[Mefustae]

You're assuming an awful lot by saying it has no opinion of its own.  And because it can't speak, it doesn't deserve life?  Shall we euthanize the blind and deaf?  And who says it is incapable of making a decision?  I have friends who are mothers who would wholeheartedly disagree.  I've felt the kicks the 'fetus' can make as evidence.  You're just going back to the old conceited argument that you KNOW that an embryo can't be alive.

You're taking the piss, right? You're implying that something that hasn't even grown a brain yet can formulate an opinion? Now, i've always found the idea of instinct and genetic memory to be really cool, but to take it to such an extreme as to say a foetus has a desire to survive before it's even developed sentience is going a tad far.

Regardless, you'll notice that my post that you quoted didn't actually refer to a foetus as a human being or not, merely that it has no opinion on this matter. Thus, the decision defaults to the mother as the primary participant in the matter.

[Hazaanko]

You're assuming an awful lot by saying it has no opinion of its own.  And because it can't speak, it doesn't deserve life?  Shall we euthanize the blind and deaf?  And who says it is incapable of making a decision?  I have friends who are mothers who would wholeheartedly disagree.  I've felt the kicks the 'fetus' can make as evidence.  You're just going back to the old conceited argument that you KNOW that an embryo can't be alive.

You're taking the piss, right? You're implying that something that hasn't even grown a brain yet can formulate an opinion? Now, i've always found the idea of instinct and genetic memory to be really cool, but to take it to such an extreme as to say a foetus has a desire to survive before it's even developed sentience is going a tad far.

Regardless, you'll notice that my post that you quoted didn't actually refer to a foetus as a human being or not, merely that it has no opinion on this matter. Thus, the decision defaults to the mother as the primary participant in the matter.

Can a newborn 'formulate an opinion?'  How do we know it has an opinion?  Because we can then see it with our own two eyes?  On your own terms, an infant isn't really alive either.  It merely makes sounds, moves, and is multi-cellular.

An embryo - from the get-go, is an individual human entity.  Does it even matter if we can communicate with it?  Call it whatever you want.  A human embryo, a human fetus, a human infant.  It is a human.  You don't end a human's life because it doesn't contribute an opinion.

[TrashMan]

A fetus is merely a potential child you say?
In a sense that's true. There's no way to tell the future - the mother can have a natural abortion, complications may arise, heck, she might get killed tomorrow by a falling brick together with a child. So in a way it is a potential future adult.
BUT assuming everything goes alright and no one interferes with it's development it WILL become a baby.

You have a child? Well it's only a potential adult, since it may decide to kill itself or it may die due to some freak accident/desease before it reaches adulthood. But we KNOW that it WILL become an adult wihtout our interferance and baring some tragic event that's OUT OF OUR CONTROL.

So shooting the kid and using the "it's just a potential adult" phrase is a fallacy. Concetrating on what you don't know instead of what you do is a step in the wrong direction. It's not about the child/fetus dying. It's about you pulling the trigger - it's about control.

So in other words if you believe that the life begins at conception the fact is that the Catholic Church's position on contraception is take no steps to prevent the formation of new lives and just hope the body rejects them in time so they die. If you believe that life begins at conception then this practice has ended more lives than abortion ever will. So before having a go at everyone else Catholics need to take a good long look at their religion and at the very least start allowing withdrawal as a method of contraception.

Where do you get this one?
And especially the underlined. That statement makes no sense at all.

[Mefustae]

Can a newborn 'formulate an opinion?'  How do we know it has an opinion?  Because we can then see it with our own two eyes?  On your own terms, an infant isn't really alive either.  It merely makes sounds, moves, and is multi-cellular.

The difference is that there is no debate as to whether a newborn baby constitutes a human life. Therefore, any comparison is moot.

An embryo - from the get-go, is an individual human entity.  Does it even matter if we can communicate with it?  Call it whatever you want.  A human embryo, a human fetus, a human infant.  It is a human.  You don't end a human's life because it doesn't contribute an opinion.

