h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

nosretep,
as i stated last time, my definition of when a fetus becomes human has been recently changed as a result of your definitions. i might add that i came to that conclusion as i was reading the backlog yesterday, before i got to lucinda's and sellers' posts.

i guess what i was wanting to know is why you think abortion is wrong. you replied >>abortion is wrong because it takes an innocent human life.<< i understand that, but the fact that it is a human life is very much in dispute here. what i want to know is what makes it wrong. specifically, by what set of standards should the act of abortion be considered wrong?

Lucinda:

>>Not individual cells, but the cells as they interact together to create a "mind".<<

And that is your point, I see.

>>I'm not saying that, I'm saying that by your definition the human is no longer biochemically alive, because *all* its parts are not acting together.<<

I disagree. By that statement (which didn't have the word "all" in it) I meant that a random grouping of cells cannot consitute a living organism. At the same time, an organism whose cells fail to interact for the good of the whole will die. When someone has cancer or a disease, I think it is fair to say that they are "less alive" or more accurately "less biochemically alive" because their cells are not all in communion, but they still are alive nonetheless.

>>Personally, I think your "biochemically alive" is a meaningless and unworkable idea.<<

Ok, what is your idea? You did not give me a suggestion. I am not a biologist, so I recognise I do not have authority in such matters. However, you must offer a counter-argument for why the fertilised egg is not human or why a human should not have full human rights and how a zygote fits such a condition.

st. broelan:

>>specifically, by what set of standards should the act of abortion be considered wrong?<<

By those that take every life as precious. If you think that some people have the right to kill others, more specifically, if you think that a mother has the rights, not just the life of her child in her hands and therefore can rightfully take the life of that child, then *under those standands* abortion is right. Abortion is wrong if you believe that 1. the foetus is human 2. that all humans have inalienable rights (even when ignoring the surrender part of that meaning). *Under those standards* abortion is most definately wrong.

"The process of development in itself is an action towards survival." - It's an action towards future survival, but it does nothing to ensure that the fetus survives the developmental stage. In order to do that, the fetus MUST depend on the mother. You countered by saying that the fetus does defecate... after a normal, full term. At what stage does it react to pain stimuli?

And you just said that "The processes we often associate with life are not necessary for survival at the 5th week of pregnancy". If those processes are not taking place, then the zygote, according to your own definition, has no biological meaning. You have just proven that abortions are ethically justified before the 5th week. How much more will you compromise?

"The cancer itself is not biochemically alive in relation to the cancer victims. It is itself alive (individual cells), but like a transplanted organ it has no biological meaning." So how different is this from a fetus? The baby is alive as a collection of cells, replicating itself exponentially, but, once again, according to your own definition, it has no biological meaning. But you can make the argument that the fetus has meaning other than biological, especially to the expectant mother. And you have a point. However, the organ donation recipient probably appreciates the alien organ even more than the expectant mother. To him, that new babboon heart has all kinds of biological meaning.

Colonel Sellers:

>>the fetus MUST depend on the mother.<<

I do not believe that I have ever said anything to the contrary.

At what stage does it react to pain stimuli?

>>If those processes are not taking place, then the zygote, according to your own definition, has no biological meaning.<<

How so? I was pointing out that saying "the child is not human until it breaths" (no one has said that directly here; it is only an example) is only rhetoric because it really is an ad populum argument. Society looks at life processes such as breathing, deficating, reacting to pain stimuli, etc. and says that is what being alive is. However, the processes needed for survival are in place at conception. Let me explain. If they were not, the zygote/foetus would die. Similarly the processes needed for a sperm's survival are in place when it is swimming around or else it would die. A sperm does die when those processes fail. Because a zygote is biochemically alive (the biochemical processes are already in place) it has all of the processes it needs at that time to survive (just like an egg or a sperm or a virus). These processes work only because the mother is there. It is *totally dependent on the mother. The child now developes its own systems so that it will not have to totally depend upon the mother forever. This growing of its own systems alone shows to me great intelligence. You see life in the "mindless" actions of a sperm. I agree. How do you not see life in the "mindless" actions of the zygote? What's my point? I do not believe that the processes considered by society as life are what matter. Therefore my condition for biological meaning ("both **biochemically alive and performing tasks to aid in its survival") is met by the zygote because it is developing its own structures so that it can life independently. How is this not aiding its survival?

You rightly said that we should only look at what something is, not what it will be. The zygote is developing. This development is something that only stops at about age 18 (depending on gender and hormones and whatever). So if the fact that the zygote is developing means that it is not human, then everyone under the age of 18 is not human either.

