So, Abortion.

[Avenio]

I disagree. Sperm and egg cells cannot develop into fully-grown human beings. Zygotes can.

Source for the underlined?

On August 2, 2007, after much independent investigation, it was revealed that Hwang's team succeeded in extracting cells from eggs that had undergone parthenogenesis. Hwang claimed he and his team had extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos. However, further examination of the cells' chromosomes shows the same indicators of parthenogenesis in those extracted stem cells as are found in the mice created by Tokyo scientists in 2004. Although Hwang deceived the world about being the first to create artificially cloned human embryos, he did contribute a major breakthrough to the field of stem cell research. The process may offer a way for creating stem cells that are genetically matched to a particular woman for the treatment of degenerative diseases.[33]

The news of the breakthrough came just a month after an announcement from the International Stem Cell Corporation (ISC), a California based stem cell research company, that they had successfully created the first human embryos through parthenogenesis. Although the actual results of Hwang's work were just published, those embryos were created by him and his team before February 2004, when the fabricated cloning results were announced, which would make them the first to successfully perform the process. Jeffrey Janus, president and director of research for ISC, agrees that "Dr. Hwang's cells have characteristics found in parthenogenetic cells" but remains cautious, saying "it needs more study."[34]

They all seem to agree that a zygote is a human being, which is the point I'm trying to make.

[/quote]

And the problem with that is that you're trying to insert your own meaning into their words.

[Mavorpen]

No shit. Because it had a section COVERING the other side's stance. And still, not a single one is peer reviewed.

I have no clue why I'm even bothering.

And of course I'm supposed to believe your sources, right?

Yes. That's typically what an intellectually honest person does. They see the other person provide peer reviewed evidence, and you actually read it in order to come to the conclusion that you're fucking wrong.

[Zweite Alaje]

Actually, they can't. You can't just abandon your child. You have to go through established legal procedures that prioritize the safety of the child. If there is no safe way to transfer custody, then the biological parents must raise the child.

A fetus is a human being. Therefore, these legal obligations should apply during pregnancy as well. Since it is obviously unfeasible to transfer custody during a pregnancy, the mother is obligated to take care of her child. This includes not getting an abortion.

A fetus is not a legal person. A woman has no more obligation to care for a fetus than she does for a clump of cancer.

Now we're diehards for legality are we?

[Olthar]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

We're talking humans here, not sheep.

The genetic difference between a human and a sheep is completely negligible under these circumstances. The same process will work on a human.

[Desperate Measures]

No, they have programs where you can leave your infant baby, no questions asked. I'd like to see some sources on biological parents being forced to raise children.

What if such programs did not exist, as I'm sure is the case in less developed parts of the world? Would abandonment be justifiable?

If your answer to that question is yes, then there is no point in continuing this debate.

I don't see why that would end debate. I think abandoning a child to like, wolves, or something isn't a very good thing. Would parents abandon children? Yes. Do parents abandon children? Yes. These aren't things I like. I'm not "into" abandoning children just like I'm not throwing a party every time I hear a fetus has been aborted.

A parent can abandon their child at any point and in the developed world there are even options for doing it with no questions asked. The only point of time the child cannot be given up is during pregnancy, if abortion were illegal. Which, thankfully, in the USA - it is not illegal.

[Mavorpen]

Arbitrary distinction. Answer the question as presented.

Not an arbitrary distinction. Parents have special obligations towards their children. Question as presented is irrelevant to this debate.

I've read Judith Jarvis Thomson. I don't find her convincing.

And since a fetus isn't a child, they have no obligation. Glad you're supporting our side.

[Individuality-ness]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

We're talking humans here, not sheep.

We're animals, just like sheep. We can't actually do it because of ethics, but it's possible.

[Olthar]

Arbitrary distinction. Answer the question as presented.

Not an arbitrary distinction. Parents have special obligations towards their children. Question as presented is irrelevant to this debate.

I've read Judith Jarvis Thomson. I don't find her convincing.

Parents have special obligations towards their born children. There are no such obligations for fetuses.

A fetus is not a legal person. A woman has no more obligation to care for a fetus than she does for a clump of cancer.

