Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

"You're really not going to discuss your faulty argument anymore? Shall I conclude I won?" -- Rue
AH, that's right. I missed that one. And the point of this was ???

You say you've already answered the question. Perhaps I missed that one too. So you wouldn't mind cutting and pasting the answer - how would you feel about flushing a placenta down the toilet? (or slightly different words). But however worded, I'm asking SPECIFICALLY about the placenta.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 7:00 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

how would you feel about flushing a placenta down the toilet?

I don't think Finn would be down with that 'cause, you know...clog.

Deep Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 7:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha Ha ha ha ha ha .... snort .. ha ha ha ha ha he hee hee hee hee .... : wipes tears from eyes :

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 4:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Swenyways Finn,

I'd still like to know. I can see the point ChrisIsAll made about not wanting to flush a placenta down the toilet.

So, would you

1) give it a funeral and burial
or
2) have it disposed of as medical waste?

Just a placenta mind you - nothing else.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 6:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I don't think Finn would be down with that 'cause, you know...clog.

That did come actually to mind, but really I think there is a public sewer issue with flushing biological waste. Maybe there is a placentae exception clause, I don’t know.

I kind of thought this whole placenta question was rhetorical. I didn't actually think that anyone was going to demand an answer to it.

The issue came up in concordance with the argument that the embryo doesn’t always develop, and sometimes all that does develop is a placenta, from which was implied that the intended result of fertilization is a placenta alone. But if you believe that the purpose of fertilization is to produce offspring, then how do you argue that the intended result of that fertilization is a placenta without an embryo? At the very least it seems inconsistent; it seems infinitely more plausible that the lack of an embryo was just a ‘dud’ (for lack of a better term). If you don't believe that the purpose of fertilization is to produce offspring, then what is it for? Producing sole placentae?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 6:51 PM

Neither. I would go with option three:

3) Allow the hospital to take care of it for me. Because I know the hospital will give it a proper Irish Catholic burial.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 9:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The issue came up in concordance with the argument that the embryo doesn’t always develop, and sometimes all that does develop is a placenta, from which was implied that the intended result of fertilization is a placenta alone. But if you believe that the purpose of fertilization is to produce offspring, then how do you argue that the intended result of that fertilization is a placenta without an embryo? At the very least it seems inconsistent; it seems infinitely more plausible that the lack of an embryo was just a ‘dud’ (for lack of a better term). If you don't believe that the purpose of fertilization is to produce offspring, then what is it for? Producing sole placentae?

What the heck are you talking about, Finn? Who "intends" anything about fertilization? Whose "purpose" are you talking about?

I said before that both you and DT are idealists. I'm supposing that your explanation for a fetus not developing is that it wasn't "meant (by who?) to be" and therefore no "humanity" was ever bestowed on the fertilized egg, and so flushing a placenta down the toilet is no desecration to "human-ness"?

So, you draw a line between a fetus and a placenta. It must be somewhat humaniform in order to meet your definition of human. If so, what about an anencephalic fetus? They look like nothing so much as a sort of pinkish rubbery grub. What about that?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 11, 2006 1:04 AM

CITIZEN

Can I just point something out.

Finn says "give me one time where the Human child doesn't develop and you've won" or words to that effect.

He's given that and splutters "Well, that's not important, because because, it's not that's why, erm the reason behind, the erm, fertilisation is erm babies yeah!"

Go on Finn, say it, "Every Sperm is sacred you fucking baby killers"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 11, 2006 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What the heck are you talking about, Finn? Who "intends" anything about fertilization? Whose "purpose" are you talking about?.

What is the purpose of fertilization? Why did nature create it? In the broadest sense, what would you say is its principle benefit to life? These are all the same question. I've posed them in three different ways in the hopes that the three together will allow you understand what I'm asking without dismissing me based on my ignorance of Obstetric terminology.

An Anancephalic is a human being.

Human life begins at fertilization, and if it fails to develop, there is no more reason to believe that "someone" meant for it not to be, then to believe that if a person dies that "someone" meant for that person not to be. Dieing is a characteristic of being human, as it is a characteristic of all life. That a fertilized egg may die, for whatever reason, prior to becoming a fully developed human child doesn’t suggest that the fertilized egg was ever not human. A placenta, on the other hand, is a human organ, by definition it is not a complete human, anymore then a human lung is a complete human.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 11, 2006 1:27 AM

ANNUETTE

There are a thousand and one reason to debate for and against abortion but it comes down to choice, taking into consideration for each individual all of the following (and perhaps more)

Responsibility- can you emotionally, physically and financially support that child.

