So, Abortion.

[Avenio]

Not sure I understand what you're saying.

Sperm and egg cells are independently-living organisms with human genetic material - they are really not very different from zygotes in every way that matters, particularly since eggs can be induced to form a zygote without the intervention of sperm.

Click here.

Strikes me as an attempt to impress upon the reader the importance of that step in development, particularly since none of them make value judgments about what that step means.

[Desperate Measures]

Yes, that is an answer. You asked. I answered. Simple stuff. And yes, it is rational to grant rights to humans. However, fetuses are not living on their own, and giving them the right to the mother's womb is taking away her rights.

And so you suppose the answer is to kill those who take the rights of others?

If no other option is available, that seems like something we do.

[Dragomere]

I believe that abortion should be legal until the baby can survive outside of the mother; however, I am debating myself whether I should restrict abortion to a time where the fetus can feel pain.

[Planeia]

It should be illegal except in exceptional circumstances (such as in cases of rape, or severe health risk to either the child or the parent). If people don't want a baby, they should use protection. Why go through the entire process which basically ends a human life before it's even born into this world when you can take precautions to ensure that it doesn't occur in the first place, whilst still enjoying the benefits of birth-controlled sex?

Seems logical to me.

This all the way

[Condunum]

Yes, that is an answer. You asked. I answered. Simple stuff. And yes, it is rational to grant rights to humans. However, fetuses are not living on their own, and giving them the right to the mother's womb is taking away her rights.

The parents had sex and understood the risks of pregnancy. Too bad.

Nope.

[Auralia]

Not an answer. Laws are not arbitrary; as I said before, they're rooted in reason, evidence and ethics. It is rational, ethical, and consistent with the available scientific evidence, to grant legal rights to all human beings, including fetuses.

Yes, that is an answer. You asked. I answered. Simple stuff. And yes, it is rational to grant rights to humans. However, fetuses are not living on their own, and giving them the right to the mother's womb is taking away her rights.

1) An entity does not have to be completely independent to be an individual.
2) A mother does not have a right to kill her child.

Not an answer. Laws are not arbitrary; as I said before, they're rooted in reason, evidence and ethics.

You shouldn't need even a basic understanding of politics or history to understand how completely wrong this can be. Laws can be very arbitrary. And tend to be as subjective as the morality of the humans who make them.

I was under the impression that this is a moral debate. We all know abortion is illegal in the United States and a number of other Western countries. The question is whether it should be illegal.

[Galloism]

You go for it. 666-666-6667

Some ass already beat him to the punch on the last six.

Heh. Someone who likes bothering him.

I'm pretty sure Jim has that number

Nope. Jim is 667. Someone got 666 within minutes of the first telephone numbering system being invented due to omniscience and the ability to teleport.

[Auralia]

I never said they were. My point was that if an entity is dependent on another, that does not mean they are the same entity. That is a gross oversimplification most evident in the examples I provided.

I'm not seeing how it is an oversimplification. You are saying that the fetus has more of a right to a woman's body than the woman does. Why?

Because parents have a special obligation to protect their children, given their vulnerability.

[Olthar]

Yes, that is an answer. You asked. I answered. Simple stuff. And yes, it is rational to grant rights to humans. However, fetuses are not living on their own, and giving them the right to the mother's womb is taking away her rights.

The parents had sex and understood the risks of pregnancy. Too bad.

John drives down the street and gets in a crash. Clearly, his insurance shouldn't pay him because he understood the risks. Too bad for him.

[Zweite Alaje]

It has links to pro-drug sites and sources as well...

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?

Me neither.

[Zyx]

What do you guys believe about Peter Singer's claim on infanticide?

[Auralia]

Not sure I understand what you're saying.

Sperm and egg cells are independently-living organisms with human genetic material - they are really not very different from zygotes in every way that matters, particularly since eggs can be induced to form a zygote without the intervention of sperm.

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

Source for the underlined?

Click here.

Strikes me as an attempt to impress upon the reader the importance of that step in development, particularly since none of them make value judgments about what that step means.

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

[Zweite Alaje]

The parents had sex and understood the risks of pregnancy. Too bad.

John drives down the street and gets in a crash. Clearly, his insurance shouldn't pay him because he understood the risks. Too bad for him.

Irrelevant. A crash doesn't involve the creation of an entirely new entity, pregnancy does.

