Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Abortion

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:28pm
Same potential a fetus/embryo/whateveryoucallit has. 
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:30pm
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

Same potential a fetus/embryo/whateveryoucallit has. 


No

Expent sperm will not become a child.

A fetus will.
Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:34pm

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:



Expent sperm will not become a child.

A fetus will.

Sperm MAY become a child.

An embryo/fetus MAY become a child.

The probabilities have increased significantly, but it takes a lot more than sperm+egg to make a child.  Most sperm+egg combos don't even result in pregnancies, let alone children.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:41pm
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:



Expent sperm will not become a child.

A fetus will.

Sperm MAY become a child.

An embryo/fetus MAY become a child.

The probabilities have increased significantly, but it takes a lot more than sperm+egg to make a child.  Most sperm+egg combos don't even result in pregnancies, let alone children.


Way to undercut my logic-train.
Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:43pm
Oops - sorry...
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:46pm
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Expent sperm will not become a child. A fetus will.


Sperm MAY become a child.


An embryo/fetus MAY become a child.


The probabilities have increased significantly, but it takes a lot more than sperm+egg to make a child.  Most sperm+egg combos don't even result in pregnancies, let alone children.



But for the purposes of this thread, we are talking about a developing fetus.
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:48pm
Meh.

I'd like to point out that I'm just trying to point out the arbitrariness of picking a specific point in the development of a "baby"; especially once you concede that scientifically, an embryo/fetus does not have the same biological capability as a homosapien, and can't be classified as such (as far as I know).


Edited by Gatyr - 13 March 2008 at 11:48pm
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:55pm
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:



Meh. I'd like to point out that I'm just trying to point out the arbitrariness of picking a specific point in the development of a "baby"; especially once you concede that scientifically, an embryo/fetus does not have the same biological capability as a homosapien, and can't be classified as such (as far as I know).


No, you are trying (and of course suceeding) to argue the exact opposite of every point I thry to make.

My point thus far has been as least scientific as possible. The issue of abortion is a moral issue, not one that can be solved quantitatively.
Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2008 at 11:58pm

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:


But for the purposes of this thread, we are talking about a developing fetus.

Fetus?  I thought we were going all the way back to conception.  That's long before fetus-time.

Lots of blastocysts don't make it to birth either.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 12:03am
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

But for the purposes of this thread, we are talking about a developing fetus.


Fetus?  I thought we were going all the way back to conception.  That's long before fetus-time.


Lots of blastocysts don't make it to birth either.

I wasn't talking about that, my argument was always talking about a fetus.
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 12:06am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:



Meh. I'd like to point out that I'm just trying to point out the arbitrariness of picking a specific point in the development of a "baby"; especially once you concede that scientifically, an embryo/fetus does not have the same biological capability as a homosapien, and can't be classified as such (as far as I know).


No, you are trying (and of course suceeding) to argue the exact opposite of every point I thry to make.

My point thus far has been as least scientific as possible. The issue of abortion is a moral issue, not one that can be solved quantitatively.


I was under the impression it was legality, not morality, being discussed.

Whatever. Scientific consensus (should one be met) should be more important than the morality of something like abortion. Right/wrong should be decided independently.

Quick thought: If cruelty towards animals is illegal, and we can agree that taking the life of something is cruel, could people be charged with animal cruelty for abortion? Silly question, but I'm curious.


Edited by Gatyr - 14 March 2008 at 12:09am
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 12:10am
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:



Meh. I'd like to point out that I'm just trying to point out the arbitrariness of picking a specific point in the development of a "baby"; especially once you concede that scientifically, an embryo/fetus does not have the same biological capability as a homosapien, and can't be classified as such (as far as I know).


No, you are trying (and of course suceeding) to argue the exact opposite of every point I thry to make.

My point thus far has been as least scientific as possible. The issue of abortion is a moral issue, not one that can be solved quantitatively.
I was under the impression it was legality, not morality, being discussed. Whatever. Scientific consensus (should one be met) should be more important than the morality of something like abortion. Right/wrong should be decided independently.


It is both. Laws based on morals like basically every law is. Morals make deciding factors in laws.

What kind of scientific consensus are you talking about?

Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 12:16am
Genus/species categorization. If you have to have a spine to be a vertebrate, and you must be a vertebrate to be "human", then a developing fetus obviously couldn't be considered the same species as you or me.

I'm no biology person, so I don't know the viability of that method, but it works for my uneducated mind.


Edited by Gatyr - 14 March 2008 at 12:18am
Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 12:31am

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

  I wasn't talking about that, my argument was always talking about a fetus.

