elfanie 0 #76 February 13, 2004 QuoteThat's not my position exactly, but go tell that to the pro-lifers. As far as they're concerned, the morning after pill is killing a human life. Nope... to most prolifers, RU486 is killing a human life. Very different from the morning after pill(s). VERY few prolifers view the morning after pill(s) as abortion since it works the exact same as birth control pills (attempt to prevent ovulation first, THEN attempt to prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo) RU486 is, inarguably, an abortion...it's a chemical abortion. After implantation has occured and a positive pregnancy is confirmed, RU486 causes the pregnancy to end... big difference between the two. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #77 February 13, 2004 But at the point where the egg & sperm meet and interact and a blastocyst is formed, (of course, under the right conditions) it will grow. Therefore, the potential for a human being is there. The question is where does physical human life begin? Before the joining, there are just the parts that make it possible. Your killing me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #78 February 13, 2004 At the point sperm enters a vagina (of course, under the right conditions) it will grow. Therefore, the potential for a human being is there. It's an age old debate. If someone wants to be pro-life and claim some moral superiority (not that you are, but many pro-lifers do) than to not be hypocritical, they should never masturbate, never use contraception, and never have sex without the purpose of creating a baby. After all, the act itself has the potential to form a human life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #79 February 13, 2004 QuoteBut at the point where the egg & sperm meet and interact and a blastocyst is formed, (of course, under the right conditions) it will grow. Therefore, the potential for a human being is there. The question is where does physical human life begin? Before the joining, there are just the parts that make it possible. Your killing me! *gigglefits* don't mean to kill you...just beat you up a little bit. And the moment that a sperm is ejaculated into a woman (of course, under the right conditions), it will meet an egg and it will grow...so therefore the potential for a human being is there. I disagree that the question is when does physical human life begin...because that's inarguably "conception"...it's human DNA, it fulfills all of the requirements for life...but that's not the question. My spleen is living, human DNA, and can die... the question is when is a human being created? When does it become a human being worthy of protection from harm....THAT is the question. And it is more a philisophical (and, for some, religious) question than a scientific one... when is it a human being, given value as a human individual and therefore worthy of protection from harm.... THAT, my dear, is the $25,000,000 question. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #80 February 13, 2004 STOP KILLING THE KITTENS!"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #81 February 13, 2004 Quote It's an age old debate. If someone wants to be pro-life and claim some moral superiority (not that you are, but many pro-lifers do) than to not be hypocritical, they should never masturbate, never use contraception, and never have sex without the purpose of creating a baby. After all, the act itself has the potential to form a human life. *flips back to the other side* masturbation spills sperm cells...cells with DNA that matches only the father...much the way his fingernails contain DNA tht is only his, or his hair, or his appendix if he wants to take that out... sperm is a part of him. Egg cells have DNA that matches only the other...(same explanation of things on her that belong to her and have only her DNA). Sperm and egg are as much a "human" as your blood that runs in your veins are. However...when sperm meets egg, an embryo is formed. It has a unique DNA, different from anyone else walking the planet...it is growing and thriving... Prolifers aren't prolife because of the POTENTIAL life an embryo posesses... they are prolife because they believe the embryo IS a life, equal in value to a 12 week fetus which is equal in value to a 28 week fetus which is equal in value to a newborn baby. it's not the POTENTIAL that makes them prolife...it's the realization of that potential. Just like we don't value newborns because they are POTENTIAL adults...we value them because we view them as little human beings worthy of protection even though they haven't reached their full stage of development yet (adulthood). And prolifers don't value embryos because they are POTENTIAL babies...they value them because they view them as little human beings worthy of protection even though they haven't reached their full stage of development yet (adulthood). so being prolife and yet ok with birth control and masturbation is not hypocritical... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #82 February 13, 2004 Sperm entering a vagina without an egg being there to fertilize won't do a damn thing but swim around and die just like in a Petri dish. Like elfanie said, it fulfills the requirements for life. Therefore, “life occurs at conception.” If that is true, then it isn’t justifiable to kill it out of convenience or scientific research. As for moral superiority, I don’t claim that at all. I do have to stand up for what I feel is right, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACMESkydiver 0 #83 February 13, 2004 Human cloning......yeah, science has come to me repeatedly asking for my perfect DNA to clone a race of 5' 4" super-humans, but I refused... One Acme is enough for any world! Nightingale mentioned identical twins and how that would be similar to cloning and IVF...not true...you cannot 'make' an identical twin through IVF. Identicals are a miracle; I know; I've got a couple of 'em! Actually, that probably wasn't your point Nightingale, I'm sure you knew that...but I just don't see why we need the potential to procreate even MORE than we already do...we're already squeezed onto this tiny lil' planet, and I don't see the value of opening another avenue of population...especially one that is intentionally breeding physically identical people.