Abortion

[startinover]

If abortion isn't wrong, where do we draw the line? Is it ok to do partial birth abortions...since the baby isn't 'aware' of itself...is it ok to kill a child who isn't aware of itself because of birth defect? (...) God provides insight in the Psalms that He created the psalmist in his mother's womb. Why do we have to 'play God' and decide when we want a planned pregnacy or not?

Although I believe abortion is wrong like you, I remain a pro-choicer. And about where to draw the line I could argue:

God also created sperm which counts millions of spermatozoids. As you know they ARE alive and move when inspected under a microscop. How does one account for their death every time a man [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] and does not impregnate a woman? And according to this logic, isn't a man (willingly) killing millions of potentials children, and therefore is in violation of God's law, everytime he has sex with a woman for other purposes than procreation?

And what about a woman who uses contraceptives, and prevents ovulation? That's a potential life right there that we 'flush away' without thinking twice.

A feotus, is just a spermatozoid and ovule that came together. Sure with more second that passes, I am inclined to call it a (potential) life, but why are pro-lifers giving this foetus more consideration than they're willing to give to spermatozoids and ovules ? They are alive too. Yet they face "death" through our actions on a regular basis.

So it's understood that at every given moment, we are all -adult men and women- carrying life within us. And regularly we provoke the death of those 'lives' through sex...but of course we're considered innocents and are not held accountable for those deaths because it's OUR bodies, and those death cannot be seen ("my spermatozoids, my business" or "my ovules, my business")

By extension, why shouldn't the same right of decision be granted to pregnant women? Technically, till the baby leaves her body it's an inhabitant of her womb like ovules are. Just because foetuses are life on a *macroscopic* level, does not make the ovules any less (potential) life than ovules, life on a *microsccopic* level.

So is this a case of us just pointing fingers at the types of "abortions" that our eyes can see? But are we only so called-criminals when we commit bad deeds that can be seen ?

Surely, I do not advocate abortions of any kind, including partial, but the fact is few pro-choicers are either. I took this counter argument as this is the "Philosophy & Morality" board to prove that finding where to draw the line can be subjective.

We just need to pray cause we're all not as innocent as we like to think.

 

[transientlife]

Surely, I do not advocate abortions of any kind, including partial, but the fact is few pro-choicers are either...We just need to pray cause we're all not as innocent as we like to think.

Great points, startinover.
The majority of prochoicers are not proabortion, no matter how some try to bend it. Most don't look at abortion as a positive, recreational, 'normal' act to be treated flippantly (that's what I would consider pro-abortion)
The ABILITY to CHOOSE and the FREEDOM to decide for ourselves seems to be what prochoicers hold dear. Not so much the right to abort, but the right to decide for themselves and not have the government take control.

 

[flicka]

I would kill the average joe.
me.

I bet you wouldn't if that average joe was your daddy

 

[Michali]

While I don't really agree with this description, it really doesn't matter. This doesn't get around the fact that 'loss' requires there to have been something in existence in the first place. Killing a sleeping body is removing a process that has existed, will exist again and is subjectively in and of itself continuing to exist.

It does not matter whether it is subjectively continuing for the person. It ceases objectively when the body sleeps. Besides, we are making decisions as one who does not experience another man's subjectivity. While one person may subjectively experience consciousness all the time, I do not experience his being conscious all the time. And we are questioning my actions. What should I do?

It's like this statement: "At this moment, I am existent, and 'Billy' is not. I do not want Billy to wake up, I do not want to deal with Billy later. So why shouldn't I prevent 'his' body from waking up? Billy does not exist for me to kill him, so why shouldn't I prevent him."

Prevention (halting the process forever) of consciousness is the same thing as killing a person.

Prevention is fundamentally different from destruction. It is entirely relevant here, because if prevention is to be regarded with the same taboo as destruction, we must ask how we are able to let ever sperm and egg which would have produced unique offspring of their own die.

A lone gamete is not an isolatable process, in and of itself, that gives rise to conscious experience. In other words, it is not a human body, while a zygote is.

You know that ever sperm you do not fertilize an egg with kills a unique, individual human being. The human being that would have resulted from that sperm will now never have existed and you have, by this logic, killed him/her.