Religion-plays a part but in all honesty, irrelervant except for the womans views (yes the man's is important too but lets face it in the case of a lot of abortions, daddy's PO somewhere)

Health factors-mother and fetus

I can see from all sides of the argument here, part of my job is to extract from cells, some of those cells are aborted fetus', products of conception and amnios.

For against abortion:It's always heartbreaking to see a family come in having lost a child, spurning the argument should anyone have the right to abort a healthy baby when others can't have them.

Yes, we're back to choice again. No one should be judged or made to feel guilty for doing what is best for them. No one has the right to do that.

For abortion: On the other side of it we test babies which look ill in the womb for arious disorders. Is this right? Can debate that all you like but is it fair for a woman whose child has a terrible, debilitating disease to have to do through with that pregnancy? For her baby or herself? No not in some cases, not for what we test for. Because at the end of it, without the abortion that family would be left with a child who from the moment it breathed would feel pain, and nothing but pain and then die. Most of our disorders, involve infant or young child death.

Is it fair anyone finds themself having to chose in that situation? No-but life is not fair. Take away someones choice, its being just as unfair, if not more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 11, 2006 5:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What is the purpose of fertilization? Why did nature create it? In the broadest sense, what would you say is its principle benefit to life?

You're asking the wrong questions. Let me follow a similar tack of another natural phenomenon and perhaps you'll see the problem: What is the purpose of water? Why did nature create it? In it's broadest sense, what would you say its its principal benefit to the earth?

ALL of your questions assume some sort of "intent" or goal. But nature has no "intent". It didn't create fertilization "in order to" benefit life. Life "occurred" and fertilization eventually developed as part of SOME processes. People often ask "why" when "how" makes more sense: How was water created? How does fertilization affect species survivability?

But asking "why" always... always...assumes intent. If you ask it long enough, you will eventually be forced to create a sentient being in order to satisfy the question, whether you call that being Mother Nature or God.

Quote:
A placenta, on the other hand, is a human organ, by definition it is not a complete human anymore then a human lung is a complete human.

You've repeated "fully developed and complete" several times. What you seem to be saying is that IF EVERYTHING HAPPENED IDEALLY the fertilized egg would always become (the ideal) human. That is "why" you assume that every fertilized egg IS human: because it has no other "purpose".

I can approach this assumptions two ways:

(1) If fertilization is for the purpose of creating more humans, what is the purpose of creating more humans?

I'll save the other approach for later.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 11, 2006 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What is the purpose of water? Why did nature create it? In it's broadest sense, what would you say its its principal benefit to the earth?

That’s not the same thing. Water did not develop in the course any evolution. It forms as a result of the proximity of Hydrogen and Oxygen ions. Fertilization did. One need not necessarily presume the existence of a god to suggest that a purpose exists for fertilization; the purpose is evident in the process. A similar tract, might be to ask what is the purpose of opposable thumbs? Life reproduces itself and human life reproduces as a result of a fertilization process. The purpose of fertilization is therefore the reproduction of human life.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
(1) If fertilization is for the purpose of creating more humans, what is the purpose of creating more humans?.

Life. Life sustains itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
One need not necessarily presume the existence of a god to suggest that a purpose exists for fertilization; the purpose is evident in the process.

There is NO "purpose" to evolution. You seem to think the there is an end-goal to various developments. In fact, MANY developments are evolutionary dead-ends. So fertilization "occured". It was survivable. It conferred enough of a benefit on the organism in which it occurred to be a self-sustaining process.

But many living organisms, and all organisms on the boundary between "alive" and "not alive" reproduce WITHOUT fertilization. Fertilization per se isn't "necessary" for reproduction, as there are other reproductive mechanisms evident. If I recall what Rue said correctly, bacteria, protazoa and other single-celled organisms reproduce by "twinning".... in essence, cloning themselves. That should lead to a static species, but it doesn't because (if I recall correctly) these species have a much higher mutation rate than multi-celled organisms. They survive a high mutation rate as a species simply because of their extremely rapid reproduciton: make a lot, toss out a fair chunk. Any single-celled organism with a high mutation rate and a slow reproduction rate would quickly commit genetic suicide. Any single-celled organism with static genes and a high reproduction rate could be astoundingly successful, but only in an exact niche. It would not be able to compete for new niches that opened up, or to accomodate a changed environment.

