A Nightly Genocide

[irateional]

Ok. So for the most part, I'm just going t raise a point to be a devils advocate. I'm not going to say my own views, as it's not something I want to discuss.

A lot of those arguing against abortion argue that killing a fetus is killing a unique human being, and thus isn't simply on the same level as having part of yourself cut out.

I understand the argument's scientific basis lies in genetic identity. THat is, because a fetus has a unique genetic code from your own, it's its own person. But here's the thing. When a man masturbates, his sperm is around a count of millions. Each one has it's own unique genetic code. There are trillions of different permutations possible in the part of the genetic code carried by a sperm, and as a result, this begs a question.

If when a man masturbates, he ends millions of unique individuals (that is to say, that if they met with an egg, each zygote would be different from other ones) from ever possibly fertilizing and growing up. Afterall, if the sperm had eggs to mate with, they'd all be able to form zygotes. So then, what's the real difference? Afterall, in abortion, the fetus is killed before it can live on its own. If a man masturbates, he's preemptively killing millions of possible individuals by preventing them from ever being able to find an egg, create a zygote and eventually become a child.

So....if we want to protect life, should it not seem logical then that the following are also wrong?
-Masturbation
-Birth Control Techniques of Any Sort
Isn't even our biological process evil too? Afterall, it extinguishes millions of unique individuals?

 

[Deamiter]

I'm not sure I agree that genetic material alone defines personhood. After all, wouldn't a cancerous tumor be similarly protected because of its unique mutations?

Most anti-abortionists I've talked to mention the "potential of life" as the reason that an embryo is considered a unique person. I'm not sure I agree though. My main problem with the whole issue is that nobody even attempts to justify their definition of when life starts. I find birth to be just as arbitrary as conception as a point to define the beginning of "personhood."

The Bible doesn't help one bit in defining when a person actually becomes a person and my personal opinion is that it is much like the age of accountability where only God knows.

I should point out that I'm in no way supportive of abortion, but I don't buy the emotional arguments that make the rather unsupported assumption that the fertilization of an egg defines the creation of a new human. I'm more likely to support the medical definition of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus since I believe (been a while since I cared to look it up) over half of fertilized eggs never make it that far. Of course, I find birth to be MUCH too late, but I'm not interested in allowing my emotional reaction to partial-birth abortions color my understanding of when a new person exists.

 

[HypnoToad]

Ok. So for the most part, I'm just going t raise a point to be a devils advocate. I'm not going to say my own views, as it's not something I want to discuss.

A lot of those arguing against abortion argue that killing a fetus is killing a unique human being, and thus isn't simply on the same level as having part of yourself cut out.

I understand the argument's scientific basis lies in genetic identity. THat is, because a fetus has a unique genetic code from your own, it's its own person. But here's the thing. When a man masturbates, his sperm is around a count of millions. Each one has it's own unique genetic code. There are trillions of different permutations possible in the part of the genetic code carried by a sperm, and as a result, this begs a question.

If when a man masturbates, he ends millions of unique individuals (that is to say, that if they met with an egg, each zygote would be different from other ones) from ever possibly fertilizing and growing up. Afterall, if the sperm had eggs to mate with, they'd all be able to form zygotes. So then, what's the real difference? Afterall, in abortion, the fetus is killed before it can live on its own. If a man masturbates, he's preemptively killing millions of possible individuals by preventing them from ever being able to find an egg, create a zygote and eventually become a child.

So....if we want to protect life, should it not seem logical then that the following are also wrong?
-Masturbation
-Birth Control Techniques of Any Sort
Isn't even our biological process evil too? Afterall, it extinguishes millions of unique individuals?

Big difference.

Abortion ends a HUMAN life. Letting sperm die does not. I'd have to look up the scientific/biological definitions of "life" first, but I'm not even certain that sperm qualifies as "life" at all.

While masturbation may be wrong for the lusting aspect, it's got nothing to do with any kind of murder/ending human life issue.

 

[irateional]

Big difference.

Abortion ends a HUMAN life. Letting sperm die does not. I'd have to look up the scientific/biological definitions of "life" first, but I'm not even certain that sperm qualifies as "life" at all.

While masturbation may be wrong for the lusting aspect, it's got nothing to do with any kind of murder/ending human life issue.

But masturbation does end a set of possible human beings.

Your sperm never repeat the same genetic code. Each one is genetically different, and each one could create a different person. How's that really moral either? Just saying.

Cancer isn't the same, as cancer cells aren't possible of creating life. But sperm is.
And an embryo is.
And a fetus is.
But it isn't alive until it can survive outside the womb.
Now...I don't know where to stand on abortion, but I think that should be considered.

 

[HypnoToad]

But masturbation does end a set of possible human beings.

So what? A sperm is NOT a human being. To commit "murder", a human being must be killed. Not human, not murder. "Could have been" is irrelevant.

