Abortion Poll

[Jamme]

When do 'a few cells' become a new life?

 

[Niemand3D]

Once they are conceived.

 

[Tangnefedd]

They only have the potential for life at that stage imo. Far better to take the morning after pill and get rid of those cells rather than give birth to an unwanted child who might suffer abuse at the hands of the parents.

 

[Jamme]

They only have the potential for life at that stage imo. Far better to take the morning after pill and get rid of those cells rather than give birth to an unwanted child who might suffer abuse at the hands of the parents.

When do a few cells become a new life?

 

[Tangnefedd]

When the foetus has fully formed. Even then it doesn't have rights in the UK until it is actually born, although we have a limit of 24 weeks on abortions for social reasons, which is too late imo.

 

[Jamme]

When the foetus has fully formed.

When is that?

Even then it doesn't have rights in the UK until it is actually born, although we have a limit of 24 weeks on abortions for social reasons, which is too late imo.

What do you mean by 'rights?'
What do you mean by 'social reasons?'
Why do you think 24 weeks is 'too late?'

 

[moonkissedtiger]

Well, I chose "abortion is murder", the tricky thing about it is, I'm only really applying that to MY life. I couldn't have an abortion, I'd feel like I was murdering my own child.

When it comes to other people's lives, I don't judge. I don't know their situation or why they are doing it. It's sad when abortion happens, but I'm not going to force my opinion on them.I'll let them know how I feel, that I feel abortion is wrong, but I'm not gonna push it...

Eh, abortion is such a touchy subject, haha.

 

[Charlie V]

If a single cell is a human being, why not an unfertilized egg?

That's a single cell, it's human, it's alive, and has many of the same characteristic as a zygote (a fertilized egg.)

If aborting a zygote is murder, why not a menstral period? Perhaps the failure to get pregnant is murder. That makes just as much sense to me -- in both cases, you're killing a single human cell that has the potential to become a human being (or "is a human being," semantically).

Charlie

 

[Jamme]

If a single cell is a human being, why not an unfertilized egg?

That's a single cell, it's human, it's alive, and has many of the same characteristic as a zygote (a fertilized egg.)

If aborting a zygote is murder, why not a menstral period? Perhaps the failure to get pregnant is murder. That makes just as much sense to me -- in both cases, you're killing a single human cell that has the potential to become a human being (or "is a human being," semantically).

Charlie

Well - not really

A single [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] does not equal thousands of murders. A menstrual period does not equal a murder.

Eggs and sperm are haploid cells. They have only half the genetic material required to create a life. That's why a man AND a lady are required to make a baby

Once an egg is fertilised (after the man and lady have made love, in their special cuddle for grownups) there is a cell with potential to become a new life.

 

[immortalavefenix]

Ah, people I think we should stick to logic here. Remeber the words you use in a post are important. Before posting we should try to be a little more critical with our words.

Let us take a closer look.

I'm only really applying that to MY life. I couldn't have an abortion, I'd feel like I was murdering my own child.

This is how I feel.

When the foetus has fully formed.

What do you mean fully formed?

Once they are conceived.

So self replicating cells have inividual rights, SUPIROR to the OWNERS of the cells? Then you would say that this only applies to the united sperm and egg, but then the product of these cells in a great number of cases IS NOT a child, but a clump of tumor like flesh which is naterually discharged from the body.

ARE a new life

Ah, no in fact they are not. Frist of all their not "new" in the sense that all of those cells were alive to begin with, specifically, they ARE part of someone ELSES body, namely, a male and female. Secoundly they are not "new life" in the sense of "new person" because, it ACTUALLY IS NOT A PERSON. It [ strain of self replicating celss ] share NO similarity to anything remotely human, have no nueral structure which could be said to support any semblance of thought, intelligente or otherwise, and only represente a POSSIBLITY of MUTATEING [ in effect ] into a thing we call a "person". Zygotes are not ACTUALLY human.

Again until we can ACTUALLY say that there is a NEW INDEPENDANT AND INDIVIDUAL person, the fetus is nothing more then organic matter property of its orginator, the female body. The sperm is only a [ bear with the metaphor ] a carciogenic that causes a certain collection of female cells [ egg ] to mutate. The product of this mutation is SOMETIMES a human. Other times it is nothing more than a growth.

Which leads to...

"...they are killing babys..."

No in fact they are not, for reason stated above, and also because of lingustic reasons;

eg.

ba·by
n., pl. -bies.

1. 1. A very young child; an infant.
   2. The youngest member of a family or group.
   3. A very young animal.
2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3. Slang. A girl or young woman.
4. Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5. Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.