However, complex organisms "invest" a lot in development, which necessarily slows down their reproduction. A slow-reproducing species with a high genetic mutation rate would not be viable very long. A slow-reproducing species with static genes would die out in the long run because it would be unable to compete for new niches. The unique feature of fertilization is the combination of genes from two DIFFERENT parents, which allows a unique gene combination to be expressed. If I had to postulate an advantage that fertilization confers on a species- humans specifically, is NOT because it's "purpose" is to create more humans but because it creates DIFFERENT humans... it tosses the dice in the process of reproduction, and creates disorder.

Quote:
A similar tract, might be to ask what is the purpose of opposable thumbs?

None. Like fertilization, it occurred, and either conferred enough of an advantage (in the right setting) to be survivable, or it didn't. You don't see opposable thumbs in animals that run quickly for example. And development along those lines would be counterproductive and would die off quickly.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 6:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just some additional musings... All we see around us are the "successful" species... the ones that are thriving today... and from that apparent order and abundance and complexity we feel that this is "meant to be". But our world is literally littered with the bones of failures.... the millions of species that died in cataclysm or withered in evolutionary dead-ends. Nature spawns EVERYTHING ... from the immediately fatal to the hundred-million-year survivor species.

I sometimes wonder about our evolutionary path. Our clever dodges around the species-killers but profligate use of resources has us behaving like bacteria in a petri-dish...following the S-shaped curve of reproduction. In a scifi kind of way, I imagine a future intelligent species looking at our geologic/ paleontologic record: massive species loss, acidic carbonate depositions, traces of heavy metals and chlorinated polycyclic chemicals everywhere... and looking wildy for a meteor strike or major vulcanism to explain all of the findings. Because it would be inconceivable to them that a species that was so clever about creating hive-like living spaces measuring many square miles would be so stupid as to breed itself out of existance.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 7:19 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just some additional musings... All we see around us are the "successful" species... the ones that are thriving today... and from that apparent order and abundance and complexity we feel that this is "meant to be". But our world is literally littered with the bones of failures.... the millions of species that died in cataclysm or withered in evolutionary dead-ends. Nature spawns EVERYTHING ... from the immediately fatal to the hundred-million-year survivor species.

The difference bettween the Strong and Weak Anthropic principles. The Universe is the way it is so we can live, or we are the way we are because of the way the Universe is.

Quote:
I sometimes wonder about our evolutionary path. Our clever dodges around the species-killers but profligate use of resources has us behaving like bacteria in a petri-dish...following the S-shaped curve of reproduction. In a scifi kind of way, I imagine a future intelligent species looking at our geologic/ paleontologic record: massive species loss, acidic carbonate depositions, traces of heavy metals and chlorinated polycyclic chemicals everywhere... and looking wildy for a meteor strike or major vulcanism to explain all of the findings. Because it would be inconceivable to them that a species that was so clever about creating hive-like living spaces measuring many square miles would be so stupid as to breed itself out of existance.

I read a book in the not too distant past that mused that maybe creatures like Dolphins were more intelligent than us. They are intelligent enough to be able to build nuclear weapons, the internal combustion engine, nets that sweep the ocean clean, but they aren't stupid enough to do it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:45 AM

I’m not arguing that there is any such “end-goal” to evolution, but that doesn’t mean that biological mechanisms serve no purpose. You seem to think that the only way something can serve a purpose is if that purpose was pre-ordained, but in reality, the benefit that fertilization provides for some organism is to serve the purpose of reproduction, and one need not assume that this was pre-ordained. It might have been, but there’s reason to demand it. In the case of protozoa, perhaps other biological mechanisms serve that purpose, but there is no doubt that the purpose is being served by one biological process or another, or otherwise, reproduction wouldn’t occur. And organisms that developed no biological process for sustaining their species, probably don’t exist anymore, unless they were in some way immortal.

And there is the problem that I see in your point. If all of these biological mechanisms that were ultimately selected by nature, actually serve no purpose to life, then why were they selected? The Theory of Evolution demands that we accept that a biological mechanism can, in fact, serve a purpose, because if it does not serve a purpose, if it does not provide some benefit, then it will not be selected by nature.