A sperm is not a human body, because it is not an isolatable process that gives rise to human consciousness. A zygote is. A gamete is not a potential anything. Two gametes (an egg and a sperm) are a potential zygote.

A sperm cell is not a potential person (an agent of conscious experience), yet a zygote is. These lines are clearly visible.

People cry when they lose football games. Grief is not a terribly good instrument of morality.

Exactly what I was thinking when you wrote about funerals.

If the consciousness is the same - I.e. you could justifiably call both 'Billy' - then you are killing someone. Bodies without consciousness are not human beings, this is why we are morally able to turn off life-support machines.

The previous body of "Billy" is no more (BTW).

A human body does not exhibit consciousness when it sleeps. By your reasoning, why wouldn't you kill it? You just said, "Bodies without consciousness are not human beings, this is why we are morally able to turn off life-support machines." Those bodies on life support once exhibited conscious experience, and if you say it is justified by their "lack of future experiences of consciousness", then you are already admitting that the future experiences are an important factor.

The copy of Billy, if awakened, will exhibit the same concsious experience as the previous body. In other words, the new body will be Billy. This body has never exhibited consciousness before now (like the unborn child), so why not kill it?

I'd like to hear your response to flicka's question: Would you give your life for a zygote?

I need more criteria than that. But, yes. It's just like asking me, "Would you give your life for a newborn". Even though the newborn is helpless, weak, non-advantageous to me in any way, will not remember what I have done, contains no ability to realize the events that are taking place, and is basically a moving vegetable; I would gladly give my life for it.

But for the sake of lessening ado, I'll assume such strange conditions like, "There was a car coming, and it was about to smash a petri dish containing a zygote (to make it even more interesting since it is easier to risk my life for the zygote and the pregnant mother), so I leap into the road and move the pertri dish out of the way. Only to get hit, myself."

 

[Michali]

I bet you wouldn't if that average joe was your daddy

You had to kill either your mother or some other woman that you know nothing about. Which would you kill? Simple: the other woman. You do not love her like you love your mother. Regardless of her innocence.

I would rather kill a zygote than my mother because of my love for her.

But I mean to be addressing the abortions in which the care-takers of the future baby, will abort their child simply out of their decision to "not have to deal with it".

 

[zoe_uu]

Great points, startinover.
The majority of prochoicers are not proabortion, no matter how some try to bend it. Most don't look at abortion as a positive, recreational, 'normal' act to be treated flippantly (that's what I would consider pro-abortion)
The ABILITY to CHOOSE and the FREEDOM to decide for ourselves seems to be what prochoicers hold dear. Not so much the right to abort, but the right to decide for themselves and not have the government take control.

True. I had one of those Pro-Life organizations call me the other day taking a poll. The man asked me if I was Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, or somewhere in between. I promptly replied, "I am Pro-Choice." Then he goes, "Oh so you're for abortion?" I replied, "No, abortion is horrible thing. No one is for abortion. I am for choice. Goodbye." And I hung up.

 

[flicka]

But I mean to be addressing the abortions in which the care-takers of the future baby, will abort their child simply out of their decision to "not have to deal with it".

Believe me, I do understand this. However none of us will ever be privy to exactly why a woman is having an abortion. To assume it's because she just doesn't want to 'deal with it' is only going to loose you sleep at night and do nothing to solve the problem.

 

[Michali]

Believe me, I do understand this. However none of us will ever be privy to exactly why a woman is having an abortion. To assume it's because she just doesn't want to 'deal with it' is only going to loose you sleep at night and do nothing to solve the problem.

But this applies to most choices of those types. Any type of "discomfort" or "prevention from being born into a poor household" type ordeal, is not a good reason (in my opinion).

Anything serious can be physically analyzed before the birth:

Such as:

high risk of mother dying
serious birth defects
lalalala

Those things are being excluded here.

 

[justaman]

Prevention (halting the process forever) of consciousness is the same thing as killing a person.

No it isn't and none of what you said in this paragraph supported this sentiment in any way whatever.