~Jaye Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #84 February 13, 2004 >And does it have to be able to sustain its own life without assistance >from machines and physicians before it is "a life"? Personally, I define life beginning as the point at which the brain starts working. If someone is brain dead, we can legally allow them to die (i.e. starve them, turn off life support machines) because we consider a human being to be a human mind in a human body. Once the mind is gone, the person is gone. Similarly, I think that as soon as a human brain begins to function, that embryo begins to become human. Before that? It surely has the _potential_ to become human, but so do a separated egg and sperm in a petri dish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #85 February 13, 2004 Quote Personally, I define life beginning as the point at which the brain starts working. If someone is brain dead, we can legally allow them to die (i.e. starve them, turn off life support machines) because we consider a human being to be a human mind in a human body. Once the mind is gone, the person is gone. Similarly, I think that as soon as a human brain begins to function, that embryo begins to become human. Aahhhh... And here is where we become quibbly with things, Bill... The brain begins to function at about 10-12 weeks of gestation (where you can measure brain activity). Medical abortions (as opposed to chemical abortions) can be obtained after 7 weeks of gestation... with that information, there's more to think about. first off...the brain is function at (lets be generous) 12 weeks...yet abortions can be obtained in some states up until birth. Do you believe in legislation that would make abortion after 12 weeks illegal? And lets go another step... people who are brain dead (adults) can be taken off life support machines...but no, they can not be killed. If there is someone who is brain dead..I can't go in there and shoot them in the head. Legally, that's murder. However...abortion involves not removing the fetus...but actually killing it ahead of time. Do you think that it should be manditory that abortions be performed in a way that the embryo/fetus remains intact and is not killed by the removal of life support? (let me clarify: like with a brain dead adult, do you think that it should be illegal to kill the embryo/fetus, but legal to take them off of life support ie. out of the uterus intact?) and now lets go into hypotheticals...if we were able to "jumpstart" the brain like we now do with the heart...would still feel that we should be allowed to take brain-dead people off of life support (since the potential for regaining full health is there)? or, more specifically, do you think we shoudl be allowed to take direct steps that we know will result in the end of their life? And if brain activity IS deemed the qualification for being a "human being", does that have a minimum requirement? What about anencephaly babies born without a brain but with a functioning brain stem....they are legally protected and we cannot euthenize them with the current laws...do you think that should change? (oh what a tangled web we weave when we try to explain the abstract philisophical idea of "what makes us human beings and what makes us special to others". -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #86 February 13, 2004 >Do you believe in legislation that would make abortion after 12 >weeks illegal? No, but I wouldn't personally support it (or do it) and I'd argue against it as much as I could. Before that point, to me, it's not really a moral issue. After that point it's very much a moral issue; I think it's killing. I just don't think that everyone else has to accept my morals. >people who are brain dead (adults) can be taken off life >support machines...but no, they can not be killed. Organ donors who are brain dead are operated on to remove their organs; the operation kills them. It's not murder since their mind is gone. >And if brain activity IS deemed the qualification for being a "human > being", does that have a minimum requirement? What about > anencephaly babies born without a brain but with a functioning brain > stem....they are legally protected and we cannot euthenize them > with the current laws...do you think that should change? After they're born? I'd expect a neurologist to make a determination if there was (or ever could be) higher brain function. If not, then termination by withholding feeding, or even organ donation, should be an option for the parents. There is no human where there is no mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #87 February 13, 2004 > In response to: > No, but I wouldn't personally support it (or do it) and I'd argue against it as much > as I could. Before that point, to me, it's not really a moral issue. After that point > it's very much a moral issue; I think it's killing. I just don't think that everyone > > else has to accept my morals. I don’t think everybody has to accept my morals. It does influence who I vote for, however, and they, in turn, affect what gets made legal or illegal (Democracy). I do think morals are important. I’m just saying that nobody really knows when life begins and, therefore, how can you make the assumption to kill at any stage of development when potentially a human life is at stake? You personally think that there must be brain activity but you really don’t know when it becomes a human being. It’s just your guess. Neither does any doctor or scientist know for sure in the world. > In response to: > Organ donors who are brain dead are operated on to remove their organs; the > operation kills them. It's not murder since their mind is gone. Organ donors agree to be put themselves in that status. They had the choice. > After they're born? I'd expect a neurologist to make a determination if there was > (or ever could be) higher brain function. If not, then termination by withholding > feeding, or even organ donation, should be an option for the parents. There is no > human where there is no mind. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, if left alone, will most likely result in a human being “with brain activity.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #88 February 13, 2004 Quote>Do you believe in legislation that would make abortion after 12 >weeks illegal? No, but I wouldn't personally support it (or do it) and I'd argue against it as much as I could. Before that point, to me, it's not really a moral issue. After that point it's very much a moral issue; I think it's killing. I just don't think that everyone else has to accept my morals. Ah...but you do. If legislation made infantcide legal, I'm certain you'd fight to make it illegal again. And I'm sure you support the legislation making rape and murder illegal, right? If you truly think that abortion after brain activity was killing a baby....I'd bet that you'd want to impose your morality on others just like we impose our morality against killing adults or sodomizing children.... Quote >people who are brain dead (adults) can be taken off life >support machines...but no, they can not be killed. Organ donors who are brain dead are operated on to remove their organs; the operation kills them. It's not murder since their mind is gone. If I'm wrong I'm sure somebody here will be kind enough to correct me... but I don't believe this to be true. I beleive in order to be operated on to remove organs