Opposable thumbs developed because they served a purpose. The purpose they served was in greater manipulation of the physical environment, which along with other things, such as increased mental capacity, allowed for the use of tools. Opposable thumbs didn’t develop in animals that run quickly, because they serve no purpose to an animal that doesn’t rely on using its hands to manipulate its environment.

Actually, I believe that there are examples of things in nature that have continued to survive, because they serve no purpose, and simply never got in the way. The aforementioned appendix is one such useless item. It may have once served the purpose of processing indigestible plant material, but at some point in our ancestry, we must have stopped relying on the digestion of cellulose for survival.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

If I may step in qiuckly to comment on your previous post. You've concluded that if no embryo develops then it must have 'died'. And if in fact it had been there alive and then 'died' it would still be there, but dead, rotting and septic. But there is no rotting sepsis, just a live and healthy but empty placenta.

It didn't 'live' and then 'die'; it failed to come into being. There's a difference between 'never having been' and 'having been - and then dying'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

WHAT???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 2:52 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- biological mechanisms serve no PURPOSE. They do however have an EFFECT. I know this seems like splitting hairs but it's not. "Purpose" even in common usage, means "intent" - You spilled it on purpose!

Quote:
And there is the problem that I see in your point. If all of these biological mechanisms that were ultimately selected by nature, actually serve no purpose to life, then why were they selected? The Theory of Evolution demands that we accept that a biological mechanism can, in fact, serve a purpose, because if it does not serve a purpose, if it does not provide some benefit, then it will not be selected by nature. Opposable thumbs developed because they served a purpose. The purpose they served was in greater manipulation of the physical environment, which along with other things, such as increased mental capacity, allowed for the use of tools. Opposable thumbs didn’t develop in animals that run quickly, because they serve no purpose to an animal that doesn’t rely on using its hands to manipulate its environment.

Again, it's a misuse of the word "purpose". Nature selects for characteristics that increase chances of survival (in a specific environment)... nature doesn't selects for "purposes". For example, opposable thumbs. You would not likely find opposable thumbs developing de novo in a plains environment, where animals tend to be geared toward speed for locomotion. You WILL find it in tree-dwelling and shoreline animals, where their primary locomotion is not running. And your last sentence... they serve no purpose to an animal that doesn't rely on using its hands is completely circular reasoning.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

The "WHAT ??" post - are you referring to a post under your name that you replaced with "WHAT ??" ? Or was it in reference to my post, which in turn referred to Finn's post where he ambled around the idea a fertilized egg is a human that dies if you get only a placenta - "Human life begins at fertilization, and if it fails to develop, there is no more reason to believe that "someone" meant for it not to be, then to believe that if a person dies that "someone" meant for that person not to be. Dieing is a characteristic of being human, as it is a characteristic of all life. That a fertilized egg may die, for whatever reason, prior to becoming a fully developed human child doesn’t suggest that the fertilized egg was ever not human."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:14 PM

CAUSAL

Nay.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- biological mechanisms serve no PURPOSE. They do however have a FUNCTION. I know this seems like splitting hairs but it's not. Using words like "purpose" and asking questions like "why" predetermine the answer.

Yes, it does seem like splitting hairs. But it’s not really important. If you don’t like that I say that a biological mechanism serves a purpose, then feel free to replace that with “has a function.” My point won’t change.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,

If I may step in qiuckly to comment on your previous post. You've concluded that if no embryo develops then it must have 'died'. And if in fact it had 'died', it would be there, rotting and septic. But there is no rotting sepsis, just a live and healthy but empty placenta.

It’s probably more likely that it would be expelled or reabsorbed, then that it would rot and cause sepsis, but okay, the embryo didn’t develop. I’m not disputing that, but I still don’t think that means that the “function” of fertilization is the production of solitary placenta.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?

Causal
Nay.

--------------------------

For your sake I hope you're never in a position to have to think about it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, let's recap your "point". Fertilization has a "purpose" (a goal) which is to reproduce... humans, in this case. Therefore if you thwart the "purpose" of fertilization you're committing murder.

To go back to DT's concept of the 7:29 train, it's like looking at a pile of parts and saying.... those parts have a "purpose", which is to build the 7:29 train. Therefore, if you destroy those parts you've destroyed the "purpose" of those parts and therefore you've destroyed the train.