[Gaelic Celtia]

The parents had sex and understood the risks of pregnancy. Too bad.

John drives down the street and gets in a crash. Clearly, his insurance shouldn't pay him because he understood the risks. Too bad for him.

This^

If you have sex and an accidental pregnancy occurs, forcing them to keep it is just the same as Olthar said.

[Planeia]

The parents had sex and understood the risks of pregnancy. Too bad.

John drives down the street and gets in a crash. Clearly, his insurance shouldn't pay him because he understood the risks. Too bad for him.

John should have not been texting while driving.

[Gaelic Celtia]

John drives down the street and gets in a crash. Clearly, his insurance shouldn't pay him because he understood the risks. Too bad for him.

Irrelevant. A crash doesn't involve the creation of an entirely new entity, pregnancy does.

Except there is a term of time where it is not a living, sentient individual and can be removed just like any other growth or mass in the body that doesn't need to be there.

[Desperate Measures]

I'm not seeing how it is an oversimplification. You are saying that the fetus has more of a right to a woman's body than the woman does. Why?

Because parents have a special obligation to protect their children, given their vulnerability.

Unless they don't want that responsibility, then they can give them up. No matter the reason for doing so. This isn't answering my question about a mother and her fetus. Are you not seeing how equating a mother to medical supplies is not an oversimplification of your argument?

[Olthar]

John drives down the street and gets in a crash. Clearly, his insurance shouldn't pay him because he understood the risks. Too bad for him.

Irrelevant. A crash doesn't involve the creation of an entirely new entity, pregnancy does.

That's an arbitrary distinction. The point of the analogy is that people should not be forced to suffer consequences from random happenstance.

[Gilotopia]

I am pro-choice, even if I voted that it should only be legal until the fetus gets a heartbeat. Of course the exceptions would have to be made especially mothers whose life is endangered by carrying said fetus, extreme birth defects (not that I'm implying those that have future offspring that have extreme birth defects should abort, it's your choice really),and poverty (the lack of funds to take care of another human being is why illiteracy and overall poverty isn't diminishing.) If for example, you are a 15 year old girl who has gotten pregnant due to carelessness, and you have the means, the fetus is healthy, and you didn't abort before it had a heartbeat then you have to keep it! Of course you can always put the baby up for adoption. I think if you haven't decided whether you should abort by the time the fetus has a heartbeat, then you should keep it(minus the exceptions I stated above)

[Galloism]

Sperm and egg cells are independently-living organisms with human genetic material - they are really not very different from zygotes in every way that matters, particularly since eggs can be induced to form a zygote without the intervention of sperm.

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

Source for the underlined?

Strikes me as an attempt to impress upon the reader the importance of that step in development, particularly since none of them make value judgments about what that step means.

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

Question.

I love microbiology. I can take an egg cell, remove the DNA, inject DNA from a skin cell of mine and its a zygote. Now, as it sits in my Petri dish, is the zygote a person?

[Auralia]

Because parents have a special obligation to protect their children, given their vulnerability.

Unless they don't want that responsibility, then they can give them up. No matter the reason for doing so. This isn't answering my question about a mother and her fetus. Are you not seeing how equating a mother to medical supplies is not an oversimplification of your argument?

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.

[Desperate Measures]

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

Source for the underlined?



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

Question.

I love microbiology. I can take an egg cell, remove the DNA, inject DNA from a skin cell of mine and its a zygote. Now, as it sits in my Petri dish, is the zygote a person?

If it's your DNA, I call trick question.

[Condunum]

Yes, that is an answer. You asked. I answered. Simple stuff. And yes, it is rational to grant rights to humans. However, fetuses are not living on their own, and giving them the right to the mother's womb is taking away her rights.

1) An entity does not have to be completely independent to be an individual.
2) A mother does not have a right to kill her child.

Good thing she isn't killing anything, huh?

[Galloism]

Question.

I love microbiology. I can take an egg cell, remove the DNA, inject DNA from a skin cell of mine and its a zygote. Now, as it sits in my Petri dish, is the zygote a person?

If it's your DNA, I call trick question.

Also: I'm doing this right now and prepping for implantation so I can grow a clone.

[Auralia]

I can take an egg cell, remove the DNA, inject DNA from a skin cell of mine and its a zygote. Now, as it sits in my Petri dish, is the zygote a person?

I'm not sure what you've described is possible. Mind giving me a source?