraq... Bryan I already made my point, if you don't understand me or can't tolerate my views... well, what else is new.. I already stated that I respect views like yours, would sure be nice to have the favour returned. I personally feel abortion is wrong, I wouldn't do it even if I got raped, and I think that says something. But I am hesitant about forcing my values on others, especially when it's questionable if we're talking about a soul here. If you feel abortion is exactly like murder, you might as well put all the girls and women who did it behind bars.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Nov 4, 2004 19:12:31 GMT -5
PS: Brick, does Starbucks have tea? I should have known that a Kerry lover would also be a tea drinker! ;D Yes, they have tea, and rather good, I'm told.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 19:23:59 GMT -5
Let’s set your views aside for a moment while I make a comment… Your views set aside, I am unable to respect any view in which abortion is promoted, accepted, tolerated, or passively overlooked. Abortion is the death of a human life, and any acceptance on any level of such action should never be respected in my view… Then why would you passively accepted it by not actively standing up against it at all costs? TO WHAT END? So you would let 44 million people die because you don’t want to force your values on others? To what end bert? I think letting kids snort cocaine is wrong… Should I force my value on others? I think gay pornos should not be allowed in video stores where kids are allowed… Should I force my value on others? I think drunk driving is wrong… Should I force my value on others? Such a passive view leads me to believe you value a secular society over a godlier traditionally society… Let’s start with the doctors and nurses first…
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Nov 4, 2004 22:33:58 GMT -5
I personally feel abortion is wrong, I wouldn't do it even if I got raped, and I think that says something. But I am hesitant about forcing my values on others, especially when it's questionable if we're talking about a soul here. Good for you, Bertine. I'm glad to know that you're against abortion, and I can also appreciate your desire to respect others' right to make that decision for themselves. This shows me that you're a thoughtful person. But everyone should think about this: If you're unsure when a person receives a soul, isn't that more reason to be extremely cautious about destroying that "mass of cells"?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Nov 4, 2004 23:27:17 GMT -5
This fascinating definition of "conception" is unlike any I've ever seen during my medical school or residency training. An egg or a sperm cannot be considered a human life, whereas if a fertilized egg can be. I didn't say it was a human life. I said they were alive. I think that is the question. If you say at the moment of conception that leaves that question of twinning. If the first individual was created at conception when was the second created? Individuals must come into being at some time other than conception. I don't know when. For the moment I believe the fetus can be considered an individual when it can survive without the mother. Oh come on Clay. You know there are organisms we consider human that have more or less than 46 pair of chromosomes. The question is - how far off can they be? Oh I believe it will. The intentional production of mass produced humans, for example.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Nov 5, 2004 11:26:11 GMT -5
I didn't say it was a human life. I said they were alive. All living organisms are generated from living organisms. The gametes of sperm and egg are living things, but they are not living persons because they are substantially different (and I mean substantially different in the Aristotelian sense) from a zygote/embryo. If you take a sperm and implant it into the uterus, nothing happens, but if you take a zygote/embryo and implant it into the uterus, it becomes a full grown person. You can't seriously think that there's no difference. I think that is the question. If you say at the moment of conception that leaves that question of twinning. If the first individual was created at conception when was the second created? When they became two individuals. Individuals must come into being at some time other than conception. I don't know when. You don't know when, but you're willing to take the chance and kill it anyway? For the moment I believe the fetus can be considered an individual when it can survive without the mother. So, theoretically speaking, up to the point when the umbilical cord is cut? The interesting thing about mammals is that usually their young can't survive without their mother for several years after birth. They still require feeding, bathing, cleaning, etc... Oh come on Clay. You know there are organisms we consider human that have more or less than 46 pair of chromosomes. The question is - how far off can they be? Let's see - Klinefelter Syndrome is 47 XXY, but is an actual person versus a single sperm (26 Y) and dies unless fertilizing an egg. You do the math. Oh I believe it will. The intentional production of mass produced humans, for example. I'm sorry, the "mass-production" of humans (whatever that means) is not morally equivalent to the mass destruction of humans.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Nov 5, 2004 14:31:28 GMT -5