>>You have just proven that abortions are ethically justified before the 5th week.<<

Really? The 5th week was just an exception. I think you missed the phrase "...we often associate with life..." (or just convieniently forgot about it).

>>So how different is [cancer] from a fetus?<<

That question has been asked in numerous forms before, and I am not sure that I ever offered a direct response. Let me first look at cancer. What is it? For a quick definition, cancer is "The uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells derived from normal tissues, which eventually can cause death by spreading from the site of origin to other sites."

Now, just to point out a few words, cancer is 1. uncontrolled, 2. abnormal and 3. spreading.

A fetus is controlled by 1. its DNA programming 2. the mother's body

A fetus is normal for several reasons. Unfortunately, most of them could be streached to cover cancer as well, so I will just leave this one be.

A fetus is confined to a specific area. If it breaches it, the fetus will be born or it will die.

These are two quick differences. There are many ways to group a cancer. One is how invasive it is (how quickly it spreads). If a cancer stays in one area of the body and does not threaten the life of the patient, the cancer is often left alone. This could be applied to a fetus. If it will not harm the mother, it should be left alone. Of course I am joking with this, but you can see that this comparisen can be twisted anyway you want. The main difference between a fetus and cancer that applies to this discussion in my opinion is that the fetus is a seperate organism. Cancer is just a part of the patient. It derives from normal tissue and has the same or just incorrect genetic material and is classed as a part of the patient. If in your comparisen you suppose that the fetus is a part of the mother, you must tell me how you can make that assumption.

>>But you can make the argument that the fetus has meaning other than biological, especially to the expectant mother.<<

Not in the context of this discussion I am afraid.

>>To him, that new babboon heart has all kinds of biological meaning.<<

Actually pigs are better transplant prospects.

*by totally I mean that without the mother the child will die. By totally I am not refering to degree, only the inseperable nature of the dependence (inseperable in that the child again will die without it).

**I just noticed that I said "biologically" way back in posting 253. The word should be "biochemically." I don't think it matters, but the wrong way just doesn't make any sense.

"This growing of its own systems alone shows to me great intelligence." - It's not intelligence, it is simply following the DNA blueprint for its own construction, just like any other organism. If you substituted a gene that would grow it an ear for a penis, it would respond. Offer to replace an intelligent human's penis with an ear, and they'll tell you to go to hell. Self-awareness is intelligence. Reacting to stimuli is intelligence. A zygote has none.

I see that you are agreeing with my comparisons of a zygote to an egg, a sperm, or a virus. Do you agree that killing eggs is ethical. Do you agree that killing sperm is ethical? Do you agree that killing viruses, even benign ones, is ethical? Or should we protect them all as precious forms of life?

This post has been removed.

nosretep,

first i'd like to clear a few things up:

>>I will say that personally I am currently opposed to sterilization and birth control, so in that sense I don't like the purposeful killing of an egg or a sperm. I do not see anything wrong with the actual killing of them, however, so I guess it is ethical.<<

sterilization and birth control do not kill eggs and sperm. noxinol-9 (or something like that) is a spermacidal lubricant, and it does kill sperm, but it is the only one i am aware of. it is used in conjunction with condoms, which do not kill sperm, it collects them and prevents them from coming into possible contact with the egg. diaphrams & sponges act in the same way. it is possible to use lubricant that is not spermacidal, too. so the killing of sperm is avoidable.

birth control pills and iud's prevent the egg from attaching to the uterine wall, so the egg is passed during the woman's cycle just like normal. depo provera prevents the eggs from being produced, therefore they cannot be killed. there is an implant that achieves this as well (name escapes me).

sterilization does not kill eggs and sperm, it prevents their production.

the human body, by instinct, automatically rejects all foreign substances on it's own. it's systems regularly fight against infections, viruses, cancers, and bacteria. and fertilized eggs. the body sometimes loses: cancers, pneumonias, some infections, fertilized eggs (when the egg takes root in the uterine wall and progresses to term). and the body sometimes wins: the common cold, flu bugs, viruses, allergic reactions, and fertilized eggs (when the fertilized egg is flushed from the system during a normal cycle). by scientific standards, it's a wonder that any pregnancies are carried to term.