If I view fertilization as a PROCESS and not a PURPOSE then there is no innate ideal human just waiting to be developed, there is a series of changes which usually produces a human but often produces something else.

EDITED TO ADD: I realize it's an emotionally unfulfilling position in our idealist Judeo-Xtian culture.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, since I didn't get a reply I assume you've gone off to Washington or OCUNUS or wherever, so I'll pop this up for your perusal once. TTUL

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:35 AM

Here are a couple of articles to add fuel to the fire.

1.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20715103-401,00.html

SCIENTISTS in Britain have applied for a licence to create hybrid embryos using human cells and animal eggs for stem cell research to develop new treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's, stroke and Alzheimer's.

2.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2437921,00.html

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies

ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies. The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

Yay or nay?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

Your post was clear and convincing, as usual.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, let's recap your "point". Fertilization has a "purpose" (a goal) which is to reproduce... humans, in this case. Therefore if you thwart the "purpose" of fertilization you're committing murder.

To go back to DT's concept of the 7:29 train, it's like looking at a pile of parts and saying.... those parts have a "purpose", which is to build the 7:29 train. Therefore, if you destroy those parts you've destroyed the "purpose" of those parts and therefore you've destroyed the train.

If I view fertilization as a PROCESS and not a PURPOSE then there is no innate ideal human just waiting to be developed, there is a series of changes which usually produces a human but often produces something else.

EDITED TO ADD: I realize it's an emotionally unfulfilling position in our idealist Judeo-Xtian culture.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

Here is where embryonic stem cell reserarch might offer an answer. To date, scientists don't know how an embryo fails to differentiate. At this point, all they know is that there are no microscopically incipient embryonic structures. For example, there are no clusters of cells that go on to form the embryonic disc. As far as they can see, the embryo simply fails to form at the very earliest stages.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- IMHO it depends on whether the baby is suffering or not. Some profoundly disabled (total care) children are extraordinarily happy. Others are in constant agony.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:28 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yay or nay?

Since we're talking things that have nothing to do with anything:

Religious Theocracies where Extreme religious fanatics like Fundementalist Muslims or Evangical Christians get to murder non-believers.

Yay or nay?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- IMHO it depends on whether the baby is suffering or not.

Euthanasia is always a very difficult question when immense suffering is involved. However, whether euthanasia is justified was not what I was trying to get at.

I apologize that in my hurry, I did not clearly explain why I posted those 2 articles in this thread.

The first article has to do with the sanctity, if any, of human embryos. Would prochoice folks favor animal-human hybrid embryo experimentation? For example, I am prochoice, but these Sandeman-wannabes (Dark Angel reference) turn my stomach. Saying women have more legal rights than embryos is very different from saying embryos should have no rights at all (and therefore can be fooled around with willy-nilly).

The second article has the following quotation:

Quote:
The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said.

Here, the question is not whether a fetus is a human being, but whether it is ok to kill a human being (be it a term fetus/newborn) under the umbrella of euthanasia. My problem with this issue is that euthanasia usually implies the consent of the euthanized. In the case of babies, that consent is not available. Whereas I support the right of parents to decide for their children, I wonder if that right should end when they want their children killed. (We're not talking about terminating life support, but actual killing.) Absence of consent changes the ethics of the killing considerably. Would prochoice folks support late-term abortion for euthanasia purposes? Would they support it a few days later after the baby is born?

For myself, my support for choice is very reluctant, especially for late-term abortions. The only thing that tips me over to choice is that the fetus is inside a woman's body, which must remain off-limits to government on principle. However, once that fetus is out of the woman's body, her rights can no longer supercede the child's, on principle. Once we allow unilateral euthanasia on newborns, it would just be a matter of time before age is no longer a factor.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!' Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
-- Source unknown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Would prochoice folks favor animal-human hybrid embryo experimentation?"

I suspect these 'hybrids' wouldn't go anywhere, developmentally b/c of the genetics mis-match. Also, there are roughly 30 products on the market now where human genes have been transferred into bacteria, mold or other cell lines, to make pharmaceuticals (like human erythropoietin). I have the list elsewhere, so if you're interested, bump this up to the top and I'll get back to you.