All living organisms are generated from living organisms. The gametes of sperm and egg are living things, but they are not living persons because they are substantially different (and I mean substantially different in the Aristotelian sense) from a zygote/embryo. If you take a sperm and implant it into the uterus, nothing happens, but if you take a zygote/embryo and implant it into the uterus, it becomes a full grown person. You can't seriously think that there's no difference. I am fully aware of the difference between haploid diploid cells. The statement made was that life starts at conception. It is an incorrect statement. Slice it and dice it anyway you wish. I am not saying they are the same. I am not saying that they are anything except that they are alive. And you are saying that they become two individuals at what point in the development? Doesn't the real question involve the soul? How does that play out in conjoined individual(s)? Since we are thinking about the formation of the individual and the timing it seems that thinking about what makes an individual is not out of line. Does a shared liver mean two individuals? A shared heart? A shared brain? I am seeking the opinions of others. I stated my thoughts. They do. But they do not require the mother to do these things following the delivery. Julius Caesar (according to legend), for example, survived without the benefit of his mother once he was delivered.. Again, I am not arguing about haploid vs. diploid cells. You mentioned humans had 46 chromosomes. And now you call an organism with 47 chromosomes a human. I was wondering how far from the norm would you still consider the organism to be a human. Although polyploidy is almost always lethal, but trisomy can also result in live births although with a wide range of abnormalities including Down's and Patau Syndromes. People (women) with Turner’s Syndrome end up with only 45 chromosomes. I am raising the question of the hard and fast rules and how to deal with the exceptions. It generally means the production of organisms that have neither father nor mother but are brought to term by artificial means. Although there have been reports of this being done there have been no well established confirmed reports. It is certainly within the realm of possibility and raises a number of ethical questions. Historically the child was not even thought to be alive prior to the quickening. The mother was not thought to be a part of the child since the homunculus was donated by the father. As research increases our view of the way things work we need to be sure our laws keep abreast. In the 1800's there were no laws concerninf in vitro fertilization. Even now, with all of the furor over the fact that life begins at conception the fate of these embryos is rarely mentioned. In the 360+ clinics in the US that do these procedures many of the unused embryos are simply washed down the drain. Others are used in research and still others are frozen. It is thought there are currently in excess of 150,000 of these frozen embryos. Far more than that meet very different fates. I am wondering where is the outrage. I see people ranting about abortions but silent on this, a procedure that kills 100s of thousands a year. In the procedure, on average, 24 embryos are created and 3 selected and implanted. If all 3 implant the two judged to be the weakest are removed from the womb. 23 abortions to allow the production of a single child. Of course we are talking about an embryo has no brain, central nervous system, mouth, heart, lungs, or other internal organs. It has no organs to see, hear, touch, taste; it lacks a body, head, arms, legs; it has no self awareness, memory, thought processes, or consciousness. It is smaller than a pin-pri. But non-the-less, an embryo does have the potential to grow into a fetus and become a newborn baby. What are people's thoughts. Should this whole process be illegal because there is no way to accomplish the procedure without causing the death of some (the vast majority) of the embryos?