we have medical technologies and advancements to assist our bodies to fight unfavorable circumstances. antibiotics to fight infections, pain killers to alleviate discomfort, anti-inflamatants to reduce swelling and ease arthritis. there are chemo and radiation therapies to help our bodies fight cancers and stones. when medications fail there are surgeries to compensate for what our bodies cannot accomplish by themselves. they remove cancers, tumors, organs that cease working for the good of the whole. they correct malgrowths and other abnormalities.

use of these remedies is not compulsory. each and every one of us is able to choose for themselves what kind of intervention (if any) we choose to use in any given circumstance. some people choose never to intervene with what happens to their bodies (is it the chrisitan science religion or something like that?), ...

i'll make my point in a minute, gotta go....

more to come

sorry 'bout that, got called away and didn't know when i'd get back...

as i was saying....

pregnancy can be seen from the same viewpoint, by the right person. that person would be an abortion advocate. to someone desperately wanting to not have children, being pregnant would be similar to a diagnosis of cancer: a life sentence. intervention should be available to that person.

another thought has occurred to me; by the conception timetable you presented (good information, that) if a person were to take a 'morning after' or 'abortion' pill within twelve hours of intercourse, it couldn't really be considered abortion, could it. it would just be prevention, as conception wouldn't have occurred yet.

i think i had some other points, but i forget what they were. can't promise you won't hear from me later, tho.

st. broelan:

>>sterilization and birth control do not kill eggs and sperm.<<

I believe that I was thinking of some procedures done for reasons other than sterilization and got them confused. Anyways, my beliefs on sterilization and birth control are not based on anything like my beliefs on abortion, so that really doesn't matter to this discussion.

>>depo provera prevents the eggs from being produced, therefore they cannot be killed.<<

I thought that the eggs were produced before birth and only later mature. Therefore depo provera would prevent maturation or something like that. I can't find where I read that, if I do (and remember) I will post it.

>>and [the human body regularly fights against] fertilized eggs.<<

??? I don't think that the rate of miscarraiges to live births can justify the word "regular." Nor do I understand your use of the word "fights." Does the mother's body actually attack the zygote in some circumstances? By attack I mean aside from normal circumstances (>>when the fertilized egg is flushed from the system during a normal cycle<&lt. Then the miscarraige would just be a mistake by the body and not an active attack.

>>the body sometimes loses: cancers, pneumonias, some infections, fertilized eggs (when the egg takes root in the uterine wall and progresses to term).<<

You make it sound as if the body actively fights off the zygote. That point (to my knowledge) has not yet been advanced here. What evidence do you have that this is the case?

>>by scientific standards, it's a wonder that any pregnancies are carried to term.<<

That would be true if the body did actively seek the termination of the pregnancy. That has not been scientifically established here.

>>we have medical technologies and advancements to assist our bodies to fight unfavorable circumstances.<<

I think that most (all) of us will agree that infections, pain, arthritis, cancer, stones, tumors, and defective organs are all unfavorable circumstances.

>>is it the chrisitan science religion or something like that?<<

Yes. My brother once had a classmate whose parents denied medication for a bacterial infection. The boy died. I think that christian scientists believe that God's power will save them if they have faith and taking medication would be circumventing His will. (don't quote me on that)

>>pregnancy can be seen from the same viewpoint, by the right person. that person would be an abortion advocate. to someone desperately wanting to not have children, being pregnant would be similar to a diagnosis of cancer: a life sentence. intervention should be available to that person.<<

I think your qualification of such a person in the third sentence is more accurate than "an abortion advocate." Anyway, let me see if I can make an analogy to portray your point. Someone in an unwanted pregnancy views the unborn child as something like a parasite. Under normal circumstances the parasite stays in its host for about 9 months and then she will extract it painfully. The woman has two options: carry the parasite to term or use medicine to rid herself of the invader. Would I deny intervention to that person (assuming I could)? Well, the only difference (applicable to this point) in the mother's mind between a child and a parasite is her situation. Her situation however cannot change whether the child is human or not. Now I am drifting from the point abit, so I will ask the question: can your perception of something make a wrong right? Of course, this takes the position that killing humans is wrong in the first place.

>>another thought has occurred to me; by the conception timetable you presented (good information, that) if a person were to take a 'morning after' or 'abortion' pill within twelve hours of intercourse, it couldn't really be considered abortion, could it. it would just be prevention, as conception wouldn't have occurred yet.<<

If it takes effect before fertilization then no it is not an abortion. I have heard that some of those pills can allow for fertilization and then kill the zygote. I do believe that the pill often used after rape simply activates the enzyme that is normally activated after fertilization that prevents other sperm from penetrating the egg wall. If that is true and there is no danger of killing a fertilized egg, then you are right.