Prevention also does not equal 'halting' the process. The process (consciousness) to halt must have first begun. You cannot halt something that is yet to exist.

A lone gamete is not an isolatable process, in and of itself, that gives rise to conscious experience. In other words, it is not a human body, while a zygote is.

I disagree. You've much to prove if you want to convince me that a fertilized egg is more akin to a conscious human being than to an unfertilized egg.

A sperm is not a human body, because it is not an isolatable process that gives rise to human consciousness. A zygote is. A gamete is not a potential anything. Two gametes (an egg and a sperm) are a potential zygote.

Which is in turn a potential human. A sperm or egg is a potential human. That's what they are. There is no two ways about it. The act of conception is the fulfilment of the first step of that potential.

By your logic a zygote is in fact not a potential human because it requires the attachment to the placenta and therefore in and of itself 'is not an isolatable process that gives rise to human consciousness'.

A sperm cell is not a potential person (an agent of conscious experience), yet a zygote is. These lines are clearly visible.

No they aren't, you're making them up.

You cannot deny that with the death of every sperm and unfertilized egg is the death of one unique human being who will never again have the chance of existing.

Ergo, all sperm and ova are potential humans.

A human body does not exhibit consciousness when it sleeps. By your reasoning, why wouldn't you kill it? You just said, "Bodies without consciousness are not human beings, this is why we are morally able to turn off life-support machines." Those bodies on life support once exhibited conscious experience, and if you say it is justified by their "lack of future experiences of consciousness", then you are already admitting that the future experiences are an important factor.

Who ever said future experiences weren't an importance factor? But to be defined as a human, you also need past experiences. Otherwise we must feel guilty everytime a sperm/egg dies.

The copy of Billy, if awakened, will exhibit the same concsious experience as the previous body. In other words, the new body will be Billy. This body has never exhibited consciousness before now (like the unborn child), so why not kill it?

Who gives a **** about the body?! If the consciousness existed previously then to end its chances of continuing is killing someone. The body is neither here nor there, it is a vehicle or the consciousness, you really must get rid of this analogy, it's wholly irrelevant.

But for the sake of lessening ado, I'll assume such strange conditions like, "There was a car coming, and it was about to smash a petri dish containing a zygote (to make it even more interesting since it is easier to risk my life for the zygote and the pregnant mother), so I leap into the road and move the pertri dish out of the way. Only to get hit, myself."

You didn't say if you'd actually do this. If you tell me you would I think you'd be lying to me.

The argument with you, clearly, is that of 'the potential human'. You must show how ova and sperm are not potential humans. This will be difficult because they quite clearly are: From them humans result. Ergo, they're potential humans. It really is that simple.

 

[flicka]

But this applies to most choices of those types. Any type of "discomfort" or "prevention from being born into a poor household" type ordeal, is not a good reason (in my opinion).

Anything serious can be physically analyzed before the birth:

Such as:

high risk of mother dying
serious birth defects
lalalala

Those things are being excluded here.

Ya..ok. I guess it's all academic unless your actually pregnant I just came to the conclusion loooooooooong ago that my 'reasons' were only mine, and each woman must face the choice herself and live w/the consequences since I'm not walking in her shoes or living the rest of her life for her.

 

[startinover]

Great points, startinover. (...)
The ABILITY to CHOOSE and the FREEDOM to decide for ourselves seems to be what prochoicers hold dear. Not so much the right to abort, but the right to decide for themselves and not have the government take control.

Agreed wholeheartedly transientlife. And thanks for the support

True. I had one of those Pro-Life organizations call me the other day taking a poll. The man asked me if I was Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, or somewhere in between. I promptly replied, "I am Pro-Choice." Then he goes, "Oh so you're for abortion?" I replied, "No, abortion is horrible thing. No one is for abortion. I am for choice. Goodbye." And I hung up.

That was a brilliant exchange. I feel like cheering ! lol

A sperm cell is not a potential person (an agent of conscious experience), yet a zygote is. These lines are clearly visible.

That's where you draw the line, it does not mean that's where it is. My argument was that spermatozoids are alive, which is provable scientifically (the same proof pro-lifers use to show that foetuses are alive).

