quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: [QUOTE]Yeah, I don't know about this. After fertilization, you have a zygote floating around, I don't know if that's much or less a human than the egg and swimmers.
A (healthy) zygote has a full human genome, and it exhibits all the traditional criteria for life -- growth, cellular reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis/reaction to stimuli, etc. Gametes have half a genome and fail to exhibit some of these characteristics.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A (healthy) zygote has a full human genome, and it exhibits all the traditional criteria for life -- growth, cellular reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis/reaction to stimuli, etc.
If those are your traditional criteria, then I have a higher standard.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nearly every cell in everyone's body has a full human genome, though.
Also, every unique egg plus sperm combination has a unique human genome.
We feel no feeling that we are killing people, either our potential children, nor our twin-sister clones, by allowing such potential to go unrealized.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't seem to me that you can really morally equate a natural process with an artificial one.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Also, every unique egg plus sperm combination has a unique human genome.
We feel no feeling that we are killing people, either our potential children, nor our twin-sister clones, by allowing such potential to go unrealized.
I'm not following this somehow... "every unique egg plus sperm" would be a human embryo, correct? There are going to be a lot of us who don't want to be included in "we feel no feeling".
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, Tatiana. I'm just saying that the commonly heard "miscarriage happens all the time, how is abortion worse than that" line ignores the facets that make the two situations apples and oranges.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and no. It does show that the problem isn't a waste of genetic material, and that such "material" doesn't have a built in promise of birth. Most of the time they aren't born, showing that nature isn't forgiving or kind, and that the natural state is not an automatic birth process.
It highlights the fact that most differences of opinion in this are religious reasons, regardless of how they are phrased.
Those ways of phrasing these objections are important, though....because if it is a completely religious objection then it can't be used to force others to carry a fetus to term, because of the freedom of religion clause.
So there are many, many people who couch their objections in other ways, trying to make it seem (or express their thought) that a fetus has a right to life based on other criteria....most of which are flawed, IMO.
I am in the odd group who thinks that abortion is wrong most of the time, and is irresponsible, and would never consider having one (if I were a woman) or allowing my wife to have one....but I defend woman's rights to have one, because I don't feel I should have any say in what a woman decides to do with her own body.
If my wife wanted an abortion (she has the same views on this as I do, we discussed it before ever having sex:D), I couldn't stop her, but I would probably leave her over it, unless it was for her own safety/health. I feel that while it isn't a human being until it is born, it represents a potential human life to me, and I would be unable to live with that choice.
I have friends who had abortions, and one male friend who payed for a girl to have one (it was her choice), and I am still friends with them...but I will never agree with their choice.
Then again, they aren't asking me to, which is why we are still friends. I supported them while they were going through with it, and gave my opinion when asked for it. They had enough trouble deciding without me trying to preach to them.
In my personal final judgment, I have no right to judge them as people because of that, even though I disagree with their choices...it is their life, and their choices had consequences...
But I would have chosen differently, and that is what really matters in my life.
quote: if it is a completely religious objection then it can't be used to force others to carry a fetus to term, because of the freeedom of religion clause.
Show me the clause that says that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't force someone adopt your religion...so if the only reasons to object are religious, then the objections can't be enforced.
If their religious beliefs allow it, and yours don't...then you don't have to have one, but you have no right to deny them one...on religious grounds, anyway.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion"? I don't recall the exact words, but that seems fairly straightforward to me. No law can establish a religion; a religious prohibition is an establishment; therefore no law can enforce a religious prohibition. As a less emotionally charged example, consider whether Congress can make a law forcing people to eat kosher, or eat fish on Fridays.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:WEll, I see where mph si giong with this, I think....
No you don't, so I'll tell you.
The "no law establishing religion" clause in the constitution can be extrapolated to say that no laws concerning religious beliefs are allowed, but it is not the only extrapolation/interpretation that is consistent with the wording of the constitution. Many people have been taught their whole lives what "separation of church and state" means that they don't even question what the constitution is actually saying.