This post has been removed.

nosretep,

>>??? I don't think that the rate of miscarraiges to live births can justify the word "regular."<<

the time during a woman's cycle that this could occur might make it such that it would just seem an excessively heavy cycle. it isn't something you might specifically notice. i agree that the rate of later term miscarriages to live births would refute this, but i'm talking about a very early zygote, maybe 1 - 2 weeks. it is likely it wouldn't even be noticed by the woman.

>>Nor do I understand your use of the word "fights." Does the mother's body actually attack the zygote in some circumstances? By attack I mean aside from normal circumstances (>>when the fertilized egg is flushed from the system during a normal cycle<&lt. Then the miscarraige would just be a mistake by the body and not an active attack.<<

i'm not sure what you mean by 'attack'. the human body repels foreign objects, or in other words, that which is not normal to it. if you get a splinter deep in your finger where you cannot remove it, if left alone your body will eventually 'push' it back out. i'm not at all talking about the area becoming infected, because it doesn't always cause infection. but a piece of wood is a foreign substance to your body, so your body rejects it.

did you stop to think that perhaps miscarriage by normal cycle is NOT a mistake by the body, but actually the way things are supposed to happen, and becoming pregnant is actually the body's failure to reject the fetus?

unfortunately, at this time i cannot provide you with the documentation you request, as this is information i have gathered over the years from a number of different sources including: doctors, gynecologists, clinicians, and classes. if i come across anything i think you might be interested in tho, i won't hesitate to pass it on.

>>I will ask the question: can your perception of something make a wrong right?<<

yes. it happens every day in courts of law. concerning the loss of human lives. it's called motive in most murder cases. it's what lawyers use to determine sanity vs. insanity, guilt vs. innocence. perception of self-defense, or percieved danger, and specific situation are taken into account on a very regular basis. i am not at all saying or even suggesting that we should put anyone who has an abortion on trial for murder, i am merely qualifying your statement: can your perception of something make a wrong right?

i would also like to mention that depo-provera does not >>work to prevent implantation of the week-old, genetically-unique, growing embryo thereby causing it to die<<. depo provera prevents an egg from being present in the uterus. every egg, at some point, must either pass through the uterus to exit the body during a cycle, or become fertilized and implant itself in the uterine wall. depo provera, in many cases, eliminates a woman's monthly cycle. if the egg were present in the uterus but the cycle never took place, where would that egg go? if a zygote is killed it will pass out of the uterus during a woman's cycle. if the cycle ceases, how can you explain absence of cycle, and absence of pregnancy, without absence of egg?

Tell you what anthony, you go, get pregnant by accident, have people ridicule and condemn you, have your life get really complicated and hectic, get depressed, etc etc. Then tell me what you think about abortion.

Oh wait.

See, you have the one thing that makes it impossible for you to argue effectively in this forum. A penis.

That's right. I have one too. But then, I'm amazingly liberal, and I don't tell people that what they do is evil, and wrong. Unless its telling people like you that what you do is ignorant, and a bit silly.

Stop seeing things in two dimensions anth. You don't get to judge people, or make decisions for them.
Unless you're me.

Clarke,

Although you did not address me, I will respond to what you said. I do not agree with what a lot of what Anthony said. However, I will say that I believe there are principles uniform to humanity that we must maintain.

I am a big advocate of human rights. After reading your personal space, I am not so sure you are. Anyway, I believe that one human should not kill another. Unfortunately people do kill other people, so self-defence is necessary. Furthermore all arguments that I have heard that say a fetus (or foetus for this conversation) is not human are based on self-interest. Therefore I take the side of science and say that an unborn child is human. Combining those two principles tells me that abortion is wrong, unless done in self-defence (only to save the life of the mother).

Now, individual circumstances make it so that pregnancy can be very difficult for a woman (especially when the father of the child leaves her). However, this difficulty cannot make abortion right. I have heard of horror stories from women who have been raped, but even those women in the worst situations have found the strength to continue with their lives while giving their baby life. I highly admire these women for the sacrifices they have made.

Killing the child is not the answer.

Nosretep

PS. Unfortunately I will not be able to repond to you after today.

where are you going, nosretep? logging off or just unsubscribing?

i'm curiouss to know how people would feel about living in complete poverty. does quality of life mean nothing?

and, clarke, i don't think anthony will be back. i don't think he came back after the site went down. and without nosretep, i'm afraid this converstion will be one-sided, unless others take interest.