In the future, will you still assert that "a sperm cell is not a potential person" with the same conviction when human life is created from a single sperm cell or ovule? I doubt it.

Denying that spermatozoids are potential life is no different than denying that feotuses are potential life too. So are both camps blinded by the need to be right?

In my opinion, we must pay reverance to all forms of life (humans,feotus, sperms, animals, insects, trees), but recognize our limitations. We cannot control everything or we'd go nuts! So why try to control what happens within *another's* person body? (that of the pregnant woman). The choices she makes are hers. If there are consequences she'll deal with, it'll be hers to face. Praying is the best we can do, not outlaw abortion.

 

[artofwar]

Ive got a great statement for abortion, no one can ever tell what a women should do with her own body

 

[Michali]

It's always interesting debating with you Justaman. I never really enjoy it, but I always find myself caught up in it. Let's analyze why:

*Justaman's tension is building, beginning with the usual rude introductory statement*

No it isn't and none of what you said in this paragraph supported this sentiment in any way whatever.

*Justaman gets picky*

Prevention also does not equal 'halting' the process. The process (consciousness) to halt must have first begun. You cannot halt something that is yet to exist.

Forgive me for the terminology, and I actually meant this: Scratch "halting the process forever". Replace with "halting the process that keeps consciousness occuring". (which is killing the physical body that gives rise to consciousness, or destroying the zygote that eventually gives rise to consciousness.)

*Pulls out the, "it's way out of my league" argument so as to discourage me from attempting the ineffable*

I disagree. You've much to prove if you want to convince me that a fertilized egg is more akin to a conscious human being than to an unfertilized egg.

It's simple really. If you let a sperm cell rot away in your balls, will it ever become a human? No. It's process is very short term, and it's sole function is "fertilive the egg".

If an egg remains unfertilized, does it ever become human? No. It's processes are very short term, and it's sole function is "get fertilized".

If a zygote remains in the womb (or ovum, or whatever those things are that I'm glad I don't have), does it ever become human? Yes. It's processes last for decades, and it's sole function (in this state is) "divide and grow". Like the rest of the functions of the human body from there on out.

*Starts to sound poetic, and causes the reader to read the same sentence thrice, but to no avail. Too many "ofs".*

Which is in turn a potential human. A sperm or egg is a potential human. That's what they are. There is no two ways about it. The act of conception is the fulfilment of the first step of that potential.

Like I said, a sperm is not a potential human. And, even though you acknowledge that a sperm could make a different human than another sperm in the same "litter", has nothing to do with it having the potential to give rise to consciousness.

The sperm will only give rise to consciousness, so long as there is another factor in the equation: and that is the egg. And the two together, are the zygote.

Thus the zygote gives rise to consciousness, and not the sperm alone.

*justaman does something comendable, and actually understands what I'm saying. Of course, it is to catch me in a problem I have presented for myself.*

By your logic a zygote is in fact not a potential human because it requires the attachment to the placenta and therefore in and of itself 'is not an isolatable process that gives rise to human consciousness'.

Ok. So you may be on to something here. But does that change the fact, that, during an abortion, a zygote is deprived of that function in the womb (and I have no clue when a baby must be aborted). I would consider it part of the process, since it is causally tied into the growth of the human.

If everything is left uninterrupted, a human will come from the fertilized egg, out of the womb. The processes are independant of human choice. (other than eating, or something)

*justaman decides to make me look stupid because he believes the lines between sperm and zygote are blurred beyond recognition.*

No they aren't, you're making them up.

Though this means nothing:

A zygote is atleast more likely to end up becoming a conscious agent, than a sperm cell.

Aside from that, a sperm cell is not a potential person. It is, like I said, a potential nothing. A sperm cell is a potentially older sperm cell. And that's all.

Include into the equation, the egg, and then you have a potential zygote. Together, the egg and the sperm cell, are a potential zygote. Which is a potential person.

*Here, justaman believes he justifies his conclusion through his invalid reasoning. But really, justaman is a little boastful sperm cell that cen't get over how strong of a swimmer he is in comparison to all of the other potential persons he overcame.*

You cannot deny that with the death of every sperm and unfertilized egg is the death of one unique human being who will never again have the chance of existing.