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Nov 5, 2004 16:25:14 GMT -5
I am fully aware of the difference between haploid diploid cells. The statement made was that life starts at conception. It is an incorrect statement. How would you know? You've said you don't know when someone "becomes an individual". Slice it and dice it anyway you wish. I am not saying they are the same. I am not saying that they are anything except that they are alive. Then we agree that if you scrape cells from the inside of my cheek and implant them into a woman's uterus, those cells will not develop into a human being. The newly fertilized egg will, and that's enough of a difference for me to claim that this newly fertilized egg deserves to not be killed. And you are saying that they become two individuals at what point in the development? Doesn't the real question involve the soul? How does that play out in conjoined individual(s)? Since we are thinking about the formation of the individual and the timing it seems that thinking about what makes an individual is not out of line. Does a shared liver mean two individuals? A shared heart? A shared brain? I'm confused. First is was "conception", then it was "individuals", now it is "soul"? It doesn't even matter when you think a soul is formed. They're called conjoined twins for no reason - they're two individuals = twins. Split hairs much? I am seeking the opinions of others. I stated my thoughts. I've given you my opinion and asked you, since you reject mine, to articulate plainly why you disagree. So far you've not been able to tell me when a person becomes a person, or an individual, or whatever. They do. But they do not require the mother to do these things following the delivery. Julius Caesar (according to legend), for example, survived without the benefit of his mother once he was delivered.. So.......a baby could be delivered, but acceptably killed (aborted) before the umbilical cord is cut? Again, I am not arguing about haploid vs. diploid cells. You mentioned humans had 46 chromosomes. And now you call an organism with 47 chromosomes a human. I was wondering how far from the norm would you still consider the organism to be a human. I mentioned humans had 46 chromosomes because I thought we were going to speak in general terms. Recall that you are the one being obtuse. Although polyploidy is almost always lethal, but trisomy can also result in live births although with a wide range of abnormalities including Down's and Patau Syndromes. People (women) with Turner’s Syndrome end up with only 45 chromosomes. I am raising the question of the hard and fast rules and how to deal with the exceptions. And Trisomy 21 people are human individuals, are they not? I have some as patients and I love them dearly. Perhaps the confusion you're experiencing stems from the unspoken idea that a person doesn't become a person until they're born. In other words, any "ploidy" person is still a person, even if they only survive 3 days. A gamete is still not a person, though. It generally means the production of organisms that have neither father nor mother but are brought to term by artificial means. Although there have been reports of this being done there have been no well established confirmed reports. It is certainly within the realm of possibility and raises a number of ethical questions. But the ethical question is not the same as the ethical question surrounding the morality of destroying people but I see below where you're headed with this line of thinking. Historically the child was not even thought to be alive prior to the quickening. The mother was not thought to be a part of the child since the homunculus was donated by the father. As research increases our view of the way things work we need to be sure our laws keep abreast. Clement of Alexandria (c.A.D. 15O-22O), maintains that "If we should but control our lusts at the start and if we would not kill off the human race born and developing according to the divine plan, then our whole lives would be lived according to nature." The Alexandrian theologian goes on to make the very perceptive statement that "women who resort to some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not only the embryo but, along with it, all human kindness."[Clement of Alexandria Christ the Educator 2.1O (in Fathers, 23:173,174).] from www.all.org/issues/ab99x.htm In the 1800's there were no laws concerninf in vitro fertilization. Even now, with all of the furor over the fact that life begins at conception the fate of these embryos is rarely mentioned. In the 360+ clinics in the US that do these procedures many of the unused embryos are simply washed down the drain. Others are used in research and still others are frozen. It is thought there are currently in excess of 150,000 of these frozen embryos. Far more than that meet very different fates. I am wondering where is the outrage. I see people ranting about abortions but silent on this, a procedure that kills 100s of thousands a year. This is a reasonable point. All I can say is that I am against that as well, and so is the Catholic Church for among the same reasons. In the procedure, on average, 24 embryos are created and 3 selected and implanted. If all 3 implant the two judged to be the weakest are removed from the womb. 23 abortions to allow the production of a single child. And I think that this is wrong, for same reason why I'm against embryonic stem cell research... Of course we are talking about an embryo has no brain, central nervous system, mouth, heart, lungs, or other internal organs. It has no organs to see, hear, touch, taste; it lacks a body, head, arms, legs; it has no self awareness, memory, thought processes, or consciousness. It is smaller than a pin-pri. But non-the-less, an embryo does have the potential to grow into a fetus and become a newborn baby. I'll simply quote your last sentence: "But non-the-less, an embryo does have the potential to grow into a fetus and become a newborn baby."Clay
|
|
|
Post by happy on Nov 5, 2004 23:04:15 GMT -5
I never had a strong, strong opinion on abortion until I gave birth. I still think it should be a woman's choice. BUT, I have conceived, carried these gifts from God and given birth. I've experienced the whole miracle more than once. It is the most incredible thing ever, ever, ever. After doing it once, I could not understand how abortion can be a choice. That is for me. I won't put my decisions on others. I also don't like all of the "throw away" children I see/know. I wish people cared as much about them as they do the unborn.