I worked with a woman who knew (along w/ her husband) that their unborn fetus had a genetic abnormality incompatable with life. Rather than abort they went through with the pregnancy so they could 'say goodbye' to their baby - who died a few hours after birth in severe respiratory distress. I thought their decision was selfish, thoughtless, and cruel.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Also, there are roughly 30 products on the market now where human genes have been transferred into bacteria...

Somehow a small percentage of human seems less offensive than than mostly human, with a touch of cow. Mostly human approximates a "person" (or potential person), and it seems more wrong to mess with a "person." Ya know?

Quote:
I thought their decision was selfish, thoughtless, and cruel.

Of course, it's your prerogative to hold such opinions. I suspect the underlying assumption is that dying as an embryo is less painful than dying as a fetus, which is still less painful than dying as a baby. I question whether that assumption is true, or is always true. An alternative viewpoint could be that the baby got to live longer in the warmth of the womb, and that its death by respiratory distress was not necessarily more painful than death by abortion (which, if the fetus feels any pain at all, is not pretty).

Either way, if one is prochoice, then choice has got to be the ultimate principle--whether the choice is to abort or to carry to term. Right?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
-- Arthur Bloch

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi CTS,

"SCIENTISTS in Britain have applied for a licence to create hybrid embryos using human cells and animal eggs for stem cell research to develop new treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's, stroke and Alzheimer's."

The idea is to put a human nucleus into an animal egg. So the nuclear human DNA never gets recombined with animal DNA (the mitochondrial DNA comes from animals.) This was the topic of another thread; the same thing was done in 2003 in China. At the time there was evidence that the cells couldn't undergo more than a few divisions. I did a really quick check, I haven't found anything yet that says that has changed.

As to death by respiratory distress v early abortion - I've had sad occassion to see a number of people with resp. distr. I suspect if you were to take blood epinephrine and cortisol levles you'd find them to be very high - indicating biological distress. OTOH there is reason to think embryos don't feel pain until 26 weeks.* Given the choice, I would think an early abortion would be the humane thing to do. But you're right, it is about choice. (* I have articles for these but they're on another computer so if you want references you'll have to bump this up to remind me.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Here, the question is not whether a fetus is a human being, but whether it is ok to kill a human being (be it a term fetus/newborn) under the umbrella of euthanasia. My problem with this issue is that euthanasia usually implies the consent of the euthanized. In the case of babies, that consent is not available. Whereas I support the right of parents to decide for their children, I wonder if that right should end when they want their children killed. (We're not talking about terminating life support, but actual killing.)

I participate on a neurowebforum support group that includes parents of profoundly disabled children and parents whose children have terminally regressive diseases (mitochondrial disorder, brain wasting etc.) where their children started out normal before slipping into dementia and disability. Many of "our" children can't communicate, more than a few have passed away, and some of them have passed away in agony: contractures so severe that joints were pulled out of sockets, unending seizures, multiple organ failure and infection, respiratory failure and the eventually futile struggle for one more breath.

One of the most infuriating instances involved a boy, at the time 14, who was mentally noarmal and aware but in severe pain from contractures and struggling with respiratory failure. The medical system's answer to his distress? Insufficient morphine, w/hold respiratory support. The kid suffered, and suffered, and suffered before dying. It was torture. I wanted to hop on a plane and throttle the entire medical staff.

Anyway, we actually discussed the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide (BTW most of the participants are very religious). As a point of reference, adults who chose assisted suicide do so NOT because of pain but because of lack of control. Well, many of "our" children can't communicate or participate in decision-making. Since we HAVE to make the decisions for them we decided that if we can't give them a voice, our responsibility was to help them be happy or at least comfortable. But if "our" children were in unending agony and facing death it was our responsibility to terminate their lives in the most painless way possible.

However, after providing information and advice, we tend to be rather suportive of each other no matter WHAT decision the parent makes. Nobody is in the other person's shoes. We all realize that.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just out of curiosity- what is the purpose of putting a human nucleus into an animal cell? I understand putting human nuclear fragments into molds or bacteria because you can culture the little buggers (so to speak) in vats in huge, harvestable quantities but the only reason I can see for the "hybrid" is to be able to reproduce complete human nuclear material w/o running into the other issue of creating a "human being".

