The beginnings of life, embyro = cancer?

[Semirhage666]

The question is, if that entity be a person, why anyone should have the right to murder it.

Because not doing so would result in a long arduous process involving extreme weight gain, stretch marks, hormone fluctuations, etc. which, if forced upon someone against their will, is nothing short of torture and abuse, especially if the woman suffers from tokophobia, which is the fear of childbirth and pregnancy.

 

[Semirhage666]

Non scientist here,
embyro is not = cancer or parasite !!!
Both cancer or parasite have zero benefits to its host.

A fetus doesn't have an benefits to a woman, either, except resulting in a baby, which is only a benefit if she wants a baby.

 

[Semirhage666]

No. It's you trying to be cleaver yet, again

Yes. He is totes trying to be a meat slicing implement.

 

[Semirhage666]

The rape scenario really falls in the period that most of the folks arguing in this thread would consider the acceptable period for an abortion anyway, the first trimester before the brain develops.

Well, with people being retarded enough that there's an entire show of twats having children explode out of them without having known they were pregnant, that's not a given. Theoretically, if a stupid woman is impregnated via rape, she might not realize her pregnancy until very late, possibly 3rd trimester.

Or a woman might be so traumatized by the rape that she might block out the possibility she could be pregnant even though deep down she knows, and not be able to admit it to herself enough to seek an abortion until that time.

So you could theoretically see rape victims coming in for 7 month abortions. I personally think they should be allowed to get them.

 

[Semirhage666]

Actually rape doesn't change anything once a gestating fœtus acquires rights.

Which begs the question of whether it is ethical to ascribe rights to a fetus, and if so, how many and when.

 

[bankside]

That's a very misogynistic point of view. It's not a woman's responsibility to do ANYTHING during sex. People have the right to consensually fuck who they want, when they want, how they want, without having the threat of a forced pregnancy looming over them.

Nonsense. It doesn't work that way. It's like saying people have the right to jump off a cliff with no regard for gravity. A pregnancy is not forced if the act that lead to it was consensual.

 

[FirmaFan]

The Bones of a decayed dead person is still a Human being, and that is one of the reasons that many of us respect the dead which is buried in the ground. Being Human doesn't end at death.

With regard to taxonomic classification, you are correct. With regards to the organism having life, once brain-death occurs, life has ended.

 

[bankside]

Human remains are not a human being.

 

[FirmaFan]

I agree with you there. But, DNA is still there in the bones, even say, many years later in the case of identifying the dead's DNA in a case of earlier crime committed, and the likes. The DNA, correct me if I'm wrong, is the same as when the sperm and egg are united, and begins developing.

Yep, but DNA is neither a human nor alive. DNA can be sourced to a human, and, in finer detail, sourced to a specific person. It is, however, the condition of the source to which we are discussing. The point remains - once brain-death occurs, the organism is no longer alive. Mechanical devices can be used to provide oxygen and nutrients to tissue, maintaining biochemical processes (made famous by cases like Terri Schiavo) but this isn't an organism that is alive.

 

[bankside]

DNA can, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, even reside as lines of code in a machine until the machine is turned on. It's just another form of data storage.

 

[Rolyo85]

Actually rape doesn't change anything once a gestating fœtus acquires rights. The rights would then exist regardless of te psychological impact on anyone else. Certainly a woman could discover her partner had had an affair with another woman and gotten her pregnant. The pregnancy could be causing the legitimate partner of them man a great deal of psychological torment. But this would not giver her licence to have the other woman's baby aborted simply because it's presence was psychologically damaging to her.

I am sorry, but this is absolute bullshit. Both the comparison and the assumption that the unborn baby has somehow not just human rights, but MORE human rights than the mother. Not to mention how utterly misogynistic it is.

As has already been said, if this is going to be both scientific AND moral discussion, the mother's feelings cannot be ignored. She has something growing inside of her. It might be a human being, but that does not change the fact it is using her as a means to come into the world. To say she must be strapped to a bed and kept alive solely to achieve that goal shows a staggering lack of understanding of both the female psyche AND how much stress goes on during even a perfectly normal pregnancy, let alone an unwanted one.

I am sorry, but this is not and can never be black or white. If it were, the argument wouldn't exist to begin with.

I am unclear, and it seems others are too - are you for ABSOLUTELY NO ABORTION AT ANY TIME after conception?

 

[Stardreamer]

That's a very misogynistic point of view. It's not a woman's responsibility to do ANYTHING during sex. People have the right to consensually fuck who they want, when they want, how they want, without having the threat of a forced pregnancy looming over them.

Spirits there are so many really bad jokes I could make here!

Exactly how did women exercise this right prior to the technologies that allowed modern contraception and abortions?

For that matter how do they do it now if no responsibility is tied to the right?

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, if you don't take the responsibility to use a right properly then you forfeit that right.

 

[Stardreamer]

Well, with people being retarded enough that there's an entire show of twats having children explode out of them without having known they were pregnant, that's not a given. Theoretically, if a stupid woman is impregnated via rape, she might not realize her pregnancy until very late, possibly 3rd trimester.

Or a woman might be so traumatized by the rape that she might block out the possibility she could be pregnant even though deep down she knows, and not be able to admit it to herself enough to seek an abortion until that time.

So you could theoretically see rape victims coming in for 7 month abortions. I personally think they should be allowed to get them.