Now we're diehards for legality are we?

I fail to see what this post has to do with anything aside from a nonsensical attempt to rile me.

[Planeia]

Hey guys we accidentally killed someone, totally not by negligence, let's not suffer the consequences.

So now you are arguing that the mother should keep the baby as punishment, rather than keep it because you think it is alive.

Really I think sort of both, but I don't think of it as punishment, just consequences, there's a difference. The woman knew what she was getting into by having unprotected sex, so since she was aware she obviously should have no problem ensuring the baby is born.

Same thing with what I said, accidentally killing someone. You gotta pay reparations, you gotta serve time for negligent manslaughter.

[Gaelic Celtia]

It does not have conscious thought, it cannot reason, it does not have individual personality, it cannot reproduce, it cannot lice on its own, it is not aware of its actions. It is not an individual human being.

An infant, a person in a coma or in a persistent vegetative state, and a person who has suffered clinical death but not whole brain death all do not have conscious thought, cannot reason, do not have individual personality, cannot reproduce, cannot live(?) on their own, and are unaware of their actions. They are still considered human beings, because they have the inherent capacity for all those things, even though it is not currently present.

People in a coma are conscious (Not awake conscious, they have a conscious mind). They still have personalities as well. These people you describe are also lawful citizens, and therefore law applies to them. The same still cannot be said for a fetus.

[Tlaceceyaya]

So now you are arguing that the mother should keep the baby as punishment, rather than keep it because you think it is alive.

Really I think sort of both, but I don't think of it as punishment, just consequences, there's a difference. The woman knew what she was getting into by having unprotected sex, so since she was aware she obviously should have no problem ensuring the baby is born.

Same thing with what I said, accidentally killing someone. You gotta pay reparations, you gotta serve time for negligent manslaughter.

They knew what they were getting into by getting into their vehicle, so since they were aware they should obviously have no problem healing themselves on their own after the car crash.

[Zweite Alaje]

If it involves the destruction of another party that was placed in its current situation by their actions, they should be required to provide for that being's welfare.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Are you under any obligation to continue supporting him? Should you be legally forced to continue supporting him?

Yeah, no...that doesn't address my argument.

In that scenario, you are a random person kidnapped and charged with caring for some random other person.

My argument is that the parents are responsible for creating the unborn in the first place hence they are the reason why it is there in the first place, and that they should be held accountable for its survival.

[United Marxist Nations]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

We're talking humans here, not sheep.

The principle is no different.

[Atollus]

So now you are arguing that the mother should keep the baby as punishment, rather than keep it because you think it is alive.

Really I think sort of both, but I don't think of it as punishment, just consequences, there's a difference. The woman knew what she was getting into by having unprotected sex, so since she was aware she obviously should have no problem ensuring the baby is born.

Same thing with what I said, accidentally killing someone. You gotta pay reparations, you gotta serve time for negligent manslaughter.

And what if the condom breaks or the pill fails? There is no reason to force a woman to have children just because she likes to fuck.

[Gaelic Celtia]

So now you are arguing that the mother should keep the baby as punishment, rather than keep it because you think it is alive.

Really I think sort of both, but I don't think of it as punishment, just consequences, there's a difference. The woman knew what she was getting into by having unprotected sex, so since she was aware she obviously should have no problem ensuring the baby is born.

Same thing with what I said, accidentally killing someone. You gotta pay reparations, you gotta serve time for negligent manslaughter.

It does not have to be unprotected, they can still very well take all the precautions and end up with an accidental pregnancy. She wanted to have intercourse, not have a baby. And, as the actual human being by law and by definition she has the right to remove the unwanted mass now inside her body.

I do not apply "morals" here. This is the real world and it runs on law not morals.

[Desperate Measures]

So now you are arguing that the mother should keep the baby as punishment, rather than keep it because you think it is alive.

Really I think sort of both, but I don't think of it as punishment, just consequences, there's a difference. The woman knew what she was getting into by having unprotected sex, so since she was aware she obviously should have no problem ensuring the baby is born.

Same thing with what I said, accidentally killing someone. You gotta pay reparations, you gotta serve time for negligent manslaughter.