I disagree. Many other people disagree. In fact, a whole lot of people disagree with that. Of course, a whole lot of people agree completely with you. The fact of the matter is that it's not a clear-cut case, and as everyone can't agree then we have no right to force one view or the other on women considering abortion.

Therefore, the only fair thing to do is to leave it up to the mother. If she believes her foetus is a human life, she won't have the baby. If she doesn't, she's free to make that choice. What business is it of any of ours to force any one view upon her?

[TrashMan]

I disagree. Many other people disagree. In fact, a whole lot of people disagree with that. Of course, a whole lot of people agree completely with you. The fact of the matter is that it's not a clear-cut case, and as everyone can't agree then we have no right to force one view or the other on women considering abortion.

Willing to bet that I can find people who won't agree on some pretty common moral norms or scientific facts?

I can find people who believe cannibalism is O.K. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.
I can find people who believe a whole lot of sick stuff. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.

The gist of the matter is - better to err on the side of caution, then to err on the side of convenience.

[Mefustae]

The gist of the matter is - better to err on the my side, then to err on the side of anyone else

Fixed that for you, mate.

I know i'm not going to convince you, but I might as well get my point across: We're talking about major slices of society, not just fringe groups or loonies. With major debate and no end in sight, then the only fair decision is to pick neither side and leave it up to the mother. To neither advise abortions nor restrict them, just leave it up to the woman that has to go in and get a vacuum cleaner stuck where the sun don't shine.

Now how about you challenge that notion, rather than just repeating how right you are and how wrong abortion is. Eh?

[karajorma]

I can find people who believe cannibalism is O.K. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.

We don't. But they don't have the right to force their belief that cannibalism is okay on people who think it isn't. Which means they're pretty much stuck for people to eat.

So in other words if you believe that the life begins at conception the fact is that the Catholic Church's position on contraception is take no steps to prevent the formation of new lives and just hope the body rejects them in time so they die. If you believe that life begins at conception then this practice has ended more lives than abortion ever will. So before having a go at everyone else Catholics need to take a good long look at their religion and at the very least start allowing withdrawal as a method of contraception.

Where do you get this one?
And especially the underlined. That statement makes no sense at all.

I would have thought the chain of logic was pretty easy to follow.

If you don't use condoms you get more eggs fertilised. You believe that fertilised eggs are a human life. Yet the Catholic Church insists that married couples use family planning methods that result in more eggs being fertilised and simply hoping that they don't get to implant in time to lead to a pregnancy.

In other words, more dead embryos than using a condom.

[TrashMan]

I can find people who believe cannibalism is O.K. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.

We don't. But they don't have the right to force their belief that cannibalism is okay on people who think it isn't. Which means they're pretty much stuck for people to eat.

You think they would ask politely "Can I eat you"?

I would have thought the chain of logic was pretty easy to follow.

If you don't use condoms you get more eggs fertilised. You believe that fertilised eggs are a human life. Yet the Catholic Church insists that married couples use family planning methods that result in more eggs being fertilised and simply hoping that they don't get to implant in time to lead to a pregnancy.

In other words, more dead embryos than using a condom.

It's not... planing intercourse significantly reduces chances of fertilisation. If eggs do get fertilised, what makes you think they will result in a dead embryo?
They would result in pregnancy, but how that will end up is anyone guess. Probably OK unless you actually plan on having an abortion.

Fixed that for you, mate.

I know i'm not going to convince you, but I might as well get my point across: We're talking about major slices of society, not just fringe groups or loonies. With major debate and no end in sight, then the only fair decision is to pick neither side and leave it up to the mother. To neither advise abortions nor restrict them, just leave it up to the woman that has to go in and get a vacuum cleaner stuck where the sun don't shine.

Now how about you challenge that notion, rather than just repeating how right you are and how wrong abortion is. Eh?