Ergo, all sperm and ova are potential humans.

Just because, hypothetically, a different sperm cell would have produced a different person, does not mean that the sperm cell alone would have become that person (without the egg).

And the death of a sperm cell is not the death of a unique human being. There is not a human there to die.

*Somehow, hidden in this body of text, justaman attempts to suppress a large quantity of anger. But when he states the last setence, he explodes with rage as he thinks, "How dare he make me feel bad for masturbating!"*

Who ever said future experiences weren't an importance factor? But to be defined as a human, you also need past experiences. Otherwise we must feel guilty everytime a sperm/egg dies.

No, not every time a sperm or egg die.

Life and death is a very important matter... Well, it is to us humans. So, if future states of consciousness are important, to atleast some degree, then they are very important.

And you will have to give a good reason why there needs to be past experiences of consciousness in order for a body to be defined as human.

*And here are the effects. Whoa! Totally out of nowhere!*

Who gives a **** about the body?!

uhhh... I guess I do.

Because it gives rise to consciousness. And that's what we're trying not to kill. And that's what the zygote is. A body, and a process.

*?"vehicle"? ?"body is neither here nor there"? ?"Michali is awesome"?*

If the consciousness existed previously then to end its chances of continuing is killing someone. The body is neither here nor there, it is a vehicle or the consciousness, you really must get rid of this analogy, it's wholly irrelevant.

You said, "it's chances of continuing". Would you replace "chances" with... actually would you replace the whole sentence with, "If the consciousness existed previously, then to end the process that gives rise to it, would be killing someone." Because, what your really killing is the vehicle, your not reaching out and choking the consciousness itself. And what is the process that gives rise to it. Well, it is the body.


The ****'in BODY! RRRAAAAGGGGH!

*He gets on to me for being wholly irrelevant in showing the importance of the body through an anology, and then expects me to take him seriously in this little off-quest:::*

You didn't say if you'd actually do this. If you tell me you would I think you'd be lying to me.

Ok, I see this is going nowhere.

The argument with you, clearly, is that of 'the potential human'. You must show how ova and sperm are not potential humans. This will be difficult because they quite clearly are: From them humans result. Ergo, they're potential humans. It really is that simple.

Your right it is simple.

An "ova and sperm" is a potential human. A sperm, alone, is not. An ova, alone, is not. Neither, alone, result in a human. A zygote (the combination of the two) is a potential human.

You might then posit, "Oh, well. They are potential zygotes, which are potential humans. Therefore, gametes are potential humans."

But no one gamete is a potential zygote. If there was but one sperm cell in all of existence, is there a potential human? No. One egg? No. One egg and one sperm cell? Yes.

So, in other words, what you would have to do, in order to feel guilty, is to destroy the sperm and the egg, in order to destroy a human. And since you do not know which sperm cell will make it to the egg (along with a million other factors) the only way you can kill both the sperm and the egg, is by killing the zygote.

 

[Michali]

By the way, if you will attempt to dwell on the zygote "needing other things than itself" so as to prove me I am wrong, you needn't bother.

The entire process of "birth", including all of the happenings in the ovum, are all a part of the birthing process. Beginning at conception. Not at the moment you produced the certain sperm in your testicles. To halt "birth" in any way, is preventing consciousness.

You do not prevent consciousness by masturbating. There are not any agents that contain the potential to "give rise to consciousness" in your sperm. It is only when you combine a sperm with an egg, that you have the potential.

Ok. What I think may be a good refutal, is this:

By choosing not to have sex, you prevent conception.
By preventing conception, you prevent birth.
By preventing birth, you prevent consciousness.
By preventing consciousness, you kill a person.

But notice how I said earlier, that a zygote in the womb, is an isolatable process, that will eventually give rise to consciousness.

What I am trying to say, is that "your choosing not to have sex", is unrelated to "your killing a person."

At conception, as long as the process is left undisturbed by human tamperance, birth has a high chance of occuring. If you tamper with the isolatable process in order to prevent consciousness, you kill the person.

