Abortion

[Pabst]

Quote from Turok:

I'm guessing from your position that you could have an egg in one vial and sperm in another and leave them both on the lab counter until next week (to die) with no guilt. However, as your last act on friday if you dropped them both into the petri dish, walked away and let them go at it for the weekend (then to die before Monday), now you would be guilt ridden to the grave.

JB

I'm just glad my job isn't messing around with another guy's goo.

 

[nononsense]

Quote from Cutten:

Surely the way to decide when a foetus is a living individual is to define which qualities are necessary and sufficient for something to be classed a living organism, then see to what extent the foetus has them at various stages of its development. This appears to be largely an issue for biologists and the medical profession. I certainly fail to see how politics, morality, religion, or even people's feelings have anything to do with it. A woman's right to choose does not extend to the right to choose to kill another individual. There may be rare exceptions, such as a rape victim who has been denied access to an abortion until late in the pregnancy.

A fertilised egg in a woman's body has very little in common with a living human being, so I don't see how it can be classed as an individual life. A foetus 1 minute before birth has a huge amount in common with an infant 1 minute after birth, so I don't see how it can be classed as anything other than an individual life.

Somewhere in between there will be a grey area where the foetus goes from obviously not being a separate living individual, to becoming one. Abortion then becomes murder of a living individual at least at the far end of that grey area. Inside the grey area it may or may not be murder - so no one could be convicted of murder beyond a reasonable doubt if they commited an abortion during that period. However, society may wish to err on the side of caution and make abortion inside the grey area a criminal offence.

The arguments about enforcement are irrelevant. Making murder illegal does not stop murder, rather it drives it underground and results in "backstreet" murders, hit men and so on. That does not in any way imply that we should relax the laws on murder, or the enforcement of those laws. The same line of reasoning applies to abortion. If something is a living human being, then it has rights, and ought to be protected by law. If not, then it shouldn't.

Hi Cutten,

Not bad.

One problem though: "Somewhere in between there will be a grey area where the foetus goes from obviously not being a separate living individual, to becoming one." + "This appears to be largely an issue for biologists and the medical profession."

To explain what is "life" and the stronger "living individual" appears to elude this category of professionals. Perhaps you have to look elsewhere, certainly not at the politicians as you indicated.

Be good,

nononsense

 

[Turok]

>To explain what is "life" and the stronger
>"living individual" appears to elude this category
>of professionals.

Not sure I follow...care to elaborate?

JB

 

[nononsense]

Quote from Turok:

>To explain what is "life" and the stronger
>"living individual" appears to elude this category
>of professionals.

Not sure I follow...care to elaborate?

JB

If I could, I certainly would. I think my statement is a fair one. In the sciences of biology and medicine, many have advanced divergent ideas on this, but no clearcut definition of life can be found. The confusion is obvious: a few posts back, somebody talks of "living" sperm and "living" egg cells. Clearly a different kind of "living" is meant when we talk about a feotus at -1 min before birth and at +1 min after birth, like Cutten says.

...care to elaborate? I love to learn something on this JB.

 

[Turok]

It wasn't a loaded question. I was truly trying to determine whether you were saying those professions were having trouble defining it or whether you were asserting that they had come to the wrong conclusions.

Often a statement such as "don't expect them to answer that for you..." simply means one disagrees with their conclusion.

I have nothing to add.

JB

Quote from nononsense:

If I could, I certainly would. I think my statement is a fair one. In the sciences of biology and medicine, many have advanced divergent ideas on this, but no clearcut definition of life can be found. The confusion is obvious: a few posts back, somebody talks of "living" sperm and "living" egg cells. Clearly a different kind of "living" is meant when we talk about a feotus at -1 min before birth and at +1 min after birth, like Cutten says.

...care to elaborate? I love to learn something on this JB.

 

[nononsense]

Quote from Turok:

It wasn't a loaded question. I was truly trying to determine whether you were saying those professions were having trouble defining it or whether you were asserting that they had come to the wrong conclusions.

Often a statement such as "don't expect them to answer that for you..." simply means one disagrees with their conclusion.

I have nothing to add.

JB

May I point out that my post did have nothing in it that resembles your "don't expect them to answer that for you..."

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from Turok:

Well, that is my whole question to you. Did murder or illegal detention occur?

I'm just trying to determine in a lab situation when you feel that "protected human life" (my term) begins.

I'm guessing from your position that you could have an egg in one vial and sperm in another and leave them both on the lab counter until next week (to die) with no guilt. However, as your last act on friday if you dropped them both into the petri dish, walked away and let them go at it for the weekend (then to die before Monday), now you would be guilt ridden to the grave.

If that is your position, that's fine -- just wanting to confirm. I wouldn't find that position flawed(for you), just quite interesting.

JB

No Turok, no offense occurred in my eyes because again, you are talking about a situation where life is not possible yet. Once you plant the seed of life in a woman, be it naturally, or a surrogate mother through artificial semination, you now have set the stage for life to begin. Any termination after that point in my mind is playing God with a life of another human being.

Keep in mind this is my view of things and certainly may not represent the view of others on the pro life side. I believe life should be preserved at all costs and there should be a very wide margin of error granted in terms of when that life begins.

 

[Turok]

I agree...your statement was perfectly benign. I simply wanted to ensure that I didn't misinterpret it.

JB

Quote from nononsense:

May I point out that my post did have nothing in it that resembles your "don't expect them to answer that for you..."

 

[Turok]

Ok, that is a perfectly fine position, but it IS inconsistent with a "life begins at conception" position. In my crude example conception takes place on the counter in the petri dish (this is not a purely theoretical discussion, these out of womb fertilizations happen regularly)

Again, there are no "wrong" answers...you questioned where I drew my line and now I'm getting you back.

So, let's then move the process one step further...

You are a medical professional and you have on your counter an egg you fertilized outside the womb -- a "non-life" we shall say from your previous response.

Using a turkey baster (or other appropriate tool) you "plant" this egg in the womb of the woman. Exactly 10 seconds later and before you remove the baster she screams..."I don't want to be pregnant" and asks you to simply flush the offending egg out of her womb using a saline wand (or other appropriate tool). Remember, 10 seconds ago the entity was a non-life and you could do with it as you wish without offense

You comply. Murder? Guilt ridden to the grave?

JB

Quote from Maverick74:

No Turok, no offense occurred in my eyes because again, you are talking about a situation where life is not possible yet. Once you plant the seed of life in a woman, be it naturally, or a surrogate mother through artificial semination, you now have set the stage for life to begin. Any termination after that point in my mind is playing God with a life of another human being.

Keep in mind this is my view of things and certainly may not represent the view of others on the pro life side. I believe life should be preserved at all costs and there should be a very wide margin of error granted in terms of when that life begins.

 

[Turok]

Mav:
>Any termination after that point in my mind is
>playing God with a life of another human being.

Another question here. I'm wondering if you really mean "playing God" in the semi-literal sense of "only God should decide who lives and dies", or if you are simply using the term as a figure of speach?

JB