| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 3:15 AM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: Pro-life pro-choice |
  |
|
A little background: I'm strictly pro-life. I'll never suggest an abortion to anyone. I'm all for every single kind of contraception even the ones which are meant for after conception(morning after pill?) of the embryo and such. However my stance on laws and such are strictly pro-choice. I really don't feel I have the right to force this one on people. I do however support a sort of limitations on abortions so that pure selfish people(not people whose selfish reason would mean something like their imminent death or such things) aren't getting abortions.
Anyway the point of the thread is interesting. I'm watching Denis Leary's merry focking(not sure if the forum censors) christmas and the Bush lookalike comedian guy was on there and the pro-life; life begins at conception.
Which is the topic I'd like to discuss. When does life begin? at conception? at birth?
Now everyone knows the jesus nutjobs rightwingers say at conception is when the soul infuses and they become alive then. Or whatever bullshit answer like that.
However I've just thought. What would the answer of the basic biological definition of Life say about the situation. So I went to wikipedia to steal it.
| Code: | Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to cool off.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Production of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
|
So the question. DOES the embryo at the time of CONCEPTION fulfill these requirements within the given exceptions. The exceptions would be for example. A guy with a vasectomy still constitutes life even though he can't exactly pass the 7th requirement of reproduction.
1. Homeostasis: Well this obviously is occuring. It'd be kinda silly if it wasn't.
2. Organization: Also obviously true.
3. Metabolism: Also obvious as it does grow.
4. Growth: Obviously true or else babies wouldn't be happening.
5. Adaptation: Not really sure on this one... can the embryo evolve? I believe this is true because as it grows it will have to deal with less space and then coming out to air and light and all that. If none of that... how does this work for bacteria? I'd assume this does pass.
6. Response to stimuli: I'm not exactly sure... what stimuli would you have for bacteria and the like? I lack the knowledge for this one. Obviously likely passes as bacteria would.
7. Reproduction: It obviously does have mitosis. Or else it wouldn't grow to a baby.
In conclusion it definately does seem to constitute life. Through the very definitions laid out by the seemingly pros.
So now that we know that life does start at conception. Or at least it is life at conception which is what it matters. Who knows when it really starts... I don't think that one really matters.
At this point... you might be considering a more pro-life stance because of this result. However I still have 1 further point.
The embryo at this stage is more or less on par with bacteria as to the sort of "type" of life it is. So in my mind... if you don't feel any problem with using anti-bacterial soap which ends up killing millions of bacteria, is definately just as bad as if you were to kill the embryo.
Which if you were to find an extremly fundy Jain... they'd most likely never ever wash their hands for such reasons. So I believe that is a perfectly good example.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Yellow_Number_Five
Forum Master
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 10036
Local time: 4:15 AM
Location: The 5% Nation
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course the embyro is alive, so what?
The question that should concern us is whether or not it is a person. I say most certainly not. There's a difference between being a person and merely being human. A person has rights, a lump of living human material does not. Hence you can probably figure out where I stand on the abortion, euthanasia and right to die issues.
And just so you know, I honestly don't have a problem with your POV at all munky, in fact I think it is perfectly rational and well thought out position.
_________________
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
If you love God, burn a church! - Jello Biafra
When I hear of Schr?dinger's cat, I reach for my gun. - Stephen Hawking
Fear is just another word for ignorance. - Hunter S. Thompson
.jpg) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 3:15 AM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
hmm I've never encountered the "is it a person or not?" Point of view before. It has always been the "is it alive?" or "is it life?"
Now with my method. You need to define what constitutes "being a person?"
