Zell Miller weighs in on abortion...

[MobBoss]

A foetus left to itself will die.

Nope. Not unless you rip it out of the womb. That merely means if you abort it, it will die.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How else are you going to read "to itself"?

A foetus left to itself will die.

 

[MobBoss]

How else are you going to read "to itself"?

A foetus left to itself will die.

Again, utterly false. A fetus, by default, DEVELOPS in the womb. If left to itself it will REMAIN in the womb and develop normally. When a fetus is aborted is when it is NOT left to itself in the womb.

/sheesh.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

A sperm or egg left to itself

Actually an egg left to itself will survive (inside the body or out).

And if we're taking "its natural environment" as the meaning of "left to itself," so will a sperm.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Again, utterly false. A fetus, by default, DEVELOPS in the womb. If left to itself it will REMAIN in the womb and develop normally. When a fetus is aborted is when it is NOT left to itself in the womb.

Silly me, I thought a fetus wasn't defined by it's location, but rather by it's stage in it's development.

So an aborted fetus isn't ... well ... an aborted fetus? What's it called then? (don't be cutesy and say: dead)

edit: Forgot: Sheeeeesh

 

[MobBoss]

Actually an egg left to itself will survive (inside the body or out).

And if we're taking "its natural environment" as the meaning of "left to itself," so will a sperm.

But neither will develop into anything other than what they are.

 

[MobBoss]

Silly me, I thought a fetus wasn't defined by it's location, but rather by it's stage in it's development.

So an aborted fetus isn't ... well ... an aborted fetus? What's it called then? (don't be cutesy and say: dead)

edit: Forgot: Sheeeeesh

I would say its defined by both. Or are you in the habit of walking down the road and seeing a fetus just laying there?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

But neither will develop into anything other than what they are.

Of course they will, if left to themselves.

Disclaimer: "left to themselves" may be interpreted to mean "four inches apart in a woman's fallopian tube during a period of fertility" if the poster so wishes.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I would say its defined by both. Or are you in the habit of walking down the road and seeing a fetus just laying there?

*gets out of this thread*

not sure what you're trying to prove, but it's not going too well...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I would say its defined by both. Or are you in the habit of walking down the road and seeing a fetus just laying there?

So, if I am following your reasoning, a fetus can only be called a fetus outside of the womb when I, as a habit, see fetusses all over the place when I am walking down the road? I'm glad we cleared that one up

 

[El_Machinae]

Nope. Not unless you rip it out of the womb. That merely means if you abort it, it will die.

Actually, I agree with MobBoss. Ripping a fetus out of a womb is aborting it and killing it, effectively, unless you intervene with medical technologies. Then it can develop into a creature everyone would agree is a 'person'.

Of course, a skin cell has the same status when you scratch it ...

 

[JollyRoger]

No. A sperm or egg left to itself wont make it. A fetus will. There is a huge difference.

So every moment you are not actively making sure your sperm finds an egg, you are aborting the possibility of a life, hurting our military, and destroying social security.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, I agree with MobBoss. Ripping a fetus out of a womb is aborting it and killing it, effectively, unless you intervene with medical technologies. Then it can develop into a creature everyone would agree is a 'person'.

Of course, a skin cell has the same status when you scratch it ...

I dont agree. I dont think a skin cell is a developing human being.

So every moment you are not actively making sure your sperm finds an egg, you are aborting the possibility of a life, hurting our military, and destroying social security.

Nope.

 

[Leonel]

A foetus left to itself will die.

So will a new born baby.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So will a new born baby.

Yes. Your point?

 

[El_Machinae]

I dont agree. I dont think a skin cell is a developing human being.

No, of course not. You're bang on. One has to be careful, because I'm talking about interventions, and the lack thereof.

Neither a human skin cell nor a fetus will develop into a healthy human adult without intervention, right? If you leave a fetus or a skin cell to its own devices, it will die, eventually, without becoming a productive adult.

