Even if a fetus is not a person, abortion is still wrong.

[Homie]

Im pro-abortion if done in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy, but I think Mathilda pointed out that women sometimes don't even know they are pregnant then. But after the 6 week mark, it should be illegal.

But why 6 weeks? What about 7, 8, 10, 14, birth?
When the egg and sperm merge, there is a new genetic code, before then - there is nothing, so this would be the only logical limit we could make. By that reasoning contraceptives are OK, because you are not destroying life, simply preventing it from (possibly) coming about. I say possibly because not every intercourse leads to pregnancy. But when an egg is fertilized, one knows that one is destroying life when killing it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Isn't practising any kind of medical job 'playing god'? After all we're artificially prolonging life. Or a little more absurd (but the same reasoning), is shaving 'playing god'? What's the difference?

 

[Homie]

Yes. Shaving is playing God. And if one shaves one's chest, not only is one playing God, one IS God.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Funny

But serious, what is the difference between abortion as messing with god's work or operating someone to save a life?

 

[Homie]

Do you mean what is wrong with creating a clone vs a heart operation?

If you mean what's wrong with abortion vs a heart operation:
One kills a life, the other saves a life. That example has nothing to do with playing God.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not according to you.

Why do I think cloning is wrong? It is messing with nature, playing God, unnatural.

Both my examples are 'unnatural'.

 

[Homie]

nope.

Trixing and mixing with genes IS playing God, operating is not. Self-evident, needs no further explanation.

 

[Brighteye]

Why do you choose genetic code as your start of a new life?
What would you say makes us human? Is it our DNA? Every cell, whether the DNA has been recently recombined from two gametes or not, has human DNA.
If you think it's our DNA then every cell is human too.

The essence of 'human-ness' has to be a property of the system; a property of the conglomeration of cells, such that an individual cell is not human. Otherwise I'm not one human, but many billions.

Can the property of the system be present when there is only one cell? No, because then there is no system.

What is this property? Thought.

When do babies start thinking? About 20 weeks ( I think that's when we detect brainwaves).

Cogito, ego sum and all that jazz

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'm pro-abortion if done in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy, but I think Mathilda pointed out that women sometimes don't even know they are pregnant then. But after the 6 week mark, it should be illegal.

I agree, with the further comment that if a woman who isn't pregnant ever considers that she may get an abortion if circumstances dictate, shje has a responsibility to keep track of whether she is pregnant so she will know within the first 6 weeks or so. If she doesn't bother keeping track and doesn't know she is pregnant until later, that was her mistake.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Grapefruits are not people. Is it still wrong to stick a coathanger in a grapefruit?

I don´t know about you guys, but I can´t seem to wrap my mind around this one. This grapefruit dilemma sure is a pickle. Food for thought if you will.

Nice one.

 

[JollyRoger]

But why 6 weeks? What about 7, 8, 10, 14, birth?
When the egg and sperm merge, there is a new genetic code, before then - there is nothing, so this would be the only logical limit we could make. By that reasoning contraceptives are OK, because you are not destroying life, simply preventing it from (possibly) coming about. I say possibly because not every intercourse leads to pregnancy. But when an egg is fertilized, one knows that one is destroying life when killing it.

But why stop at concepton? God said to be fruitful and multiply. The urge to procreate is a sign from God. Contraception and even laws against rape are thwarting God's will.

 

[Atlas14]

But why 6 weeks? What about 7, 8, 10, 14, birth?
When the egg and sperm merge, there is a new genetic code, before then - there is nothing, so this would be the only logical limit we could make. By that reasoning contraceptives are OK, because you are not destroying life, simply preventing it from (possibly) coming about. I say possibly because not every intercourse leads to pregnancy. But when an egg is fertilized, one knows that one is destroying life when killing it.

Thats when the fetus starts to get simple brain formation and activity, and a basic nervous system begins to form around the 6th week and after. Before then, it might as well be a lump of genes for all I care.

 

[MamboJoel]

Well, yes their's a limit to preserve the women's health anyway.