 

[Autumnleaf]

If a single cell is a human being, why not an unfertilized egg?

One is a fully intact human being in the early stage of development while the other lacks half of what it takes to make it a whole person.

That's a single cell, it's human, it's alive, and has many of the same characteristic as a zygote (a fertilized egg.)

If aborting a zygote is murder, why not a menstral period? Perhaps the failure to get pregnant is murder. That makes just as much sense to me -- in both cases, you're killing a single human cell that has the potential to become a human being (or "is a human being," semantically).

Charlie

A single human cell from a single human is nothing special when it is genetically the same as every other cell of the person or its DNA is all from the same person.

Once the egg gets fertilized you have a human different from all others, it is not its parent anymore than you are your mother. Then it grows into the person you are today. Now, the thing to consider is this is a person from young to old from conception until death. To purposefully stop that life at any time is to purposefully kill another human being. This cheapens life. It already has ushered in youthinasia where they're killing old people.

 

[Jamme]

Ah, people I think we should stick to logic here. Remeber the words you use in a post are important. Before posting we should try to be a little more critical with our words.

Logic is a tough one to apply to an issue such as abortion. Perhaps you mean we should stick with biological definitions?

What do you mean fully formed?

I'd like to know what this poster means too, but asking for clarification is futile.

Ah, no in fact they are not. Frist of all their not "new" in the sense that all of those cells were alive to begin with, specifically, they ARE part of someone ELSES body, namely, a male and female. Secoundly they are not "new life" in the sense of "new person" because, it ACTUALLY IS NOT A PERSON. It [ strain of self replicating celss ] share NO similarity to anything remotely human, have no nueral structure which could be said to support any semblance of thought, intelligente or otherwise, and only represente a POSSIBLITY of MUTATEING [ in effect ] into a thing we call a "person". Zygotes are not ACTUALLY human.

Again until we can ACTUALLY say that there is a NEW INDEPENDANT AND INDIVIDUAL person, the fetus is nothing more then organic matter property of its orginator, the female body. The sperm is only a [ bear with the metaphor ] a carciogenic that causes a certain collection of female cells [ egg ] to mutate. The product of this mutation is SOMETIMES a human. Other times it is nothing more than a growth.

Perhaps you assume nobody here knows you are talking nonsense, and inventing definitions. Perhaps you assume nobody here has biological, medical, anatomical, embryological knowledge.

In either case, you are wrong, and I think your post is utterly, laughably ridiculous. Nobody (save the gullible and ignorant) will take you seriously when you spout such utter rubbish.

 

[Charlie V]

One is a fully intact human being in the early stage of development while the other lacks half of what it takes to make it a whole person.

Both are fully intact human beings in an early stage of development. One is just at an earlier stage of development.

If you deprive either one of any of the many things it takes to make a whole person, it won't happen. This includes genetic material such as sperm, and also food, oxygen, warmth, a womb.

I continue to see very little difference between the fertilized and unfertilized egg. You can say that both are fully intact human beings -- or neither are fully intact human beings, if you think of a "human being" as a multi-celled organism, which I usually do. Then they both become potential human beings rather than human beings. But that's just semantics.

A single human cell from a single human is nothing special when it is genetically the same as every other cell of the person or its DNA is all from the same person.

Sometimes twins have the same DNA.

Once the egg gets fertilized you have a human different from all others, it is not its parent anymore than you are your mother.

Even before the egg is fertilized, it's a different human being from all others, it's not the parent. An egg isn't a mother. An egg is an egg, whether fertilized or unfertilized, it's a seperate human being.

If you define "human being" as a single cell which has the potential to become a multi-celled human being, that is.

Then it grows into the person you are today.

Well, it's not quite that fast.

Now, the thing to consider is this is a person from young to old from conception until death.

I see very little difference from the single cell before fertilization and the single cell after. If my mother did not get pregnant, and the egg died, I wouldn't be here. In exactly the same way, if my mother got pregnant and the egg died as a single-cell zygote, I wouldn't be here. Both cases are exactly identical -- the single cell which eventually became "me" died.

Or may be it divides once and dies. The result is the same.

But I don't think I'm a single cell. I'm a human being, which has multiple cells.

Unless you think human beings can have one cell. In which case my unfertilized egg was me -- a human being that just needs some warmth, oxygen, food and genetic material. Depriving my unfertilized egg of those things is murdering me before I'm born, just as much as depriving my fertilized egg of those things is murdering me before I'm born.

To purposefully stop that life at any time is to purposefully kill another human being. This cheapens life. It already has ushered in youthinasia where they're killing old people.