Your sperm never repeat the same genetic code. Each one is genetically different, and each one could create a different person. How's that really moral either? Just saying.

Because it's not human life. "Could be" is irrelevant.

If I'm walking down the sidewalk, and then just look across the street, can a police officer give me a ticket and say, "well, you looked like you might want to jaywalk."? No, it would be laughed out of court if it went that far. What "could have" happened has no bearing.

Cancer isn't the same, as cancer cells aren't possible of creating life. But sperm is.
And an embryo is.
And a fetus is.
But it isn't alive until it can survive outside the womb.

This is part of your problem. There is no scientific, biological, or medical reason behind the notion that an embryo or a fetus is not human nor alive until it's able to survive outside the womb. The motives behind such reasoning are purely political.

There is no point in the development of a fetus, from conception to birth, before which science can say, "this is not human," but only that it is a human at an early stage of development.

Further, Scripture supports that human life begins at conception. David claimed to be sinful from conception. Other than angels or human beings, what commits sin?

 

[irateional]

So what? A sperm is NOT a human being. To commit "murder", a human being must be killed. Not human, not murder. "Could have been" is irrelevant.

Because it's not human life. "Could be" is irrelevant.

If I'm walking down the sidewalk, and then just look across the street, can a police officer give me a ticket and say, "well, you looked like you might want to jaywalk."? No, it would be laughed out of court if it went that far. What "could have" happened has no bearing.

This is part of your problem. There is no scientific, biological, or medical reason behind the notion that an embryo or a fetus is not human nor alive until it's able to survive outside the womb. The motives behind such reasoning are purely political.

There is no point in the development of a fetus, from conception to birth, before which science can say, "this is not human," but only that it is a human at an early stage of development.

Further, Scripture supports that human life begins at conception. David claimed to be sinful from conception. Other than angels or human beings, what commits sin?

David could've been simply exaggerating for the sake of poetic device. Do not let literalism blind your eyes.

Secondly, I'm arguing the contrary more for the sake of it then because I agree.

Personally, without a brain, a human being is quite simply just inert flesh. That's obvious. No one has ever, nor will ever, exhibit humanity without a working brain. So then....is that not the answer to where life begins? When the brain is a brain? When the brain is a fully functioning organ, it stand to reason that there is a person.

Leading up to this, you have nothing but inert growing flesh. I know that's bothersome to the lot of you, but it's true. You can't take an argument of "it will become baby eventually if everything goes right", because that same argument applies to sperm. If a sperm meets an egg, it'll create a zygote! No kidding.

Just as if a fetus is in a womb, and the myriad chemical reactions that make it grow all function properly, it'll become a baby. It's all dependent upon other things all working properly.

I'm saying that the line should be drawn at brain function. Let's argue that now, if you don't mind.

 

[HypnoToad]

David could've been simply exaggerating for the sake of poetic device. Do not let literalism blind your eyes.

Do you really want to gamble over human life based on "could've"?

If I go hunting with my friends, and see some movement behind a bush, should I just open fire, or should I make sure it's not one of my friends first? If I shoot my friend, is the whole thing justified if I tell the police, "well, it could've been a turkey."?

I see no reason to not think David meant exactly what he said.

Secondly, I'm arguing the contrary more for the sake of it then because I agree.

Inconsequential.

Personally, without a brain, a human being is quite simply just inert flesh. That's obvious.

Certainly not "inert".

It meets the definition of "life" from the moment of conception.

It:
1. Is made up of one or more cells.
2. Grows and develops.
3. Has reproductive capability. (Just doesn't become active until puberty. Unless you want to argue that the average 7-year-old isn't a living human.)
4. Responds to stimuli.
5. Takes in and metabolizes food/energy

No one has ever, nor will ever, exhibit humanity without a working brain. So then....is that not the answer to where life begins? When the brain is a brain? When the brain is a fully functioning organ, it stand to reason that there is a person.

No, it does not stand to reason. If it's just "fully functioning", then the retarded are not human, according to you.

They say we only use about 10% of our brain. So, technically, NO ONE has a "fully functioning" brain. Your rule means that none of us are humans.

Leading up to this, you have nothing but inert growing flesh. I know that's bothersome to the lot of you, but it's true.

You have yet to substantiate that claim.

You can't take an argument of "it will become baby eventually if everything goes right", because that same argument applies to sperm. If a sperm meets an egg, it'll create a zygote! No kidding.

Irrelevant, as I don't take that argument.

Just as if a fetus is in a womb, and the myriad chemical reactions that make it grow all function properly, it'll become a baby. It's all dependent upon other things all working properly.

You haven't presented any scientific/biological/medical evidence that "it becomes" a human life as opposed to "is" a human life.

I'm saying that the line should be drawn at brain function. Let's argue that now, if you don't mind.

Then show the scientific/medical/biological proofs (Scriptural would be good, also) that an unborn child is not human or alive until "brain function".