You can of course theoretically cook up any scenario you want to prove a point but by the third trimester the 'Baby', its no longer a zygote, is too far along to safely abort anyway and meets most folks criteria for Human Life. If she has carried it that long then she is better off, both health wise and legally, to either carry it to term or deliver it by C-section and give it up for adoption.

Peter Singer argued that new born children are not truly sentient (aware of self) until they reach at least a year of age and that it was better for society to euthanize deformed or retarded babies so they wouldn't be a burden on the parents. Some of those "I'm too stupid to know I'm pregnant" folks kill their babies after they are born, I suppose that is okay too?

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually rape doesn't change anything once a gestating fœtus acquires rights. The rights would then exist regardless of te psychological impact on anyone else. Certainly a woman could discover her partner had had an affair with another woman and gotten her pregnant. The pregnancy could be causing the legitimate partner of them man a great deal of psychological torment. But this would not giver her licence to have the other woman's baby aborted simply because it's presence was psychologically damaging to her.

Good point. And as I said, eighty days is plenty to make up her mind.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's a very misogynistic point of view. It's not a woman's responsibility to do ANYTHING during sex. People have the right to consensually fuck who they want, when they want, how they want, without having the threat of a forced pregnancy looming over them.

There's no "forced pregnancy" if they have eighty days to decide.

Because not doing so would result in a long arduous process involving extreme weight gain, stretch marks, hormone fluctuations, etc. which, if forced upon someone against their will, is nothing short of torture and abuse, especially if the woman suffers from tokophobia, which is the fear of childbirth and pregnancy.

So suffering permits murder.

If I really suffered under my last boss, can I go shoot him? If I get brutalized by some cops, am I permitted to kill them?


No -- she gets eighty days to make up her mind, and that's it. If she can't make it up that fast, maybe she should be sterilized.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which begs the question of whether it is ethical to ascribe rights to a fetus, and if so, how many and when.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of contractions.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Bones of a decayed dead person is still a Human being, and that is one of the reasons that many of us respect the dead which is buried in the ground. Being Human doesn't end at death.

I agree with you there. But, DNA is still there in the bones, even say, many years later in the case of identifying the dead's DNA in a case of earlier crime committed, and the likes. The DNA, correct me if I'm wrong, is the same as when the sperm and egg are united, and begins developing.

Mikey, I'm sorry, but your argument has nothing under it but emotion.

Scientifically, it's ridiculous to claim personhood before the (human-characteristic) brainwaves are running -- maybe a little before; animals seem to have selves with a "lesser" set of brainwaves, so a self could be present with an incomplete human set, I presume.
And the Bible doesn't say it's a person at conception, either -- just that at some point in the womb the unborn is a person.
Nor did the ancient Fathers agree on the topic -- many went with "quickening", which as I recall is abut 120 days.

In short, what common sense says is true: bones with the remnants of a decaying body around them aren't a person. In Christian theology, the person is off with God as a spirit -- and if you want to be precise, that is not at that point a human person, because a human consists of "soul and body".


A comment on burials: I find the custom of sticking people in the ground in boxes that will, if all goes right, keep them from decaying for 400 years, disgusting and insulting. The scripture says we will return to the earth, and delaying that process seems a little like rebellion. It's also depriving the ground of nutrients.

As far as I'm concerned, what a graveyard should be is literally a memorial garden: a person's remains could be cremated or frozen in liquid nitrogen and then shattered or frozen then ground up, and then stirred in with fine bark dust or sawdust and yard waste, to become soil. This soil would go in the memorial garden in a location picked by the deceased or family, stirred into the existing soil or inserted in plugs, and on the wall would go a plaque: "Here in this garden are the mortal remains of X", or something like that... maybe add "Seek her in the roses", or something depending on where the remains went.

I'd call my system far more respectful of the people and the earth both than what we do now.

 

[kallipolis]

Y

Peter Singer argued that new born children are not truly sentient (aware of self) until they reach at least a year of age and that it was better for society to euthanize deformed or retarded babies so they wouldn't be a burden on the parents. Some of those "I'm too stupid to know I'm pregnant" folks kill their babies after they are born, I suppose that is okay too?

Ancient Sparta had a well established tradition of killing its less, than perfect new born to ensure that the tribal stock lived up to expectations to kill, and defeat their enemies.

The Persians were taught a lesson, or two.

 

[kallipolis]

Yep, but DNA is neither a human nor alive. DNA can be sourced to a human, and, in finer detail, sourced to a specific person. It is, however, the condition of the source to which we are discussing. The point remains - once brain-death occurs, the organism is no longer alive. Mechanical devices can be used to provide oxygen and nutrients to tissue, maintaining biochemical processes (made famous by cases like Terri Schiavo) but this isn't an organism that is alive.

A brain damaged person is very much alive - per the example of Terry Schiavo; otherwise, why maintain life support?

And why all the controversy over the Terry Schiavo affair, were that case as clear cut as you are attempting to suggest?

 

[kallipolis]

That's a very misogynistic point of view. It's not a woman's responsibility to do ANYTHING during sex. People have the right to consensually fuck who they want, when they want, how they want, without having the threat of a forced pregnancy looming over them.

There are consequences when human beings engage in sexual interaction with one another, including pregnancy which becomes, and remains the responsibility of those who have created human life.