In that case, a period is murder. Every female capable of becoming pregnant that fails to do so purposely murders another human being and cheapens life.

Charlie

 

[Corran]

Don't forget the baby killing doctor that performs the killing.

I dont understand how it is possible to have an conversation with you if you keep on making up new defination's for words

 

[Charlie V]

Well - not really

A single [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] does not equal thousands of murders. A menstrual period does not equal a murder.

Eggs and sperm are haploid cells. They have only half the genetic material required to create a life. That's why a man AND a lady are required to make a baby

Once an egg is fertilised (after the man and lady have made love, in their special cuddle for grownups) there is a cell with potential to become a new life.

An egg requires sperm, food, oxygen. You can't simply put a sperm an egg together and, poof!, a baby appears. The food, oxygen and warmth among other things are just as necessary as the additional genetic material.

If a zygote is a human being that just needs food, oxygen, warmth, a womb, etc. to become a grown human being, then an unfertilized egg is a human being that just needs sperm, food, oxygen, warmth, a womb, etc. to become a grown human being.

Once an egg is created, before it is fertilized, there is a cell with potential to become a new life.

See, but this last part, you changed the semantics. Is it a new life, or is it a potential new life? Both the unfertilized egg and the fertilized egg are the same -- one is just at another stage than another, and not every one makes it through all the stages.

You can't say the unfertilized egg is dead. It's alive. It's life. It's not like a rock or a clump of dirt.

You can't say the unfertilized egg isn't human. It's human. It's not a donkey or a fish.

Both the unfertilized egg and the fertilized egg are human life. Or potential human life, depending on how you define your terms. Definition of terms is just semantics though.

Charlie

 

[Jamme]

Both are fully intact human beings in an early stage of development. One is just at an earlier stage of development.

Nope. An egg or a sperm has only half the genetic material required to make a human cell. If what you say is true, humans asexually reproduce. I know of only one human who achieved that.

I continue to see very little difference between the fertilized and unfertilized egg. You can say that both are fully intact human beings -- or neither are fully intact human beings, if you think of a "human being" as a multi-celled organism, which I usually do. Then they both become potential human beings rather than human beings. But that's just semantics.

It's not semantics. it's very, very simple genetics. You cannot make a human from an egg. A human is made from the combination of a sperm and an egg.

Sometimes twins have the same DNA.

Identical twins do. I'm not sure what your point was here...

Even before the egg is fertilized, it's a different human being from all others, it's not the parent. An egg isn't a mother. An egg is an egg, whether fertilized or unfertilized, it's a seperate human being.

If you define "human being" as a single cell which has the potential to become a multi-celled human being, that is.

Nope. An egg has only half the genetic material required to make a human cell.

I see very little difference from the single cell before fertilization and the single cell after. If my mother did not get pregnant, and the egg died, I wouldn't be here. In exactly the same way, if my mother got pregnant and the egg died as a single-cell zygote, I wouldn't be here. Both cases are exactly identical -- the single cell which eventually became "me" died.

There is a huge difference. One is a haploid cell dying. Men waste thousands of these daily. The other is a new human dying.

But I don't think I'm a single cell. I'm a human being, which has multiple cells.

This is probably true. I have never seen, nor heard of, an amoeba with the ability to access CF and make posts.

Unless you think human beings can have one cell. In which case my unfertilized egg was me -- a human being that just needs some warmth, oxygen, food and genetic material. Depriving my unfertilized egg of those things is murdering me before I'm born, just as much as depriving my fertilized egg of those things is murdering me before I'm born.

No, your unfertilised egg was not you. Your fertilised egg was you. Humans have a gestation during which the mother cannot intentionally depriveher baby of warmth, oxygen and food. The placenta takes care of those things.

In that case, a period is murder. Every female capable of becoming pregnant that fails to do so purposely murders another human being and cheapens life.

Charlie

And every man who [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

 

[Jamme]

An egg requires sperm, food, oxygen. You can't simply put a sperm an egg together and, poof!, a baby appears. The food, oxygen and warmth among other things are just as necessary as the additional genetic material.

If a zygote is a human being that just needs food, oxygen, warmth, a womb, etc. to become a grown human being, then an unfertilized egg is a human being that just needs sperm, food, oxygen, warmth, a womb, etc. to become a grown human being.

Once an egg is created, before it is fertilized, there is a cell with potential to become a new life.

See, but this last part, you changed the semantics. Is it a new life, or is it a potential new life? Both the unfertilized egg and the fertilized egg are the same -- one is just at another stage than another, and not every one makes it through all the stages.

You can't say the unfertilized egg is dead. It's alive. It's life. It's not like a rock or a clump of dirt.