But since the cells only reproduce a few times anyway, there just doesn't seem to be a point.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:16 AM

Rue and SignyM,

Very good points, both of you. Thank you.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.
-- Source Unknown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:41 PM

DREAMTROVE

Finn,

Reading Roe's own deconstruction of roe v wade is informative of the level of inate corruption in the idea.

Rue is still a chick.

Nothing to do with the definition of life, but I think your answer is a dodge. I think you do this fairly often, and it's a rhetorical trick. Sure, we all have them, but when we're called on them we should accept that nobody is fooled.

My statement undermines the idea that 'capital punishment is okay because you only have right to life until you sacrafice it by your own actions' which is a standard argument for this pro-death position. But the innocence issue I feel debunks that. I suspect it is just an inconsistant position.

People have inconsistant positions all the time, but consistant ones are morally stronger, and I have no doubt that my aboslute RTL position stands up against the GOP position in the eyes of the average outside observer, and that more such outsiders would look and say "oh, the GOP position is inconsistant" more than they would say "oh, the DT position is inconsistant."

Outside of that, I don't have much to say about it. I think overall there are a lot of different mixes of "conservative" positions out there, and it's interesting watching them shuffle around like cards, or like sports teams trading players. Most recently, the reform movement lately is taking on the anti-immigration stance, and the GOP is giving it up in favor of the multi-ethnic. I'm not sure who is right, but it all lacks moral clarity. It's more of a game than a vision.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, since I didn't get a reply I assume you've gone off to Washington or OCUNUS or wherever, so I'll pop this up for your perusal once. TTUL.

It was actually neither, but I was still very busy. I had several small crises at work and I sit with my elderly grandmother from time to time. Frankly, I can’t understand how some of you can spend so much time on this board. If I spent that much time here, my life would collapse in a heap of rubble.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If I view fertilization as a PROCESS and not a PURPOSE then there is no innate ideal human just waiting to be developed, there is a series of changes which usually produces a human but often produces something else.

I don't see what difference this makes. The realties exist regardless of the language used. If human fertilization serves a purpose, the purpose that is served is the ultimate production of human offspring. If human fertilization has a function, that function is the ultimate production of human offspring. If human fertilization is nothing more then a process, it is still a process by which human offspring are ultimately produced. These statements may not share the same degree of precision, but they certainly all express the reality that from human fertilization, via the development of a human fetus, is born a human child, and that is all that matters. There is nothing emotional or religious about what I’m saying. It comes down to this, if you believe that human life has value, it seems inconsistent to believe that the means by which human life is produced does not.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Doctors: let us kill disabled babies

ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies. The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

All fine, until someone comes up with the brilliant idea that human infants aren’t human because it’s a circular argument. Will child euthanasia to spare a pain-stricken terminally ill child morph into the mother’s “choice” to kill her baby because the child isn’t wanted? I don’t know. As I said earlier the question is where you draw the line. When is human life developed enough to be considered important regardless of the mother’s convenience?

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nothing to do with the definition of life, but I think your answer is a dodge. I think you do this fairly often, and it's a rhetorical trick. Sure, we all have them, but when we're called on them we should accept that nobody is fooled.

My answer was not a dodge, and no one is accusing you of an inconsistent position. Capital Punishment has nothing to do with abortion or the definition of life, and the whole issue of Capital Punishment in this thread is a Red Herring.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

War, capital punishment, starvation and abortion all have this in common: "if you believe that human life has value".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:16 PM

Capital punishment has as much to do with human behavior as human life. A fetus, on the other hand, has never had the opportunity to provide any behavior for comparison. Apples and Oranges.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Capital punishment has as much to do with human behavior as human life. A fetus, on the other hand, has never had the opportunity to provide any behavior for comparison. Apples and Oranges.

But- according to you- human life is human life REGARDLESS of developmental stage and disability, so presumably human life is human life regardless of behavior. (You might also want to note that most Death Row inmates- as I have posted before- have some sort of intellectual disability, brain damage, or serious psychiatric illness that may explain their behavior).

And what is the purpose of capital punishment except as a convenience to society? It doesn't serve as an effective deterrent for violent crime because most violent criminals are too impulsive, too stupid, or too out-of-touch with reality to think that far ahead anyway. It CERTAINLY isn't rehabilitative. The only argument that I hear for capital punishment is that it spares us all the expense of having to house violent criminals thru their natural life.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:06 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The only argument that I hear for capital punishment is that it spares us all the expense of having to house violent criminals thru their natural life.