Which brings me to wikipedia once again and I'll just take the first one.
| Code: | 1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.
|
A problem with this is that it would seem to make people who are basically vegetables(terri schiavo) non-people. While perhaps making intelligent animals people. I dunno I think we might be moving into a sort of uncharted territory that nobody can really define well enough.
| Quote: | | A person has rights, a lump of living human material does not. Hence you can probably figure out where I stand on the abortion, euthanasia and right to die issues. |
Well not really. I grasp that a person has rights. Infact I believe both sides respect that you have rights. Just that they want to take them away on the one side. Much along the lines of how we take your right away to go murder someone. You may still have freedom, but it doesn't mean a right.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12844
Local time: 12:15 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. |
People don't qualify for this quality of life until after puberty, yet children are very much alive.
| munky99999 wrote: | hmm I've never encountered the "is it a person or not?" Point of view before. It has always been the "is it alive?" or "is it life?"
Now with my method. You need to define what constitutes "being a person?"
Which brings me to wikipedia once again and I'll just take the first one.
| Code: | 1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.
|
A problem with this is that it would seem to make people who are basically vegetables(terri schiavo) non-people. While perhaps making intelligent animals people. I dunno I think we might be moving into a sort of uncharted territory that nobody can really define well enough.
| Quote: | | A person has rights, a lump of living human material does not. Hence you can probably figure out where I stand on the abortion, euthanasia and right to die issues. |
Well not really. I grasp that a person has rights. Infact I believe both sides respect that you have rights. Just that they want to take them away on the one side. Much along the lines of how we take your right away to go murder someone. You may still have freedom, but it doesn't mean a right. |
The "personhood" discussion has problems because the qualities given don't manifest at any one point, they gradually manifest over time after birth. By these definitions, infants and toddlers are not people.
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 10:15 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:32 pm Post subject: Re: Pro-life pro-choice |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | I really don't feel I have the right to force this one on people. I do however support a sort of limitations on abortions so that pure selfish people(not people whose selfish reason would mean something like their imminent death or such things) aren't getting abortions. |
Yeah, I felt that way too, but then the question came up:
Would you rather have pure selfish people raise children?
I hate the whole pro-life/pro-choice issue, it seems there's just no answer to it.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 3:15 AM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: Re: Pro-life pro-choice |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | munky99999 wrote: | | I really don't feel I have the right to force this one on people. I do however support a sort of limitations on abortions so that pure selfish people(not people whose selfish reason would mean something like their imminent death or such things) aren't getting abortions. |
Yeah, I felt that way too, but then the question came up:
Would you rather have pure selfish people raise children?
|
well a method would be to red flag people who had been denied an abortion. Then have a social worker double check afterwards ~ 1 year old for the child. Though I really don't expect such a big problem. Since places have abortion illegal and those same people in that situation would still not be able to abort. Which I'm pretty sure those people don't lead to very big problems.
I'd also like to note that when I say selfish people it's not really exactly what I mean.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 4:15 AM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | Which brings me to wikipedia once again and I'll just take the first one.
| Code: | 1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.
|
A problem with this is that it would seem to make people who are basically vegetables(terri schiavo) non-people. While perhaps making intelligent animals people. |
This is pretty much my position. To the best of our knowledge, Schiavo was not a person in her vegetative state. Dolphins & chimps seem to fulfill the criteria for personhood, at least slightly. Thus, it is wrong to kill a chimp, but not wrong to kill Schaivo (family wishes complicate matters, however - for if one killed Schaivo without the family's permission, one would be violating their rights and wishes). So I really see no problem with this.
The most common argument against positions like mine is the following: if you want to use criteria like consciousness and self-awareness as definitions of personhood and criteria for moral agency in ethics, then consider the following. Are you conscious when you're asleep? Meh. Maybe. But if you weren't, then it would be morally okay for someone to kill you painlessly in your sleep because you're not self-aware at the time. A less borderline example involves putting you under general anethesia. Then it would be okay for someone to kill you then.
In order to argue against this, someone who holds personhood as the criterion for moral agency may invoke "potential" personhood. The person may be under anesthesia now, but it will wear off if things take their course, and then become self-aware, etc., when they awake. But, a pro-lifer can then come back at someone like me and say "well, that's why I'm against abortion! If things take their course, a fetus will in all likelyhood become a conscious human! A person!" Thus, a pro-choiser who thinks that murder is wrong due to the personhood of that being killed has some work to do to get out of this dilemna.