I just won't have that much extra time during the summer. I'll try to check in every now and then though. I'll be back fully in late August.

>>i'm curiouss to know how people would feel about living in complete poverty. does quality of life mean nothing?<<

First of all, what is poverty? In America poverty means only owning one car per family. I recently met a person who literally grew up in a log cabin that he and his parents built because they were poor. He said that he and his family had it rough, but they survived. I personally think that poverty only exists because people don't share. We like to hoard our money. Now I am as guilty of this as the next person, and I do not live in poverty.

I'm pretty sure that people living in complete poverty don't like it at all. My question is: "does the quality of life validate ending life?" I say no. Again, I am working off of my two assumptions.

I kind of thought that this conversation was already dead. I will try to come back more often than I had planned.

Nosretep, First of all, I would like to say that you seem to be a very intelligent and reasonable person. Secondly, I would like to say, think of all the evil done in the world. All of it. The whole shebang. It's all done by people. I never said the individual does not have rights, and I certainly never said that the individual should be exterminated.

However, as an advocate of human rights, I do not see how you justify your position. Well, I guess that's not completely true. You are guarding the rights of the unborn foetus.

What about the rights of the mother? Why would you force any woman, ever, to have a baby that they do not want to have, or take care of. St. Broelan already know my position on this, and has heard this argument, so bear with me, S.B.

If a child were to be brought up in a home with a mother who did not want said child, I would have to say that the child wouldn't have a very good relationship with it's parents.
But, since I lack the ability to see the future, I have to abandon this argument.

A woman is not a baby making machine. Just because she would be to make a mistake, or be raped, or just because she got pregnant and doesn't want a baby. She should always have the option. We aren't talking about something that takes a year or two. This is something that will impact her entire life. Having a child means having another human being to share your life UNTIL YOU DIE. You may as well force women to marry the first man she ever gets into a relationship with.

I have to interject here. Your idea of poverty being that people don't share? well, that's why I'm a communist. Capitalism will always force a poor group and a rich group. Capitalism is another reason I don't like the human ant farm. (as a group! as a group! I don't mean I hate people.)

Thanks fer your time.

nosretep, i would just like to add that poverty is not defined as a family owning just one car.

poverty is not owning a car at all.
poverty is not having a garage to park a car in even if you had one.
poverty is not having that garage because there is no house for it to be attatched to.
poverty is being hungry because you can't afford to feed yourself and your family.
poverty is being sick from exposure and malnutrition.
poverty is living in a cardboard box.
poverty is not being able to afford a cardboard box.
poverty is being cold for lack of blankets and proper clothes.
poverty is having just one car-- that is out of gas and doubles as your home.
poverty is death by neglect.

would you sentence a child to this?

Clarke:

>>What about the rights of the mother? Why would you force any woman, ever, to have a baby that they do not want to have, or take care of.<<

Why does this line of reasoning stop after birth? Why force a woman to have a teenager that they do not want to have? You do not see the unborn child as a human. This is fundamentally where we differ. Our debate will not progress until that is adressed.

>>We aren't talking about something that takes a year or two. This is something that will impact her entire life. Having a child means having another human being to share your life UNTIL YOU DIE.<<

I support adoption as a choice, I suppose that you do not. The common argument against it is that it will hurt the mother to give up a child. I believe that an abortion would hurt much more (based on an admittedly small and biased sample). Of course I believe that an abortion would hurt the unborn child more than adoption.

>>Capitalism will always force a poor group and a rich group.<<

I believe that voluntary communism is better than capitalism. However, that is utopian by nature and I don't believe that it will ever work. All communisms today are forced upon the people. It is more like a military dictatorship (look at the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba). I agree with communism in theory, but in practice it only worked in a large scale among first-century Christians. Today small pockets of communism still exist. We commonly call them families.

"I agree with communism in theory, but in practice it only worked in a large scale among first-century Christians." - I wouldn't go that far. The story of Ananias and Sephira sounds an awful lot like a purge to me.

"All communisms today are forced upon the people. It is more like a military dictatorship... Today small pockets of communism still exist. We commonly call them families." - So you approve of voluntary communism, but not voluntary families (or to put it in more correct terms, you *disapprove* of forced communism, but *approve* of forced families). Isn't that a contradiction?

Clarke

"What about the rights of the mother?"

Well, she had the right to not have sex in the first place. She had the right to use the morning after pill. She had the right to wear a condom herself or make him wear one. She had the right to use the pill. Your rights end when you start to play God.