How conveniently it is to just ignore the consequences of your actions, isn't it?

Tell you what - I believe your life is worthless. Clearly we won't agree on that matter. therefore it's impossible to tell what is right. Since your life MAY be worthless, Why don't I just shoot you right now.

[MP-Ryan]

BUT assuming everything goes alright and no one interferes with it's development it WILL become a baby.

If eggs do get fertilised, what makes you think they will result in a dead embryo?

Because, as you among others conveniently ignored, fertilized eggs do result in a dead embryo 98% of the time, and a dead fetus about 1% of the time.  Only 1% (or possibly less) of actual fertilizations and embryonic development result in a living, breathing child at the end of the gestational period.

You want to talk about killing people after 20 weeks gestation, then you go right ahead, but by every means that we actually define a human life a developing embryo is not even remotely a person until at least that point.

However, as Mefustae has been reiterating over and over, this is a contentious issue and the debate is not going away.  In the absence of social consensus, reasonable, progressive, democractic nations err on the side of human freedoms and provide freedom of choice to human beings who we KNOW exist and we KNOW are going to impacted by the decision, rather than relying on the what-if factor.

Morally, I don't agree with women using abortion as a simple, ordinary means of birth control, but:
1.  That case is rare anyway; relatively few abortions are the result of an ordinary accidental pregnancy.
2.  I wouldn't dream of letting my personal morals directly, significantly, and continually impact the individual lives in which I have no stake.

I notice nobody bothered to address my points on how the organizations that are the biggest anti-abortion advocates kill fully developed adults and children on a daily basis either.  I'd like that hypocrisy explained somewhere if you want to keep going on about how wrong it is to kill embryos.

[karajorma]

I can find people who believe cannibalism is O.K. So by your logic, since not everyone agrees, we have no right to force our view on them.

We don't. But they don't have the right to force their belief that cannibalism is okay on people who think it isn't. Which means they're pretty much stuck for people to eat.

You think they would ask politely "Can I eat you"?

If they wanted their cannibalism to not be considered a crime they would have to. I have no problem with two cannibals of sound mind eating each other. The problem is that they'd have to prove themselves of sound mind and I suspect that's the hurdle they'd fall at, not whether it is moral to eat another human being. As long as both parties are willing why is it anyone else's business?

You're trying to turn it into some stupid comment about how it is okay to allow a cannibal to attack and kill random people off the street which is a complete strawman as you damn well know.

It's not... planing intercourse significantly reduces chances of fertilisation. If eggs do get fertilised, what makes you think they will result in a dead embryo?
They would result in pregnancy, but how that will end up is anyone guess. Probably OK unless you actually plan on having an abortion.

Go back and study some biology before you try telling me I'm wrong.

Fertilisation != pregnancy. A woman is not pregnant until the embryo has implanted. Something that usually occurs 6 days after fertilisation if it occurs!

Many fertilisations do NOT result in implantation and thus do not result in pregnancy. In many cases this is because the couple using the Rhythm Method deliberately avoid intercourse so that fertilisation only occurs during the time it is unlikely to result in implantation.

The Rhythm Method results in a lot more fertilisations than barrier contraception does. So if you do believe that life begins at conception it's a pretty callous method of birth control. The couple deliberately abstain from sex during the time of the month when sex will result in pregnancy and only have sex during the time when fertilisation may occur but the embryo will most likely die since it is unlikely to implant.

[Flipside]

And to claim that life only begins once the egg is implanted in the wall of the womb and growing would be a perfect example of what I meant by the moment of life being 'where it is convenient' for what you accept personally.

Thing is, if, all of a sudden, it got moved forward a couple of days, why not a couple of weeks or months? It's already proved that the moment of life moves around for convenience, so why should it be to one particular groups convenience alone?

[Mobius]

And to claim that life only begins once the egg is implanted in the wall of the womb and growing would be a perfect example of what I meant by the moment of life being 'where it is convenient' for what you accept personally.