You can't say the unfertilized egg isn't human. It's human. It's not a donkey or a fish.

Both the unfertilized egg and the fertilized egg are human life. Or potential human life, depending on how you define your terms. Definition of terms is just semantics though.

Charlie

You really haven't grasped this have you?

A fertilised egg is a new life.

An unfertilised egg, or a single sperm, is NOT a new life. There are no semantics involved - this is the most absolutely simple genetics.

A single wasted egg, or a million wasted sperm, are not murder of life. They are wasted haploid cells.

If a woman was capable of producing thousands of babies in her lifetime, or a man capable of inseminating several million women a day, your argument would hold some credibility. But because you have failed to grasp this simple fact, you cannot be taken seriously.

 

[unjustwar]

Christians are too easily distracted by emotions and feelings that are associated with abortion. they are showed pictures of torn out fetuses... and etc. Yet in the Bible, life clearly did not begin till after birth. Till after the "breath of life was first taken" Also in Hebrew law, the life of a fetus was of very little importance. Yeah, I believe abortion is a lack of responsibility, but biblically there isn't much scriptual evidence against it. I'm pretty neutral with the abortion fight... but I personally am against it... but not for "biblical reasons"

 

[Charlie V]

Nope. An egg or a sperm has only half the genetic material required to make a human cell. If what you say is true, humans asexually reproduce. I know of only one human who achieved that.

I never said humans asexually produce. Everything I said is true, and humans reproduce sexually.

It's not semantics. it's very, very simple genetics. You cannot make a human from an egg. A human is made from the combination of a sperm and an egg.

You cannot make a human from just a sperm and an egg. Without food, oxygen, warmth, the sperm and the egg die. All of these things are required.

A human is made from an egg, combined with sperm, oxygen, food, warmth, etc. in a particular environment. Take away any of these things, no human.

And semantics is what one wants to call a human being. It's not genetics, it's words. You can call a desk a human being.

Nope. An egg has only half the genetic material required to make a human cell.

So a cell with genetic material is a human being? Then killing skin cells is killing a human being.

There is a huge difference. One is a haploid cell dying. Men waste thousands of these daily. The other is a new human dying.

Seems to me they are both a single cell dying. A potential human being dying. I don't define a single cell as a "human being," but if I did.. they're both human, they're both single cells.

This is probably true. I have never seen, nor heard of, an amoeba with the ability to access CF and make posts.

I've never seen a human zygote that could access CF and make posts. Nor a human unfertilized egg. Yet another similarity between the two.

No, your unfertilised egg was not you. Your fertilised egg was you.

It depends on how you define "me." If you want to trace it back to the source, it's the egg. Then it was fertilized, and so on. But none of these are me, and I'm not even the future "me."

Once, there was a six year old boy running on the playground. That's not me. I'm fourty years old. My thoughts, my personality, my wishes, my desires, my lifestyle, everything has changed. I'm different. I'm not a six year old boy. So technically, that's not even me. I'm only the me I am right now.

But if you want to trace it back, you could say, yes, that six year old boy was me. And so was that unfertilized egg.

But technically, the only me is the one right here. Even the me I was last week isn't me right now, though that was more similar to me than the six year old.

The unfertilized and the fertilized egg, similar to each other, didn't have a brain, blood, skin, bones, hair, a nervous system. In that way, the six year old boy is WAY more like me than either of those two things. But the six year old boy is VERY different from ME.

Humans have a gestation during which the mother cannot intentionally deprive her baby of warmth, oxygen and food. The placenta takes care of those things.

All along we've been talking about zygotes. Who said anything about a placenta? Ever heard of "test tube babies?" Zygotes can be in a petrie dish.

To me, there's nothing "more human" about a zygote than an unfertilized egg.

One of the mantras of those opposing abortion has been, "Abortion kills a beating heart." Well, living humans have beating heart. A zygote doesn't. Yet another difference between a "zygote" and a "human being."

A zygote and an unfertilized egg have more similarities to each other than either one of them has to an adult, or even a newborn baby.

If a zygote is a human being, it is no great leap to say an unfertilized egg is a human being. Or, yes, a sperm.

In reality, neither is very similar to the human beings that have spinal chords and breathe oxygen with lungs. But if you want to call them "human beings," you're free. I believe the unfertilized egg is just as much a human being as a zygote.

Charlie

PS: A bit of irony just occurred to me.

Now, I admit, I'm not a scientist and I haven't any degrees in the field. All this talk about genetics..

The conservative right-wing Christians insist that evolution is false, no matter how much science says it's true, and the subject of abortion comes up, and suddenly we're talking about DNA, genetic material, genomes and such.