I'm not saying that there is nothing to support the view that religious beliefs should never affect our laws -- I'm just saying that there is no clause in the constitution that you can point to that says that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh....according to established legal precedent, that IS what it means.
You can make laws that correspond with various religious beliefs, but if the only standard of proof is those beliefs then the law should be removed from the books without fail.
I am not saying it is even desirable to refuse to allow religious beliefs to color our laws (I doubt that is even possible), but you can't force someone to believe what you do based on religious beliefs.
Pardon the typos, btw, that was bad even for me. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I don't understand about this whole case is why anyone thinks he shouldn't be required to pay child support. It seems to me that "She told me she couldn't get pregnant" is about on par with "She told me she was eighteen". Right?
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the statement was more of an aside rather than central to his argument. His base argument seems to be that a woman has many legal options to avoid responsibility of caring for a child that she helped to conceive. The man has zero options. His contention is that there should be some way for the men to opt out as well.
Note: I'm not arguing his position, merely restating it. To be honest, there are many factors in this argument and I haven't quite decided what I think. I know what I would personally do though.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Yes, and no. It does show that the problem isn't a waste of genetic material, and that such "material" doesn't have a built in promise of birth. Most of the time they aren't born, showing that nature isn't forgiving or kind, and that the natural state is not an automatic birth process.
It highlights the fact that most differences of opinion in this are religious reasons, regardless of how they are phrased.
No more than the fact that many people die naturally of heart attacks and cancer makes laws against stabbing people a 'religious' matter.
quote:I feel that while it isn't a human being until it is born, it represents a potential human life to me, and I would be unable to live with that choice.
And your vague feelings and religious beliefs should no more be codified into law & public policy than those of someone who "feels" differently.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And your vague feelings and religious beliefs should no more be codified into law & public policy than those of someone who "feels" differently.
Um, those of people that feel differently are codified into law & public policy.
I was referring to the statement: "I feel that while it isn't a human being until it is born..."
Many pro-choice people invoke such nebulous and conveniently untestable criteria as 'personhood' or 'soul', etc., which are essentially philosophical or religious stances that have no more place in public policy than those of pro-life people.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then there's the idea that no morality has an objective basis - what answers you derive depend on your assumptions/axioms.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ahh....according to established legal precedent, that IS what it means.
You can make laws that correspond with various religious beliefs, but if the only standard of proof is those beliefs then the law should be removed from the books without fail.
Can you say what precedent you're referring to? I can't tell if you're saying what I'm interpreting you as saying.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And now that this thread is in an *entirely* different conversation I find that I want to make a statement about the original point.
I had a discussion with a friend once about abortion and I told him I really do believe in the separate choices fact. If I were to get pregnant and he didn't want a part he simply would not. My decision to keep a child has no bearing on him. And if he decided he wanted the child and I did not I would have the kid.
We were discussing the idea of abortion and I was telling him that I wasn't sure I could ever do it. The possibility of what might have been would haunt me forever. And I'm not sure if I could live with that. But I could understand the fear and desparation of people who do.
I hate when people argue about abortion because it seems like they don't feel with the person who is in that situation. I know for many people, perhaps many of you, this is a black and white conversation. But I've never been able to get over the emotional element to make that distinction of right and wrong. I think that all that is involved with a situation where this choise is being made is lots of hurt frequently and that just makes me sad.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The concept behind this lawsuit-and behind abortions legal status-is that poeple don't think they should have to take any responsibility for their own actions. abortion is one of the most selgish things in the world. the legacy of abortion is that babies must be killed so adults can do anything they want. abortion is a way for women to think only about themselves and shirk the responsibilities, to do what ever they want, and if they concieve, a human being will have to die. this lawsuit is a way for men to be able to shirk their responsibilities in the same way. each gender should have equal reproductive rights, but it should be that both genders must be responsible for their own actions, not neither.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