I just want to say that from a Momma's standpoint, these little lives are God's gift and he uses them to teach us SO much.
|
|
|
Post by HA on Nov 6, 2004 7:56:36 GMT -5
Bryan wrote Bryan, please start a campaign to ban automobiles - they cause quite some deaths, maybe more than abortions.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 6, 2004 8:37:36 GMT -5
Keeping talking Ha, ignorant comments like this only serve to point out the irrational nature of your thinking. Robb
|
|
|
Post by Ha on Nov 6, 2004 11:52:04 GMT -5
Keeping talking Ha, ignorant comments like this only serve to point out the irrational nature of your thinking. Also ban m a s t r u b a t i o n! Every moving s p e r m is very alive and can join itsellf with an egg and give a living organism ...
|
|
|
Post by k on Nov 6, 2004 15:18:51 GMT -5
This election shows Americans don't give a damn about whether Europeans like us or not. What is it to us? You Europeans are creating a EU constitution which is removing the last traces of national sovereignity.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 6, 2004 17:43:09 GMT -5
Bryan wrote Bryan, please start a campaign to ban automobiles - they cause quite some deaths, maybe more than abortions. So you are the type of person who thinks guns cause deaths as well?
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 6, 2004 19:17:01 GMT -5
Good for you, Bertine. I'm glad to know that you're against abortion, and I can also appreciate your desire to respect others' right to make that decision for themselves. This shows me that you're a thoughtful person. Thanks Clay. Btw, Present and I are pretty much on the same level on this subject. I'm sure you guys realize that all this theorizing about abortion is a debate without end. There's nothing clear cut in moral issues like this one, so people will never agree. You choose to believe life (soul included?) starts at conception and base your statements on that. People like Present and I just don't know, and therefor can't take a clear stand like you do. This issue is difficult becos it basically takes place in someone, a woman's body, something we usually agree on that we are all in control of ourselves, nobody can tell us what to do with it, nobody can violate the rights we have on our own body. In the 60's here in the NL, there was this feminist movement that had this slogan: 'Boss in my own Belly!'. I think most of us that think life is sacred would say, well you don't have the authority to decide over the life that is growing inside you. But if a woman doesn't share that belief, I don't think we can force her to our moral beliefs on something that is going on in her body, that she will have to carry for 9 months etc. etc. As for the uncertainty, well it only just makes me uncertain really. I'm not as fiercely pro-choice as you are pro-life. I think abortion is a tragedy. But at least the subject of the tragedy is not suffering. And if this 'mass of cells' has a soul, that soul would be safely in God's hands, don't you think? And if it's a sinful crime, we can leave judgement in those hands too.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Nov 6, 2004 22:08:43 GMT -5
You choose to believe life (soul included?) starts at conception and base your statements on that. People like Present and I just don't know, and therefor can't take a clear stand like you do. But you take a clear stand on declaring that a woman should be able to destroy it. But it's okay for HER to force her LACK of moral belief on that "something" that is going on inside her? I wouldn't be so sure about that, Bertine. Cameras have caputred the reaction/behavior of a 10-12 week fetus being aborted. The child is definitely feeling something that causes it to thrash about in fear and recoil in pain. If it truly weren't suffering, I don't believe it would have such reaction. And a full-term fetus that is murdered in a partial-birth abortion is suffering mightily (scissors being jammed into its scull, scrambling its brain up and sucking the brain tissue out is a mightly painful process).
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 7, 2004 10:17:35 GMT -5
But you take a clear stand on declaring that a woman should be able to destroy it. But it's okay for HER to force her LACK of moral belief on that "something" that is going on inside her? I think I've already made myself clear on the issue. I could start typing again, but you might as well carefully reread my post. I think it should be obvious that I was talking about early stage abortions.
|
|