If evolution is false, how do I know DNA exists? I've never personally seen it under the microscope! And if I did see it under a microscope, how would I know it's DNA? Should I just trust these scientists that lied to us about evolution, when they tell us there's something called DNA and human genomes?

 

[Charlie V]

You really haven't grasped this have you?

A fertilised egg is a new life.

An unfertilised egg, or a single sperm, is NOT a new life.

There are no semantics involved - this is the most absolutely simple genetics.

You are the one who seems to not be grasping.

It is only your opinion that "A fertilised egg is a new life. An unfertilised egg, or a single sperm, is NOT a new life.

An unfertilsed egg is not dead. It's alive.
New? Well, that's an entirely relative term.

Semantics are totally involved -- if the word "new" meant "one second ago," or if it meant "within the last 1,000 years," that would cast new light on the meaning of "new life."

And "life," how do you define that? Are you saying that the unfertilised egg is dead?

If we defined "New Life" as "The latest issue of Life magazine," no eggs would be involved.

We could define "life" or "new" or "human being" or all sorts of words all different ways. That is semantics.

A single wasted egg, or a million wasted sperm, are not murder of life. They are wasted haploid cells.

Perhaps I think that a wasted fertilized egg is not murder of life. They are wasted zygote cells.

"Murder" is another semantics issue. There are a lot of people who don't think abortion is murder, and a lot of people who think it is. There are a lot of people who don't think that killing an Iraqi during a war is murder, and a lot of people who think it is. It's all a matter of how you define the word "murder."

If a woman was capable of producing thousands of babies in her lifetime, or a man capable of inseminating several million women a day, your argument would hold some credibility. But because you have failed to grasp this simple fact, you cannot be taken seriously.

Why?

A woman may choose to become pregnant, or she may choose otherwise and kill an unfertilized egg.

To me, killing an unfertilized egg is just as immoral as killing a fertilized egg.

To my way of defining "human being," a human being isn't one celled, therefore, neither is a human being. If you're going to tell me a human being may be one celled, then to me, there's no great stretch to calling the unfertilized egg a human being.

Heck, I'm going to drink a glass of water, which is going to be absorbed into me and become part of my blood. So may be a glass of water is a potential human being, therefore, it's a human being. So wasting a glass of water by pouring it down the sink is murder. This makes just as much sense to me as calling a zygote a human being.

Don't get me wrong -- I love children. I have a daughter, she's the joy of my life, and the moment I learned my wife was pregnant, I rejoiced. There's nothing more precious, no more joyful a moment, then a wanted pregnancy.

But I don't see this emotional attachment to a single cell that's somebody elses. Calling it murder. I find most horrific that people will allow the suffering and deaths of people with Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. because they want to protect frozen embryos.

Let me tell you my semantics. I'll tell you about how I define a "baby."

Now, may be I'm sentimental, but I believe this: All babies are cute.

I don't do DNA tests to see if it's a baby. I see it cooing, and go, "Ohh. How cute!"

A zygote isn't cute. It's not even visable to the naked eye. It doesn't have skin, a spinal chord, blood, lungs, a heart.

To me, all of these things are among the requirements to call something a "baby" or a "human being." Not DNA. (I wouldn't require cuteness because not all people agree with me -- but I consider all babies cute.) I think we can know what a baby looks like when we see it, and a fertilised egg is completely dissimilar to a baby.

I don't look into a microscope and say, "Ohh. Look at that single cell, just cooing away! How cute it is!" I feel nothing for a frozen embryo, unless it's actually wanted by its mother to eventually become a baby, in which case I'm happy for the mother. Otherwise, in my eyes, it is not a human being. It's alive. It's got human genetic material. It's a cell. But it's not a person any more than an unfertilised egg is a person.

Now, I look at a little five year old boy with Diabettes, or an elderly woman with Alzheimers, or Michal J. Fox with Parkinsons, and there's absolutely no doubt in my mind, these are human beings, and if some donated eggs combined with some genetic material form a zygote and are frozen and can save these human lives and spare these human beings -- I am not going to argue for the frozen zygote being a human being because I do not see it as one and I think it's horrific that people will allow the suffering of other people to protect someone else's frozen zygotes as though these single celled microbes are human beings. Which, by the way I see it, they are not.

But if they are, then so are unfertilized eggs. I see no difference. Neither has skin, neither has a spinal chord, neither can smile, both are human, both are alive, so if killing one is murder than so is killing the other. If a single cell's destruction is murder, then it is equally so whether or not the cell is fertilised.

Charlie