Abortion -The poll is not based upon Religious belief - It is based ethics

Abotion

  • Total voters
    25
B

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Tonington said:
Independence is irrelevant. If the embryo was just a part of another thing like the say, the mother, it wouldn't be so clearly different biologically.
Click to expand...

Lots of parts of your body are very biologically different. You heart is very different from your ear, but they are both still part of your body.

Tonington said:
Again, it's irrelevant. If something happened during my development inside the womb, it wouldn't matter that you call me a separate individual after birth. That development is part of my life. It can have very profound impacts on my life and none on that of my mother.

IVF embryos exist outside of mothers. They are grown for days without the environment of a specific woman, and they can even be transplanted into new women. And even if they couldn't, so what? That's the evolutionary path our species has taken. Every human in existence started out in the same fashion, that's part of the biological development for our species. Other species lay eggs, but the embryo is still a new individual.
Click to expand...

Things that happen to the eggs or sperm also have a huge impact on your life, but we don't consider that as part of your life span.

Independence, by the very nature of the term, is exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about if they are a part of the woman or not. An embryo actually can't exist without the mother. Just because they can be fertilized in a dish doesn't mean it is going anywhere without attaching itself to the insides of a woman.

I honestly have never heard of an embryo being transferred from one woman to another. Has that been done successfully?

It would be interesting to hear about, though not all that relevant to this discussion if it isn't an option that is available to any significant number of women.

Tonington said:
It's one defining characteristic. There's no human on earth alive with only 23 chromosomes. You going back to sperm and egg is too far to consider my life beginning. Even more to the point, my life began with a specific sperm and egg.
Click to expand...

It is not a defining characteristic since it isn't sufficient to determine if someone is a human or not. It could also meant that they are a Reeves's Muntjac, or a Sable Antelope.

Tonington said:
Let's go over some basic facts. The genetic assortment that occurs after fertilization makes a new genome. The cells begin dividing, and forming layers that will later develop into specific tissues. The cells are metabolically active, with many important biochemical pathways. The pathways in the embryo are different from those of the mother, they need to be for development to continue in that environment. If those biochemical pathways are interrupted, the cells can die. It has unique biological rhythms which can be measured.

It's living tissue (required for a human), it's a new genetic assortment (required to differentiate from the mother), it has unique biological rhythms to that of the mother (also required for a different individual), it has it's own organs (a requirement) and it can be killed (ending the life of the new human). Clearly that's a new individual.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times I can tell you that I am not arguing about basic biological facts.

Tonington said:
The really odd thing, is that none of this matters. I'm still pro-choice, because I don't believe that I should be able to tell someone else what to do with their life and body. I think I should be able to end my life if I want. I think IVF is great for couples who can't get pregnant in the conventional fashion, even if it means embryos will be destroyed, or used for research. And the fact that I think life begins when there is clearly living tissue and a new genetic assortment has sweet Ƒuck all to do with what I think about abortion. My views are closer to Colpy's perhaps, which as you and others have already mentioned, is pretty much on par with what the various provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons already have in their codes of practice.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can see the connection though, no? The only reason that people bring up this discussion is to establish reason to ban abortion. You are advancing ideas that people are just going to use to turn around and tell you that your views on abortion are wrong.

In the end I don't think we have ever been talking about the same thing though, since you have kept yourself firmly rooted in just spouting off biological steps and have avoided talking about what I have been talking about, as in when it is an independent being and would therefore be wrong to kill.
 
J

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
BornRuff said:
Independence, by the very nature of the term, is exactly what we are talking about.


....avoided talking about what I have been talking about, as in when it is an independent being and would therefore be wrong to kill.
Click to expand...


IMO, you ought to refine your choice of words.

Although, I think I know what you are saying, the word "independent" does not concisely describe what you are talking about because a 2 yr old is not independant, yet, not even you are advocating the legal killing of a 2 yr old.
 
B

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
JamesBondo said:
IMO, you ought to refine your choice of words.

Although, I think I know what you are saying, the word "independent" does not concisely describe what you are talking about because a 2 yr old is not independant, yet, not even you are advocating the legal killing of a 2 yr old.
Click to expand...

I have explained my usage of the word numerous times. We don't need to argue about semantics do we?