Revenge plays large role in capital punishment, don'tcha think? Why do ya think they call it "punishment?" Folks on Death Row deserve to die? Such "monsters" shouldn't be allowed to breath the same air as decent people? Isn't that why the anti-choice folks always emphasize the innocence of the unborn, to contrast them with the folks it's okay to kill?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn:

Quote:
I don't see what difference this makes. The realties exist regardless of the language used. If human fertilization serves a purpose, the purpose that is served is the ultimate production of human offspring. If human fertilization has a function, that function is the ultimate production of human offspring. If human fertilization is nothing more then a process, it is still a process by which human offspring are ultimately produced.

Two points which you may think are sematic quibbles, but which (in my mind) are not: It is still a process by which humans MAY BE ultimately produced. Nature misses the mark somewhere between 20-40% of the time. It's not a slam-dunk success. Also, your own wording ("ultimate production of a human being" indicates that while fertilization ultimately produces a human being, that human being does not automatically come into existance with fertization: The definition of "ultimate" is the end result of a succession or process.

Quote:
It comes down to this, if you believe that human life has value, it seems inconsistent to believe that the means by which human life is produced does not.

Well, I certainly value sex!

Quote:
ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies. -CTS
All fine, until someone comes up with the brilliant idea that human infants aren’t human because it’s a circular argument... As I said earlier the question is where you draw the line. When is human life developed enough to be considered important regardless of the mother’s convenience?

In order to break the circle, one must draw a line. My line: after about 4-5 months gestation. I know it seems arbitrary, but it's like brain death- you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. Past that point I think the fetus should be given all consideration that we would give any person who was suffering, "on a machine" and/ or terminal. Like Schiavo, all kinds of complicated factors come into play at that point. But that's for another discussion.

HK- Yes, revenge is part of the argument for the death penalty. Basically the victims or their relatives are so pissed of that they're ready to kill. But IMHO killing out of anger makes them no better than the criminal they want to execute. I guess I'm not much of a believer in "righteous anger" ... I think all the concept does is promote and validate violence.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

As always, yours was a well thought-out and well-put post.

I don't understand Finn's disconnect. People, even 'innocent' people, are killed for all sorts of societal reasons. The death penalty is frequently imposed on innocent people, there is war (in 665,000 deaths there were surely a number of fetuses), and economics (women and their fetuses, and children starving to death). How is that human life any less valuable than a US fetus? If he accepts a pro-rated value on human life (pro-rated to age, social status, the 'side' you are on, or whatnot), then why not accept that the value of a fertilized egg may also be pro-rated?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi HK,

As always, your posts give me much to think about and a perspective I would not otherwise know. THANKS !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 3:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But- according to you- human life is human life REGARDLESS of developmental stage and disability, so presumably human life is human life regardless of behavior.

Yes, human life is human life regardless of behavior. But behavior means a lot. You can’t equate a convicted murderer to a fetus. And you can’t say that because someone supports capital punishment that they are a hypocrite for being Pro-Life.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Two points which you may think are sematic quibbles, ...

It doesn’t make any difference to me. Even if the whole gestation process was only successful once out of a hundred times, it would still be the process by which human life is produced.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In order to break the circle, one must draw a line. My line: after about 4-5 months gestation. I know it seems arbitrary, but it's like brain death- you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. Past that point I think the fetus should be given all consideration that we would give any person who was suffering, "on a machine" and/ or terminal. Like Schiavo, all kinds of complicated factors come into play at that point. But that's for another discussion.

That’s a reasonable position. I think the line that gets drawn is almost always going to be arbitrary to some degree, which is really a big part of the problem. I choose fertilization as the beginning of human life because it is a discrete point at which an organism develops which, for the first time, contains the chromosomes of the potential human being that may result, the first occurrence of the smallest element unique to the that potential human being. In a process where there are very few obvious discrete points; it makes logical sense to define human life as beginning there, but it also provides a “buffer zone” of sorts. For example, at some time between fertilization and the 4-5 month line, when an abortion might presumably be appropriate, if someone believes that what they are aborting is human life, perhaps they will weigh their options more carefully, maybe even they’ll think before taking the chance of impregnating someone or allowing themselves to be impregnated if its not what they want. Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking, but from my standpoint, it makes logical and ethical sense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 4:29 AM