for donation you must be declared legally dead...which is not the same thing as brain dead. You can not operate and remove organs for donation until they have actually died and been declared dead. And I just looked it up... "The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act also states that it is necessary for the donor to be declared dead according to the legal definition of death before organs are retrieved." Quote >And if brain activity IS deemed the qualification for being a "human > being", does that have a minimum requirement? What about > anencephaly babies born without a brain but with a functioning brain > stem....they are legally protected and we cannot euthenize them > with the current laws...do you think that should change? After they're born? I'd expect a neurologist to make a determination if there was (or ever could be) higher brain function. If not, then termination by withholding feeding, or even organ donation, should be an option for the parents. There is no human where there is no mind. This is not the case right now legally. Big stink was made not too too long ago over an anencephalic baby (no brain ever develops - just a brain stem, but the brain stem is responsible for the autonomic nervous system, ie breathing, heartbeat - no measurable brain activity because there's no brain in the skull) that was born...brain stem kept baby legally alive, and the parents wanted to donate the baby's organs. Organs will slowly deteriorate the longer baby is "alive" and eventually get to the point where they are no longer usable...so parents wanted to euthenize the baby and remove the organs. Baby had absolutely NO chance for long-term good outcome...none...zero. They knew for an absolute certainty that baby would die...maybe today, and maybe as long as 2 months...but baby would absolutely die as organs failed and the body finally failed. yet they couldn't harvest organs from this baby with no brain because baby was still considered alive. parents petitioned the courts who in turn denied them... baby lived 5 weeks...organs not salvagable... so long as baby was breathing on his own with his heart beating...they could not legally deny the baby basic support (food, water, oxygen) and could take no steps to end his life. Now, there is a point to be made that an anencephalic baby DOES have brain activity (brain stem)...and therefore would fall under the "any brain activity and they deserve protection" thing that you just said...so that would make sense. "Presently, under current legal and ethical guidelines, anencephalic infants cannot provide donor organs until all brain death criteria are met (Cady, 1999)." So you're right in that anencephalic babies aren't 100% "brain dead".... but if an adult is 100% brain dead, they don't need to withold food....their heart and lungs would stop. You need at least a brain stem to have your heart and lungs working.. (I'm starting to ramble now..so I'll shut up) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #89 February 13, 2004 >I'm just saying that nobody really knows when life begins and, >therefore, how can you make the assumption to kill at any stage of > development when potentially a human life is at stake? You make assumptions about when life begins; you consider an IUD OK but an abortion not OK. Therefore, you assume that life does not begin at conception but at implantation. That's fine. I make a different assumption. >Organ donors agree to be put themselves in that status. Parents can decide their children should be organ donors without their consent, provided they are brain dead. >A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, if left alone, will most likely result >in a human being “with brain activity.” So will an egg and a bunch of sperm. That doesn't mean that birth control is immoral, even if it does result in the death of egg and sperm that would likely have given rise to a human life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #90 February 13, 2004 >but I don't believe this to be true. I beleive in order to be operated > on to remove organs for donation you must be declared legally > dead...which is not the same thing as brain dead. Basically, it is. From Dr. Michael DeVita: Before "non-heartbeating" organ donation occurs, doctors determine death using the traditional criteria, while in "heartbeating" organ donation, neurologic criteria are used because the heart is still beating. In both situations the patient is legally dead before procurement occurs. From Dr. Renee Fox: . . At this historical juncture in the United States, there are two sets of medically and legally legitimate criteria for determining and pronounced death. (1) An individual may be diagnosed and pronounced dead on the basis of the cessation of heartbeat and breathing – of circulatory and respiratory functions. These are long-standing, traditional indicators that the medical profession has used as definitive signs of the occurrence of death. (2) A person may be "defined" as dead on the basis of the irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain, including the brain steam (the "whole brain.") >Now, there is a point to be made that an anencephalic baby DOES > have brain activity (brain stem)...and therefore would fall under > the "any brain activity and they deserve protection" thing that you > just said...so that would make sense. Yes, unless a neurologist can make a determination that they will never have higher brain function. Someone who cannot think, move or respond to any stimuli (and never will be able to) isn't human in my book, and thus organ donation should be an option if their parents decide to do so. I realize that's not the way things stand now, and that's unfortunate. Organ donors can save a lot of lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #91 February 13, 2004 Let me rephrase. Because of my lack of knowledge on the subject of birth control (My wife helped me out on that one), I believe I misstated myself. I'm ok with preventing conception. I'm not ok with prevention of implantation and, therefore, killing living human organism. After conception, there is a "living human organism." A sperm or egg by themselves don't fit the criteria for human life. You put the parts together and they do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #92 February 13, 2004 Quote Someone who cannot think, move or respond to any stimuli (and never will be able to) isn't human in my book, and thus organ donation should be an option if their parents decide to do so. I realize that's not the way things stand now, and that's unfortunate. Organ donors can save a lot of lives. There are a lot of people that agree with you, beleive it or not. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #93 February 13, 2004 That sounds like some of my friends! He..he! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