(Being a pro-choice person who thinks that personhood is primarily what makes murder wrong, I do have some answers to this argument, but I have some presents to wrap right now...)
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 3:15 AM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This is pretty much my position. To the best of our knowledge, Schiavo was not a person in her vegetative state. Dolphins & chimps seem to fulfill the criteria for personhood, at least slightly. |
While I can't really argue with this without a platform myself. While Sciavo not getting personhood status really doesn't make much of a difference. It's the animals thing. If by definition they are starting to be "people." It seems to me that the criteria for personhood might be slightly off or something.
| Quote: | | Thus, it is wrong to kill a chimp, but not wrong to kill Schaivo (family wishes complicate matters, however - for if one killed Schaivo without the family's permission, one would be violating their rights and wishes). |
Ya... I'm the last person who actually cares about a family's wishes. So basically take the family part out of this and I more or less agree.
| Quote: | | The most common argument against positions like mine is the following: if you want to use criteria like consciousness and self-awareness as definitions of personhood and criteria for moral agency in ethics, then consider the following. Are you conscious when you're asleep? Meh. Maybe. But if you weren't, then it would be morally okay for someone to kill you painlessly in your sleep because you're not self-aware at the time. A less borderline example involves putting you under general anethesia. Then it would be okay for someone to kill you then. |
Well asking yourself if you're conscious or not is kind of moot. I'm pretty sure you can actually get one of those tests which is like an EKG/ECG(heart) but for your brain activity. Something without consciousness wouldn't have much if any brain activity. Which while you're asleep you have just as much brain activity..
Then again.. if brain activity was criteria... then lots of animals all of a sudden have been people. Which seems like it's wrong.
Lollz. I kept reading and all of a sudden I was reading your quote in your sig. Thought for a second it was signed Jeffery Dahmer for a second. Really fooled me.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AiiA
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 2542
Local time: 3:15 AM
Location: Inside your head
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: Pro-life pro-choice |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | When does life begin? |
The sperm and egg are alive before fusion. We can even go to the time when the sperm and egg were being formed and the material involved in the process is living material. So there does not seem to be any starting point of life.
I think the key requirement of 'person' is a nervous system. A zygote does not have a nervous system.
An embryo begins at 3 weeks. Neurogenesis begins at 5 weeks and brain wave activity begins at about the 6th week
The fetal stage begins at the 8th week Some women, as difficult as it is to imagine, do not even realize they are pregnant even at 2 months.
At this point I cannot agree that the fetus has any rights that can supercede the female’s rights. The pregnant female’s supersession of rights
should prevail to give the female ample time to decide whether to carry the pregnacy to term or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12844
Local time: 12:15 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Technically neither are alive, but for the sake of argument we will say they are. Sperm by itself cannot grow into a person, neither can an egg, but a zygote can. A zygote is a person at the earliest stage of growth.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 3:15 AM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: Re: Pro-life pro-choice |
|
|
| AiiA wrote: | | munky99999 wrote: | | When does life begin? |
The sperm and egg are alive before fusion. We can even go to the time when the sperm and egg were being formed and the material involved in the process is living material. So there does not seem to be any starting point of life.
I think the key requirement of 'person' is a nervous system. A zygote does not have a nervous system.
An embryo begins at 3 weeks. Neurogenesis begins at 5 weeks and brain wave activity begins at about the 6th week
The fetal stage begins at the 8th week Some women, as difficult as it is to imagine, do not even realize they are pregnant even at 2 months.
At this point I cannot agree that the fetus has any rights that can supercede the female’s rights. The pregnant female’s supersession of rights
should prevail to give the female ample time to decide whether to carry the pregnacy to term or not. |
well said.
technically, one would have to trace the 'starting point' of life all the way back to the first amino acids and nucleo peptides that formed 3 billion years ago... as AiiA pointed out, human life comes from life. at no point does it 'switch on' to become alive.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 8:15 AM
Location: Behind the computer
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I rather liked the way Sam Harris put it in "Letter to a Christian Nation".