EDIT : I'd like to add on the subject. Men typically don't have any idea of the often large number of women of their entourage that have practiced abortion already.

 

[El_Machinae]

When the egg and sperm merge, there is a new genetic code, before then - there is nothing, so this would be the only logical limit we could make. By that reasoning contraceptives are OK, because you are not destroying life, simply preventing it from (possibly) coming about. I say possibly because not every intercourse leads to pregnancy. But when an egg is fertilized, one knows that one is destroying life when killing it.

Wearing a condom during sex kills innocent sperm as surely as shoving an orphan out of an airlock kills a child.

[semantic red herring]How about a clone made from an immune-system cell? These cells have different DNA from the parent, because the DNA is modified somewhat randomly in the process of making it an immune cell [/red herring]

Actually, I've been less than effective in this question. My argument around skin cells mostly derives from my assumption that you believe that an embryo outside the womb is a person. (if a couple donates eggs and sperm, the merging of those cells makes an embryo). It doesn't really matter if one thinks a frozen embryo is not a person.

But why 6 weeks? What about 7, 8, 10, 14, birth?

For the same reason why you'd think it would be okay to take a person off of life support if their brain was dead. To many people, the brain makes the person. I'm sure it does with you too. If there's no 'real' brain yet, there's no person yet.

 

[Homie]

Why do you choose genetic code as your start of a new life?
What would you say makes us human? Is it our DNA? Every cell, whether the DNA has been recently recombined from two gametes or not, has human DNA.
If you think it's our DNA then every cell is human too.

The essence of 'human-ness' has to be a property of the system; a property of the conglomeration of cells, such that an individual cell is not human. Otherwise I'm not one human, but many billions.

But if I kill ALL of those billions, am I not killing you? This is what is happening to the fetus, they are killing it entirely, not just one cell - but the entire body of cells, like you are, a body of cells.

For the same reason why you'd think it would be okay to take a person off of life support if their brain was dead.

But if those doctors said that he has no brainwaves now, but certainly will have a fully functioning brain within a few weeks, would you not consider it murder to pull the plug on him?

 

[Brighteye]

But if I kill ALL of those billions, am I not killing you? This is what is happening to the fetus, they are killing it entirely, not just one cell - but the entire body of cells, like you are, a body of cells.


But if those doctors said that he has no brainwaves now, but certainly will have a fully functioning brain within a few weeks, would you not consider it murder to pull the plug on him?

Yes, if you kill all those billions you are killing me, but that's not because you're extinguishing my genetic code; it's because you're removing the property of the system that makes me human (by destroying the entire system).
A foetus is a bundle of cells, but until about 20 weeks it does not have the requisite property of the system.
If you start considering potential properties then we can equally well say that every sperm is sacred because given the right conditions it can make a new person.
Potential is not good enough. It must be a human to have rights (or have been)

 

[El_Machinae]

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not talking about no brainwaves, I'm talking about a dead brain. A dead brain is more analogous to non-brain than it is to a static brain.

 

[Homie]

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not talking about no brainwaves, I'm talking about a dead brain. A dead brain is more analogous to non-brain than it is to a static brain.

But if those doctors said that he has no brainwaves now, but certainly will have a fully functioning brain within a few weeks, would you not consider it murder to pull the plug on him?

Please answer the question.

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem is that your question is a bit simplistic, no offense. If the person will recover to be the same person as the one who is currently in a coma, then it would be murder. However, if the braindead person's brain is such that he has no memories and the awareness centres are destroyed, then no, it would not be a person and thus not murder.

What you're describing, though (with regards to the coma patient) cannot exist in modern society. To regrow a new brain from a dead one is well beyond our capability.

Think of it this way; suppose I had a machine that grows a new head out of living tissue. Suppose I have an amputated, but living, arm in my laboratory. Is it okay to allow the arm to die, even if I could grow a new brain on it? I'd think so.

The problem with the current debate is that people are trying to decide ethics in black and white terms. I approve; but they're not factoring in our capabilities as humans when making these black and white rules.

Just because something could grow a brain, doesn't mean it has to. And just because something is alive and human doesn't mean it has to have rights.