The unprotected sex idea, is a story. You have no idea what happens during individual encounters.

[Olthar]

Are you under any obligation to continue supporting him? Should you be legally forced to continue supporting him?

Yeah, no...that doesn't address my argument.

In that scenario, you are a random person kidnapped and charged with caring for some random other person.

My argument is that the parents are responsible for creating the unborn in the first place hence they are the reason why it is there in the first place, and that they should be held accountable for its survival.

Clearly, you lack any sense of creativity and cannot partake in abstract thought. As such, I see no reason to further this discussion with you.

[Individuality-ness]

Really I think sort of both, but I don't think of it as punishment, just consequences, there's a difference. The woman knew what she was getting into by having unprotected sex, so since she was aware she obviously should have no problem ensuring the baby is born.

Same thing with what I said, accidentally killing someone. You gotta pay reparations, you gotta serve time for negligent manslaughter.

They knew what they were getting into by getting into their vehicle, so since they were aware they should obviously have no problem healing themselves on their own after the car crash.

It's like how I should have known someone would take my photograph, Photoshop it to make it look like I was being sprayed with cum, and spam it on the forums and troll me when I initially posted it over a year ago.

[Auralia]

We're talking humans here, not sheep.

The genetic difference between a human and a sheep is completely negligible under these circumstances. The same process will work on a human.

There's no empirical evidence for that. Call me when you've cloned a human.

Parthenogenesis

I'm not really sure what they created. I think while they may display zygote-like characteristics, they are not zygotes in the strictest sense. This link gives an interesting perspective on the issue.

And the problem with that is that you're trying to insert your own meaning into their words.

Not really. The sources use the terms "human being" and "human individual" to describe zygotes.

[Galloism]

Are you under any obligation to continue supporting him? Should you be legally forced to continue supporting him?

Yeah, no...that doesn't address my argument.

In that scenario, you are a random person kidnapped and charged with caring for some random other person.

My argument is that the parents are responsible for creating the unborn in the first place hence they are the reason why it is there in the first place, and that they should be held accountable for its survival.

See, here's the thing. That's not how we do things.

I could be driving along, fat, dumb, and happy when you slam into me driving a tractor trailer full of steel. You could be drunk, using cocaine, texting with one hand and posting on NSG with the other.

I am still not entitled to even one drop of your blood drawn from you against your will, even if we're a match, even if I will die without it, because of bodily integrity.

[Galloism]

They knew what they were getting into by getting into their vehicle, so since they were aware they should obviously have no problem healing themselves on their own after the car crash.

It's like how I should have known someone would take my photograph, Photoshop it to make it look like I was being sprayed with cum, and spam it on the forums and troll me when I initially posted it over a year ago.

Sorry. I was drunk.

[Planeia]

Really I think sort of both, but I don't think of it as punishment, just consequences, there's a difference. The woman knew what she was getting into by having unprotected sex, so since she was aware she obviously should have no problem ensuring the baby is born.

Same thing with what I said, accidentally killing someone. You gotta pay reparations, you gotta serve time for negligent manslaughter.

They knew what they were getting into by getting into their vehicle, so since they were aware they should obviously have no problem healing themselves on their own after the car crash.

You're equating pregnancy to a life threatening condition, which in most case it is not, therefore should not be given such priority.

[Desperate Measures]

They knew what they were getting into by getting into their vehicle, so since they were aware they should obviously have no problem healing themselves on their own after the car crash.

It's like how I should have known someone would take my photograph, Photoshop it to make it look like I was being sprayed with cum, and spam it on the forums and troll me when I initially posted it over a year ago.

That's real? If so, fuck. I'm sorry.

[Olthar]

The genetic difference between a human and a sheep is completely negligible under these circumstances. The same process will work on a human.

There's no empirical evidence for that. Call me when you've cloned a human.

Well, I know someone who failed high school biology.

[The Serbian Empire]

We're talking humans here, not sheep.

We're animals, just like sheep. We can't actually do it because of ethics, but it's possible.

The ethics concerns actually were from the cloned sheep aging faster than normally would have otherwise happened. The reason was that the biological age of the genetic material ended up making the cloned sheep effectively the same age as the genetic material source.