Fine.  Even in industrialized countries, about 10% of pregnancies result in miscarriages after the sixth week (much higher numbers for earlier in the pregnancy, and much higher numbers in developing countries).

And that's assuming no major risk factors.  If the mother doesn't take affirmative steps to change behavior (like stop drinking/smoking/whatever), the rates also go up significantly.

What percentage of survival is required for you to say that it "will" become human?

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 12:43am
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:


Genus/species categorization. If you have to have a spine to be a vertebrate, and you must be a vertebrate to be "human", then a developing fetus obviously couldn't be considered the same species as you or me. I'm no biology person, so I don't know the viability of that method, but it works for my uneducated mind.


That works scientifically but not morally.

To properly debate the subject on a moral basis, you must first recognize that a fetus is a developing human. Then you build your argument from there.

Abortion is one of the many debates that is best decided using morals rather than scientific quantities.

Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

  I wasn't talking about that, my argument was always talking about a fetus.


Fine.  Even in industrialized countries, about 10% of pregnancies result in miscarriages after the sixth week (much higher numbers for earlier in the pregnancy, and much higher numbers in developing countries).


And that's assuming no major risk factors.  If the mother doesn't take affirmative steps to change behavior (like stop drinking/smoking/whatever), the rates also go up significantly.


What percentage of survival is required for you to say that it "will" become human?



My argument has always been assuming that the fetus has a 100% chance of being born.

Otherwise, it is a different argument, too removed from the origional debate.



Edited by carl_the_sniper - 14 March 2008 at 12:44am
Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 8:13am

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

My argument has always been assuming that the fetus has a 100% chance of being born.

Otherwise, it is a different argument, too removed from the origional debate.

Yeah - an argument based in reality. 

If your position is based on a 100% chance of fetal survival, than your position is based in fantasy, because that is never the case.

Even with the best medical care there are still lots of miscarriages, problems during delivery, and other complications.  And most people do not have the best medical care.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 8:38am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:



That works scientifically but not morally.

To properly debate the subject on a moral basis, you must first recognize that a fetus is a developing human. Then you build your argument from there.

Abortion is one of the many debates that is best decided using morals rather than scientific quantities.


Everybody recognizes that fetuses are developing humans. The question is if and when a fetus can be considered on par with a human. Personally, I think it's the point at which it can survive if it were to be born that day.

More pot stirring:

At the pharyngula stage of development, an embryo will look pretty much the same and have the same features as any other embryo of a vertebrate animal.

Since, at that point, all vertebrate animals are essentially the same thing, why should the human embryo be valued over any other?

If you want to throw in potential to become a human:

At which point would you consider a fetus to have a soul (if you believe in souls)? Is it cruel to destroy an object incapable of feeling cruelty? Is it ok to kill what has never seen life?

On a somewhat related note:

Is it ok for a pregnant woman to have sex?

Back to Top
Hysteria View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25

Joined: 02 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4364
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hysteria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 2:35pm
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Abortion is one of the many debates that is best decided using morals rather than scientific quantities.


Lol, orly?

What are some of the other matters in which this applies?

How are said "morals" decided?
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 4:51pm
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

My argument has always been assuming that the fetus has a 100% chance of being born. Otherwise, it is a different argument, too removed from the origional debate.


Yeah - an argument based in reality. 


If your position is based on a 100% chance of fetal survival, than your position is based in fantasy, because that is never the case.


Even with the best medical care there are still lots of miscarriages, problems during delivery, and other complications.  And most people do not have the best medical care.



I know

But it is based on that for simplicity sake. What do fetal survival rates really have to do with the abortion debates?

Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Abortion is one of the many debates that is best decided using morals rather than scientific quantities.
Lol, orly?What are some of the other matters in which this applies?How are said "morals" decided?


Why is that funny?

Name me a law based solely on scientific quantaties and not on the current morals of society.

I'll wait...
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2008 at 5:01pm
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:



Name me a law based solely on scientific quantaties and not on the current morals of society.

I'll wait...


It is illegal to disobey flight crew on an airplane. Doing so has the potential to cause in-flight emergencies, which threaten the lives of everybody on board. Considering that we're animals, whose bodies have evolve to progress the species, our purpose in life is to survive as a species. Killing fellow humans is detrimental to our survival, therefore killing people is wrong.

By the transitive property, disobeying flight crew is wrong.






Edited by Tolgak - 14 March 2008 at 5:02pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.218 seconds.