Thing is, if, all of a sudden, it got moved forward a couple of days, why not a couple of weeks or months? It's already proved that the moment of life moves around for convenience, so why should it be to one particular groups convenience alone?

I'm not against abortion just because I consider an embryo a human being. The fact that the embryo is a potential human being is sufficient.

[TrashMan]

I'll have to look into some of those statements.. My biology is a little rusty (had a crappy professor sadly)

[Agent_Koopa]

And to claim that life only begins once the egg is implanted in the wall of the womb and growing would be a perfect example of what I meant by the moment of life being 'where it is convenient' for what you accept personally.

Thing is, if, all of a sudden, it got moved forward a couple of days, why not a couple of weeks or months? It's already proved that the moment of life moves around for convenience, so why should it be to one particular groups convenience alone?

I'm not against abortion just because I consider an embryo a human being. The fact that the embryo is a potential human being is sufficient.

The embryo is a potential human being. This is true. But so is a sperm cell. So is an ovum. These are both potential human parts. Does a bundle of cells need your protection? Does it have rights? It is human by definition, of course. But a person? Do you consider this to be a person? It cannot think. I doubt it could feel. It has not made a single decision in the short period it has been an organized structure of cells. If you allow it to grow, sure. But for now, it is just another step along the road to creating a thinking, feeling, deciding person, just like your sperm cells are right now. Your sperm cells have exactly the same amount of sentience as a newly-fertilized egg. An embryo has no rights because it is not a person. It has no thoughts, it has no feelings. It is the preparation, the groundwork for a human being to grow from. It is not a person, it has no personality, it has no culture, it is just an embryo. It is body, not mind, not soul. It is barely even that. How do you define "person"?

[Hazaanko]

And to claim that life only begins once the egg is implanted in the wall of the womb and growing would be a perfect example of what I meant by the moment of life being 'where it is convenient' for what you accept personally.

Thing is, if, all of a sudden, it got moved forward a couple of days, why not a couple of weeks or months? It's already proved that the moment of life moves around for convenience, so why should it be to one particular groups convenience alone?

I'm not against abortion just because I consider an embryo a human being. The fact that the embryo is a potential human being is sufficient.

The embryo is a potential human being. This is true. But so is a sperm cell. So is an ovum. These are both potential human parts. Does a bundle of cells need your protection? Does it have rights? It is human by definition, of course. But a person? Do you consider this to be a person? It cannot think. I doubt it could feel. It has not made a single decision in the short period it has been an organized structure of cells. If you allow it to grow, sure. But for now, it is just another step along the road to creating a thinking, feeling, deciding person, just like your sperm cells are right now. Your sperm cells have exactly the same amount of sentience as a newly-fertilized egg. An embryo has no rights because it is not a person. It has no thoughts, it has no feelings. It is the preparation, the groundwork for a human being to grow from. It is not a person, it has no personality, it has no culture, it is just an embryo. It is body, not mind, not soul. It is barely even that. How do you define "person"?

No, not really.  Of themselves they have no potential to become and individual whatsoever.
I myself, just as you are (unless you are a robot, as some may suspect), a bundle of cells.  Mixed chromosomes.  I am: neither my father nor my mother ever since conception.  And boy... am I glad I survived Roe vs. Wade.
And once again... you do not know if it has a 'personality', a 'culture', nor 'soul'.  You said yourself it is just based upon doubt.  Now that seems like a hasty assumption.  Are you willing to bet upon the stakes of another person's life for that?

[Mefustae]

And once again... you do not know if it has a 'personality', a 'culture', nor 'soul'.  You said yourself it is just based upon doubt.  Now that seems like a hasty assumption.  Are you willing to bet upon the stakes of another person's life for that?