 

[irateional]

Do you really want to gamble over human life based on "could've"?

If I go hunting with my friends, and see some movement behind a bush, should I just open fire, or should I make sure it's not one of my friends first? If I shoot my friend, is the whole thing justified if I tell the police, "well, it could've been a turkey."?

I see no reason to not think David meant exactly what he said.

Inconsequential.

Certainly not "inert".

It meets the definition of "life" from the moment of conception.

It:
1. Is made up of one or more cells.
2. Grows and develops.
3. Has reproductive capability. (Just doesn't become active until puberty. Unless you want to argue that the average 7-year-old isn't a living human.)
4. Responds to stimuli.
5. Takes in and metabolizes food/energy

No, it does not stand to reason. If it's just "fully functioning", then the retarded are not human, according to you.

They say we only use about 10% of our brain. So, technically, NO ONE has a "fully functioning" brain. Your rule means that none of us are humans.

You have yet to substantiate that claim.

Irrelevant, as I don't take that argument.

You haven't presented any scientific/biological/medical evidence that "it becomes" a human life as opposed to "is" a human life.

Then show the scientific/medical/biological proofs (Scriptural would be good, also) that an unborn child is not human or alive until "brain function".

Because you aren't alive until you have a working brain?

I've yet to see a living human with a personality and no brain. They can even tell nowadays based on a brain MRI if a comatose person is actually conscious or dead to the world.

 

[Hadassah]

Just a hypothetical here...


If the body ridding itself of sperm or an egg was "genocide"... why in the Bible does it list only one day as the time of impurity, rather than 7 days or 3 or 6 months, as is with menstruation or the birth of a son or daughter?

I think that is enough information for me to prove that one a fallacy.

 

[Ave Maria]

Many people would agree with you that masturbation and birth control are wrong. Some of these people include Catholics and Fundamentalists. These people are wrong. There is nothing wrong with either. There is also nothing wrong with abortion. Just because each fetus has its own genetic code does not mean that it is a person.

 

[HypnoToad]

Because you aren't alive until you have a working brain?

Yes, you've already claimed this.

But as already shown, the unborn meets the definition of "life" from conception. The presence of a "brain" is not part of the definition of "life".

 

[irateional]

Yes, you've already claimed this.

But as already shown, the unborn meets the definition of "life" from conception. The presence of a "brain" is not part of the definition of "life".

But it is.

You're right that a fetus is alive. It's no more alive than a tumor though. It doesn't perceive itself. When the brain begins operating the fetus begins to percieve itself, begins to move and act. A brain is what makes a person a human being, and not just a unique cluster of different cells.

I'd say that the beginning of brain function (not growth, but function) is a pretty clear cut definition of the point at which a fetus goes from growing cluster of cells to living being.

 

[HypnoToad]

When the brain begins operating the fetus begins to percieve itself,

On what do you base this idea?

God and angels have no "brain", they are just spirit, they have no organs. Yet, they are self-aware. Humans are living souls, just like God and angels. If they don't require a "brain" to be self aware, what makes it required for humans?

 

[Calliso]

On what do you base this idea?

God and angels have no "brain", they are just spirit, they have no organs. Yet, they are self-aware. Humans are living souls, just like God and angels. If they don't require a "brain" to be self aware, what makes it required for humans?

Because God and the angels are different from human beings. Like you said yourself they are just spirit. A human being is made of flesh.

 

[irateional]

Because God and the angels are different from human beings. Like you said yourself they are just spirit. A human being is made of flesh.

Exactly.

God and the Angels are entirely different.

We're talking about human beings. Human beings can't exhibit a personality, or do anything at all unless they have a working brain.

 

[HypnoToad]

Because God and the angels are different from human beings. Like you said yourself they are just spirit. A human being is made of flesh.

But we are not JUST flesh. We are living souls. And since we still exist after the flesh dies, I don't see how you can automatically say that life is determined by the brain.

Human beings can't exhibit a personality, or do anything at all unless they have a working brain.

Can't exhibit, or exhibited but simply not physically detectable? Is there an MRI or other scan in which I can see my soul?

I have asked more than once now for the scientific/medical/biological/Scriptural evidence for your view, and have not yet received it. I have already provided a scientific definition of life. Here's one about the unborn being "human":

"The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms." Before We Are Born - Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. By Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud. W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition. Page 500.

Before We Are Born is a medical textbook used in universities and is not about pro- or anti-abortion issues.

 

[MomWhoThinks]

On this topic, I had a pro-choice friend claim I was inconsistent because I accepted the eating of chicken embryos (referring to eggs). I pointed out that not only do we use grown adult chickens for food, but an egg is not an embryo. It is not fertilized. conception means the very beginning. A sperm or egg does not have the ability to become a human, but it is potential life. Once a human is conceived, they are begun. An adult is 'just a bunch of cells' also. How terrible to decide to destroy the growth process of a human simply because they haven't yet developed physically to our level.