Though, yes, you did prevent conception with your choice, and you did prevent consciousness; you did not kill the person. The zygote was never isolated in order for it to be destroyed by human tamperance. And the process, beginning from conception, is the isolatable process that gives rise to consciousness. "Sex", can not be included into this process, because sex contains human choice.

Then it might be said, "Well the mother must eat to support the growing child. So, isn't that human tamperance?"

The answer is no. If she did not eat, then she'd be tampering with the process that "gives rise to consciousness". The mother's support is a part of the process, and not a human interference.

 

[justaman]

What a marvellous deconstruction, you shameless post-modernist you.

Let me get this straight.

A rock lies in the middle of the road. Depending on circumstance, it is a potential bump in your suspension, a potential stubber of your toe, a potential refuge for an ant, potential ammunition for a slingshot, a potential obstacle for a beetle, a potential danger for a skateboarder, etc.

The rock is itself a rock and will remain a rock no matter what happens. But if acted upon, circumstance gives it potential. That's what potential is.

But there is absolutely no way a sperm or ovum could ever be considered a potential human, yes? Impossible. Never happen. A human from that sperm or egg will never result, is that what you're saying? Circumstance will never give it the potential to become a human? Righto.

You're being flagrantly equivocal with your definitions, Michali. You draw the line in the sand because you need that line to justify your belief that abortion is wrong, not because the line makes any sense itself.

But let's assume you're right. The moment we humans make the irresponsible decision to have sex and conception occurs, we now have a potential human being, right? Same as a new-born? We must protect this individual from zygote to newborn, yeah? The loss of a zygote is equivalent to the loss of a 7 month foetus, that is what you're saying is it not?

What if I was to tell you 65% of zygotes do not result in a successful pregnancy, either by failing to attach to the uterus or by being spontaneously aborted by the body? What of those poor individuals who have by your standards made some arbitrary leap into human potentiality?!

The line in the sand is before consciousness occurs. That's it. Before, you merely have potential humans and your determined lack of guilt about the individuals from each sperm, egg and zygote that dies should be equally entertained for foetuses. You aren't killing anybody, they have not yet begun.

 

[seebs]

It's more than 65%. Older figures are lower because it's hard to detect the first few days of a pregnancy.

 

[Michali]

What a marvellous deconstruction, you shameless post-modernist you.

It's sad to say, but when I don't have you, I have only myself to act as the opposition.

A rock lies in the middle of the road. Depending on circumstance, it is a potential bump in your suspension, a potential stubber of your toe, a potential refuge for an ant, potential ammunition for a slingshot, a potential obstacle for a beetle, a potential danger for a skateboarder, etc.

Ok.

But there is absolutely no way a sperm or ovum could ever be considered a potential human, yes? Impossible. Never happen. A human from that sperm or egg will never result, is that what you're saying? Circumstance will never give it the potential to become a human? Righto.

Righto. And I'm going to have to repeat myself, aren't I?

An egg is not a potential human. Just like a blue berry is not a potential pie. A blueberry cannot become a pie, in and of itself.

It's like, you have a blue berry, you put it in the unbaked blueberry pie. Now the unbaked pie is potentially a "baked pie" once it is being heated in the oven. If you pull the pie out prematurely, and throw it in my face, you've removed the potential for a baked blueberry pie.

You're being flagrantly equivocal with your definitions, Michali. You draw the line in the sand because you need that line to justify your belief that abortion is wrong, not because the line makes any sense itself.

*Justaman plays out the typical atheist, by demeaning his opponent through some amature form of psychology. He claims Michali is equivocating, when, all the while, justaman is actually confused, or playing confused. He acts as if he knows what Michali is thinking.* (irony intended)

But let's assume you're right. The moment we humans make the irresponsible decision to have sex and conception occurs, we now have a potential human being, right?

right

Same as a new-born?

We have the same moral responsibility towards it, yes.

We must protect this individual from zygote to newborn, yeah?

"Protect"? Odd word, but ok.

The loss of a zygote is equivalent to the loss of a 7 month foetus, that is what you're saying is it not?

Yes. The moral worth is the same.

What if I was to tell you 65% of zygotes do not result in a successful pregnancy, either by failing to attach to the uterus or by being spontaneously aborted by the body?