If you prematurely scrap out a skin cell or a fetus, and then don't intervene (medically), it will die. If you intervene, then they can become productive adults. In both cases, you're killing - actually killing - a potential adult (to fill the Zell gap) if you intervene in the natural course and then don't intervene to correct your damage.

This is why I talk about scratching being a problem, morally, for those that think that merely being alive and capable of growing into an adult is a morally important quality.

Both a skin cell and a fetus have the following qualities.

Alive -> Intervention -> Adult

 

[MobBoss]

Neither a human skin cell nor a fetus will develop into a healthy human adult without intervention, right?

What 'intervention' is required to ensure a fetus will continue to develop in the womb? A pregnant woman has to merely continue her life normally (i.e. eat and sleep) and the fetus will continue to develop, no intervention needed.

If you leave a fetus or a skin cell to its own devices, it will die, eventually, without becoming a productive adult.

Again, the procedure to 'leave' a fetus to its own device entails removing it from the place where it develops. If a fetus is left to its own device in the womb, it will continue to develop.

If you prematurely scrap out a skin cell or a fetus, and then don't intervene (medically), it will die. If you intervene, then they can become productive adults.

Until science intervenes and creates a productive adult out of a skin cell, I think your premise incorrect. Thats more sci-fi than actual science at the moment.

In both cases, you're killing - actually killing - a potential adult (to fill the Zell gap) if you intervene in the natural course and then don't intervene to correct your damage.

Again, sloughling off a skin cell is not tantamount to an abortion, nor are they similiar in any way. And again, a skin cell does not equal a potential adult no matter how much 'intervention' you do.

Then again, there is the 'level' of intervention required to produce that productive adult. You would have to admit that the level of intervention required to turn a skin cell into an adult a magnitude that of what would be required to keep a fetus alive in order for it to develop into an adult.

Again...the two are just not similiar in any way.

Both a skin cell and a fetus have the following qualities.

Alive -> Intervention -> Adult

How many skin cells have reached adulthood? Until one does, I think you have a difficult time stating that one could be turned into an adult via intervention of any kind currently known to man.

 

[Gogf]

I dont agree. I dont think a skin cell is a developing human being.

It's not, and neither is an embryo for most of its existence. An embryo will more than likely become a human being, but that doesn't make it a human being—that makes it a potential human being. A sperm cell and an egg cell are also potential human beings. It's also very possible that they will become a human being. We make no heroic efforts to save every egg and every sperm cell in every human being; if preventing a potential human being from developing into one were immoral then contraception (or even abstinance) would be as well.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

It absolutely affects what happens once a woman becomes pregnant, or at least the fate of a fertilised embryo. It ensures that fertilised embryoes are thrown into hostile ground, instead of an accepting womb. i.e., the fertilisations still happen, but the woman's body is not receptive. They're just as much 'abortions' as me exposing an infant on a mountainside and walking away.

The average NFP-practicing family has way more de facto abortions than almost any other group. On average, every decade of 'childless' NFP-practice results in two or three abortions.

Seriously, the problem with giving moral value to an insentient living cell is that you've got to be consistent. And modern biology makes this (at the very least) inconvenient.

This doesn't seem true.

 

[MobBoss]

It's not, and neither is an embryo for most of its existence. An embryo will more than likely become a human being, but that doesn't make it a human being—that makes it a potential human being. A sperm cell and an egg cell are also potential human beings. It's also very possible that they will become a human being. We make no heroic efforts to save every egg and every sperm cell in every human being; if preventing a potential human being from developing into one were immoral then contraception (or even abstinance) would be as well.

Sigh. An embryo is a developing human being. You can call it any name you want, but a label wont change that fact.

And a sperm cell and egg are far less 'potential' human beings until their function is realized. And no...the possibility of any individual sperm cell becoming a human being is practically nil. Gazillions are wasted in a single attempt to fertilize an egg.

I am not saying we need to spend heroic effort to save every embryo either, but merely should let things progress naturally.