You're working on a completely baseless proposition: That an embryo or foetus can form personality or is capable of decision-making processes. Since there is quite literally no evidence to suggest anything of the sort, why even consider it? For that matter, since there is no evidence to back up your opinion, why should that opinion be held in any higher regard at all against any other? We're seeing a lot of "maybes", "probablys" and other assumptions, but when it comes down to it, most people weighing in on this discussion don't really know all that much. In fact, that's actually the case for this entire debate in modern society, in that most people who like to weigh in with their opinion really don't know squat about the fine details.

Therefore, as no clear option appears to be the 'right' one, we must leave the decision up to the person who will undergo the procedure: The mother. The will of the foetus is irrelevant as it is yet to be even suggested that the foetus has a will of its own.

And boy... am I glad I survived Roe vs. Wade.

Your parents considered aborting you? And they actually told you they had considered aborting you?!

[Hazaanko]

And once again... you do not know if it has a 'personality', a 'culture', nor 'soul'.  You said yourself it is just based upon doubt.  Now that seems like a hasty assumption.  Are you willing to bet upon the stakes of another person's life for that?

You're working on a completely baseless proposition: That an embryo or foetus can form personality or is capable of decision-making processes. Since there is quite literally no evidence to suggest anything of the sort, why even consider it? For that matter, since there is no evidence to back up your opinion, why should that opinion be held in any higher regard at all against any other? We're seeing a lot of "maybes", "probablys" and other assumptions, but when it comes down to it, most people weighing in on this discussion don't really know all that much. In fact, that's actually the case for this entire debate in modern society, in that most people who like to weigh in with their opinion really don't know squat about the fine details.

Therefore, as no clear option appears to be the 'right' one, we must leave the decision up to the person who will undergo the procedure: The mother. The will of the foetus is irrelevant as it is yet to be even suggested that the foetus has a will of its own.

And boy... am I glad I survived Roe vs. Wade.

Your parents considered aborting you? And they actually told you they had considered aborting you?!

Based on the limited science that certain people profess to 'know'....  We really don't know.  There really ARE a lot of maybes and probablys.
Pro-abortionists are also working on completely baseless propositions.  That the embryo ISN'T capable of deciding, or doesn't have a personality (which to me and many others is an absolutely ridiculous assumption).  At that point, it basically becomes eugenics all over again - because you're classifying a human by what it is or isn't capable of doing.  There is also no evidence that the embryo doesn't have a will of its own.

And I agree that it should be left up to the mother in certain circumstances.  For example: rape victims, or where the mother's life is in serious jeopardy from complications in the pregnancy etc.
But abortions of convenience: no.

[karajorma]

Pretty ****ing hard to have a personality or culture when you're a bundle of 8 cells and have no brain yet though surely?

Will you at least agree that an early embryo hasn't got an of the features Koopa mentioned (except for a soul which is quite frankly unprovable in either direction).

[Hazaanko]

Pretty ****ing hard to have a personality or culture when you're a bundle of 8 cells and have no brain yet though surely?

Will you at least agree that an early embryo hasn't got an of the features Koopa mentioned (except for a soul which is quite frankly unprovable in either direction).

I'm not going to say that it *doesn't* have them because I really don't know.  But I can certainly see where you're coming from - and you already know this was coming, but its not necessarily culture or personality that makes it human.  At least, not the definition of culture or personality that you're thinking of.  But there really is no way to tell.  Do we even know if a newborn infant is capable of having its own personality or culture?  Or is it just inherited from the parent?  I personally -believe- that a large part of who a person is begins right at conception.  You are your DNA, after all.  Or, pray-tell, are you actually saying that there is such a thing as the soul?!?!!? *gasp*

[karajorma]

Of course I'm not saying that there is such a thing. Re-read my post.

 And no you are not your DNA.

I'm not going to say that it *doesn't* have them because I really don't know.

But then if you're going to use the I really don't know argument how can you say any animal doesn't have them? Do you have an objection to killing flies? Cause a fly has a much more advanced brain than an 8 cell embryo. Are you going to try to say we know flies don't have culture?