Then... That means the parents intentionally killed it? I don't think so.

What of those poor individuals who have by your standards made some arbitrary leap into human potentiality?!

Man, use commas. I can't understand your sentences.

What are you saying? They are dead. An unfortunate loss. The parents did not murder them. It was accidental, and an unintentional death.

The line in the sand is before consciousness occurs. That's it. Before, you merely have potential humans and your determined lack of guilt about the individuals from each sperm, egg and zygote that dies should be equally entertained for foetuses. You aren't killing anybody, they have not yet begun.

You just stated the moral agent in your sentence:

"They have not yet begun." It is conceivable, in your mind, that a zygote is a potential human. Infact, you act as though it were "a human that has not begun". This, alone, tugs on our sympathies. And what is considered morally good to follow: Our sympathies and compassions, or our wants and personal desires? (not that it has any real impact on the discussion)

 

[flicka]

Conception is just the beginning and people need to understand that left alone that fertilized egg will not become a living human. My doctor explained to me that there is so much that must happen within the womans body to keep that potential life moving forward and any little mishap will result in a miscarriage...and those mishaps happen all too frequently. I'm not a medical expert but I have had 2 miscarriages very early on and altho I was saddened by the loss of a potential child I did not grieve as if I lost a newborn or even a 7 month old fetus because I realized that the 'child' had not yet come into existence. This is my personal opinion on the matter and I don't expect to change anyones mind but I just wanted to throw in my .02.

 

[Michali]

Conception is just the beginning and people need to understand that left alone that fertilized egg will not become a living human. My doctor explained to me that there is so much that must happen within the womans body to keep that potential life moving forward and any little mishap will result in a miscarriage...and those mishaps happen all too frequently. I'm not a medical expert but I have had 2 miscarriages very early on and altho I was saddened by the loss of a potential child I did not grieve as if I lost a newborn or even a 7 month old fetus because I realized that the 'child' had not yet come into existence. This is my personal opinion on the matter and I don't expect to change anyones mind but I just wanted to throw in my .02.

I mean, I understand that. I believe that you don't need to feel bad, not because there wasn't anyone there to kill, but because you didn't kill anything. A miscarriage is a very misfortunate occurance, and I'm sure you wouldn't wish it to occur. But it's not your fault.

 

[justaman]

It's sad to say, but when I don't have you, I have only myself to act as the opposition.

I'm here for you champ

Become an atheist already and you can take me on re. nihilism like David and Zoot. Both have failed (though don't tell them I said that!)

An egg is not a potential human. Just like a blue berry is not a potential pie. A blueberry cannot become a pie, in and of itself.

This is different. The blueberry does not, in combination with other elements, spawn anything. The blueberry remains a blueberry and is not a catalyst for a subsequent chain of events.

Then... That means the parents intentionally killed it? I don't think so.

Who cares about intention. I'm talking about prevention. If you consider a zygote to be equivalent in moral terms to a newborn - which you say you do - then we must morally fight as hard to save a zygote as a new-born. If a newborn is lying on the floor and is not attended to, it will die. If zygotes are not attended to, the majority of them would die.

Due to your definitions, women are doing the equivalent of 'killing' (more than according to seebs) 65% of new borns that they produce.

This is the problem with the 'potential human' argument. It fails practical standards because the line you have drawn requires all zygotes to be treated as humans and we are morally obliged to save their lives as any other life of a human. We don't for a very good reason: it's silly.

"They have not yet begun." It is conceivable, in your mind, that a zygote is a potential human. Infact, you act as though it were "a human that has not begun". This, alone, tugs on our sympathies. And what is considered morally good to follow: Our sympathies and compassions, or our wants and personal desires? (not that it has any real impact on the discussion)

A zygote is very definitely a potential human being. But so is every egg and sperm wasted. I feel equally guiltless about all.

To kill someone, they must first exist.

One more thing, I'll use your crazy Dr Who analogy back on you. Say there's someone's thumb been left over from a nasty crash. Now you could clone that thumb and get any number of potential humans. So if you destroy that thumb, are you not destroying all of those poor unfortunate potential humans along with it??