The Glade 4.0

Yeah, I know. Sad though.

I've always believed that life began at conception and that a life as a zygote and a life as a full-term fetus were the same...but I'll share something disturbing with you that I have not been able to rectify:
(Hidden for TMI)

This is if you go with the entirely metaphysical argument that the "person" or "human being" begins at conception. As this argument is entirely religious and utterly unsupported by biology or science, I take exception to governments basing any law upon it.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

No. While it is true that the field of Genetics supports conception as a description of when "human life" begins, but when "human life" begins is irrelevant, as by these standards, any lump of living cells is "human life" -- including a skin culture in a petrie dish. What is necessary to determine for these purposes is when the "person" or "human being" begins, and this is something else entirely. In developmental biology, determining this would be some synthesis of the Neurological view of when human life begins (recognizable brainwaves on an EEG at somewhere around 25 weeks) and the Ecological/Technological view (the point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development.) A third method often used by the pro-choice movement is equally useless, the "point of Self-Consciosness," as this is utterly metaphysical as well.


This is why I still propose "inducing labor" in all cases instead of "abortion." If the developing fetus is strong enough to live outside the womb, then it gets to live. If not, it is not any person that killed it, but it's own lack of developmental health, so we do not need to worry about whether or not we're "killing babies."

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

You're still engaging in a logical distributive fallacy Taly. Bricks are not a house. A skin cell is not a "human being", it is a piece of one. When the whole of the human being constitutes one cell - it is a human being.

No secret there - humans are designed to develop emotions to things that look like us. An embryo doesn't look like us so there is less emotional investment made instinctively.

You're still engaging in a logical distributive fallacy Taly. Bricks are not a house. A skin cell is not a "human being", it is a piece of one. When the whole of the human being constitutes one cell - it is a human being. You're also advocating letting technology define humanity which is simply insane on its premise.

(and I don't believe in chemical birth control either)

Side point: most contraceptive pills work by preventing conception, not preventing implantation. Just so you are informed.

Irrelevant and incorrect.

Let's assume Hopwin has been vaporized. Nothing is left of Hopwin at all, except for a few living cells. Now, if we had technology like in "The Fifth Element," perhaps we could reconstruct Hopwin, which would be badass, but...those few remaining living cells are not a human being. They may be all that is left of Hopwin, but they are not Hopwin himself.

Should any isolated group of stem cells (regardless of the source) be treated as a human being since they do potentially have the ability to grow into a human being?

I am anti-abortion because I don't like people being able to just say **** the consequences of risky behavior.

No as it is not their natural course. Now if human intervention started them on that path then the individual undertaking that actions would be responsible for that life. A stem cell is simply a flexible cell - if given the instructions to begin to transform into another human than it only makes sense to proceed from that direction.

And yet they are not the whole of Hopwin since the vast majority has ceased to exist you again choose to distribute characteristics which are not able to be distributed to the parts.

Corolinth: Failure.
me: ?
Corolinth: That thread isn't for you to argue with Rynar. It's me shining a laser pointer to get them to take abortion out of the U.N. beheading thread.
Corolinth: It occurred to me, you see, that someone had to take the same tact that Rynar was - which is to make broad, blanket statements about an entire side of the argument.
Then let them all get worked up.
While I go play Battletech and then take a nap.

These are both arbitrary decisions you have made with regard to relevant information, that don't have any sequitur logical path to the question at hand. And your dismissal of "technology" (which wasn't actually the point -- EEG results, for instance, merely measure the presence of brainwaves. Brainwaves still exist (or fail to exist) regardless of our tech levels) makes the whole "natural course" argument ridiculous. "Natural" is a useless term. Humans naturally murder each other. That doesn't make it something we accept by law. "Natural" simply means "occurring in nature." Everything that exists or happens occurs in nature. Humans (and everything we make) and human behavior are part of nature.

What this comes down to, is merely "being (innocent) human life" does not make it sacred or wrong to end (it doesn't even make it an actual person). Sure, we can legally assign the same rights to a fertilized zygote as a person has, but in so doing we harm our own society in so many ways; economically, ethically, and developmentally. To do so violates the freedoms and rights of actual people, without any benefit whatsoever.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

You decision is the arbitrary one, you prefer to call a baby a zygote (a development stage, not a seperate being) so you can avoid the true question. Elmo's (and my own) is supported by science (high school, if not elementary school biology) in the fact that the baby is a genetically distinct living mass from inception. Your strawman arguments about skin cells are irrelevant to the conversation as there is no slippery-slope leading to the argument that scratching a dandruff itch is murder.

the baby is a genetically distinct living mass from inception.

I am pretty much in agreement with Taly on this issue. A lump of cells do not constitute a life, potential life yes. If you want to go down that road then you are in Catholic territory or as MP would say "Every sperm is sacred".

Its not like I am a fan of it and think everyone should have one. I think it would be great if it wasn't needed at all, that people took more care toward preventing it in the first place.

I have always had a problem understanding though why people have an issue with birth control like Kate mentions above. I just don't get it is there a line? Are condoms bad, the pill is the old rhythm or withdraw method acceptable?

A fertilized egg (single cell) is called a zygote, not a baby. This isn't arbitrary. And irrelevant. The question isn't "is it a baby", but "is it a person?"

Hop - do you agree, though, that there are differences among the various developmental stages from conception to birth that one might reasonably and logically believe are relevant when determining the moral and/or legal status of the lifeform in question? In short, do think it's reasonable and logical (even if you disagree) to conclude that although a zygote is a living human, it's ok to kill it because it lacks brain function?

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

I don't at all understand how someone can be this confused on the subject after having gone over the biological details at least 12 times on the glade.

A sperm is not an individual human - it doesn't even have all the genetic material necessary to make one - same for an egg. However a fertilized egg is a human - a completely new and original human being - albeit a very small one. Most human understand that it is immoral to kill an innocent human and so we apply such an understanding to this very small innocent human.

It should also be noted that a zygote may very well not ever become a baby, even if it develops naturally without incident. It can easily become two babies. Or three. Or six. This isn't even built into the genetic code, it simply happens. So a zygote is not a distinct "person," since it still hasn't yet decided if it's going to be one or three.