(on the top of my head: )
A common housefly has approximately 100,000 brain cells and a blastocyst is just a collection of cells with no discernible nervous system with no apparent capability to experience pain or itself and no brain structure to experience pain. Squatting a housefly should give rise to a greater moral concern than the destruction of a blastocyst.
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12844
Local time: 12:15 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Pro-life pro-choice |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | When does life begin? |
| AiiA wrote: | | The sperm and egg are alive before fusion. |
| Moloth wrote: | well said.
technically, one would have to trace the 'starting point' of life all the way back to the first amino acids and nucleo peptides that formed 3 billion years ago... as AiiA pointed out, human life comes from life. at no point does it 'switch on' to become alive. |
You do realize that eggs and sperm are not alive, right?
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eyedunno
The Great JuJu at the Bottom of the Sea
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3800
Local time: 6:15 PM
Location: Cin City, OH!
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:21 am Post subject: Re: Pro-life pro-choice |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | Which is the topic I'd like to discuss. When does life begin? at conception? at birth? |
To paraphrase George Carlin (on this very topic, even), life began a few billion years ago and is a continual process.
| CET wrote: | | The "personhood" discussion has problems because the qualities given don't manifest at any one point, they gradually manifest over time after birth. By these definitions, infants and toddlers are not people. |
Have you ever used the term "person" to refer to infants or toddlers? Even the term "little people" seems generally to apply to adult midgets/dwarves. I think the problem is that, since most of the time in everyday discourse, "people" are human, many people generalize synonymity. But notice that we don't treat toddlers as masters of their own destinies in any sense. Infants/toddlers are basically property, aside from a few legal measures that exist to protect their welfare.
| CET wrote: | | You do realize that eggs and sperm are not alive, right? |
Then what the hell is the point of spermicide?
--
My personal position on abortion becomes ever more liberal as I get older (isn't the opposite supposed to be the case?  ). I now take the position that abortion, like other forms of birth control, probably benefits society in helping to limit the number of kids born to parents who don't want to (or don't have the means to) take good care of them. As such, I'm in favor of efforts to lessen the social stigmata attached to abortion. Granted, other forms of birth control are cheaper, but when they fail, a decision to abort should be respected 100% of the time.
I not only don't consider abortion immoral, I would sometimes consider it the only moral alternative. Take for example a case where two parents want to have a baby and are willing to take care of it, but amniocentesis/ultrasound reveals that their child will have no limbs, or cystic fibrosis, or harlequin syndrome. In this case, I would argue that abortion is merciful and moral, while carrying the baby to term is cruel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12844
Local time: 12:15 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Pro-life pro-choice |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | You do realize that eggs and sperm are not alive, right? |
| Eyedunno wrote: | | Then what the hell is the point of spermicide? |
To destroy sperm. We say to "kill", but they're not alive. They don't eat, excrete, breath, reproduce, or do anything that qualifies as living.
| Eyedunno wrote: | My personal position on abortion becomes ever more liberal as I get older (isn't the opposite supposed to be the case? ). I now take the position that abortion, like other forms of birth control, probably benefits society in helping to limit the number of kids born to parents who don't want to (or don't have the means to) take good care of them. As such, I'm in favor of efforts to lessen the social stigmata attached to abortion. Granted, other forms of birth control are cheaper, but when they fail, a decision to abort should be respected 100% of the time.
I not only don't consider abortion immoral, I would sometimes consider it the only moral alternative. Take for example a case where two parents want to have a baby and are willing to take care of it, but amniocentesis/ultrasound reveals that their child will have no limbs, or cystic fibrosis, or harlequin syndrome. In this case, I would argue that abortion is merciful and moral, while carrying the baby to term is cruel. |
I can argue both sides of the fences on this, but I won't argue for a second when it comes to saving a child from a brief life full of nothing but misery.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