"in·de·pend·ent: not connected with another or with each other; separate."

A 2 year old is not independent in the sense that they can live on their own, but they can be independent from their birth mother. They are separate beings and can exist separately.
 
J

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
BornRuff said:
IMO, viability is a determining factor in when they should be considered independent(separate) beings, but they are two different concepts.
Click to expand...

so are you prepared to support the banning of most abortions, if an artificial placenta is developed( thereby making all embryos "viable")?

also consider this:

Are premature babies inhuman?

In the last century, premature babies born before the seventh month were generally doomed to death for lack of adequate technical means to keep them alive. Today it is possible to save a baby born after the twentieth week, and scientists are currently seeking to develop an artificial placenta that would make ten-week-old embryos "viable."

"Neonatal medicine," points out Dr. Stuart Kolner, "has decreased the risks associated with premature birth. The World Health Organization adopted the standard of twenty-two weeks as being the dividing line between spontaneous abortion and birth, and newborns as young as twenty-weeks gestational age have survived. Since abortions are routinely performed as late as twenty-four weeks, one can no longer justify such procedures on grounds of fetal non-viability."1


Viable or not, human life is the same. What has changed are the technical
means for protecting and improving human gestation. Viability is measured by the
sophistication of the life-support systems around the baby, not by the humanness
or aliveness of the baby itself.

By the criterion of viability, the
senile old person rendered incompetent by a stroke, the completely psychotic
individual, or even the quadriplegic war veteran, are not "viable," since they
are not capable of an independent existence.

From the philosophical point
of view, the argument of viability confuses physical independence with
ontological independence. A human individual always has ontological
independence, although his or her physical independence varies with the
different stages and circumstances of biological life.
Debunking Abortion and the False Argument of Viability
Click to expand...
 
B

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
JamesBondo said:
so are you prepared to support the banning of most abortions, if an artificial placenta is developed( thereby making all embryos "viable")?

also consider this:
Click to expand...

If it isn't a viable option for women to separate themselves from the embryo and have someone else take it from there, it really isn't all that relevant.

I mean, if someone really did want to set up some system where they would "adopt" these embryos from women who want to have abortions and then raise them themselves, all the power to them. I really don't think that is a realistic scenario though.
 
J

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
sure it is relevant in the sense that I would like to hear what your opinion is.

So if viability in the future extends to embryos, would you then be opposed to legalized abortions for narcicistic women(ie not raped, etc)?
 
B

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
JamesBondo said:
sure it is relevant in the sense that I would like to hear what your opinion is.

So if viability in the future extends to embryos, would you then be opposed to legalized abortions for narcicistic women(ie not raped, etc)?
Click to expand...

If you read the second paragraph, you will see my opinion.

I would like to hear more about why women who want an abortion are apparently "narcicistic".
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,133
9,422
113
Washington DC
gerryh said:
Really?
Click to expand...
Sounds like it. If the "child" is a sacred life that must be preserved at all costs (leastways till it's born), unless it's conceived in rape, in which case it's just dandy to scrape it out and flush it down, you're dealing with a "consequences of choices" type, which in my experience boils down to pregnancy as punishment for fornication. The "no abortion, not ever, not for any reason" types are at least consistent.
 
J

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
You didn't mention all types. For instance, you didn't mention the "it is my body and I'll do whatever i want" type. They are the ones responsible for 30 abortions for every 100 births. Do you deny that there might be some narcicists once we remove the rape victims, the incest victims, the molested, etc?
 
B

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
JamesBondo said:
You didn't mention all types. For instance, you didn't mention the "it is my body and I'll do whatever i want" type. They are the ones responsible for 30 abortions for every 100 births. Do you deny that there might be some narcicists once we remove the rape victims, the incest victims, the molested, etc?
Click to expand...

Why can't a rape victim be a "narcicists" too?
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,133
9,422
113
Washington DC
JamesBondo said:
You didn't mention all types. For instance, you didn't mention the "it is my body and I'll do whatever i want" type. They are the ones responsible for 30 abortions for every 100 births. Do you deny that there might be some narcicists once we remove the rape victims, the incest victims, the molested, etc?
Click to expand...
I think it's none of my damn business. I also think it's none of yours. Difference is I ain't trying to write my pet peeves into law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom