Dr.Worthless Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 So does the pill. So does a condom. So does masturbation. Every time you spill your seed you've caused a person non-existence in the future.You're not denying a person their existence in the future, they aren't existing yet, unlike the case in question, aborting a fetus.. Sperm does not = a human. The combination of an egg and a sperm does. Reproduction 101 for you, sir. But a person in australia who gets stabbed and dies.. Do I care? Nah I concur.. Australians dont matter
MasterDrake Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 collection of cells not yet complete does not = human
MonteZuma Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 So does the pill. So does a condom. So does masturbation. Every time you spill your seed you've caused a person non-existence in the future. You're not denying a person their existence in the future, they aren't existing yet, unlike the case in question, aborting a fetus.. Sperm does not = a human. The combination of an egg and a sperm does. Reproduction 101 for you, sir.So you think a zygote is a person? I disagree. A zygote is a what you get after a sperm and an egg cell bump into each other. Purely mechanical - as is the development of the foetus from a zygote to something more complex. At what stage does a m!@#$%^&* of cells become a person? I'd say you don't have a person until you have consciousness. This doesn't occur until several months after conception. The lowest figure I've read is 4 months, but the generally accepted time is 24 weeks after conception. I don't think we should be aborting a foetus after consciousness develops, except in extreme cases. 99.9% of abortions in the UK are carried out before 24 weeks. 90% are carried out before 12 weeks!
Dr.Worthless Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 The lowest figure I've read is 4 months, but the generally accepted time is 24 weeks after conception. I don't think we should be aborting a foetus after consciousness develops, except in extreme cases. 99.9% of abortions in the UK are carried out before 24 weeks. 90% are carried out before 12 weeks! I've heard it as low as 3 before. I do agree with the conciousness statement. If I would have to bend on the issue at all (which is the only way we could p!@#$%^&* law.. is to reach a happy medium) It would for sure be somewhere during the pre-3'ish month time. Although at 24 weeks, with given care a "fetus" could survive outside of the wound, I think if a medium was reached there should be a comprehensive study to give a better estimate of the time of "conciousness". I say estimate because there's truely no way to know, i suspect.
MonteZuma Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 Well in that case we have reached a point of agreement. Some qualifications though: I think it will be impossible to establish exactly when consciousness develops. From what I have read, outward signs of consciousness don't show until 30 or 35 weeks. AFAIK the 24 week figure is to provide some leeway between the actual development of consciousness and measurable proof of its existance. Obviously it is best for all concerned that if abortions happen, they should happen as early as possible. What I am dead-set against is any !@#$%^&*ertion that women who have abortions are murderers. They aren't.
Petrajs_Killer Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 How can you justify 10k civilian deaths in Iraq? tchechens being systematically raped? US embargos killing thousands of people?How can you justify the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis that were murdered by Saddam? This point is moot, since it's just another America-hating, Bush-bashing rethoric.
»Ducky Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 Was he trying to justify it? I must have missed that part.
Bacchus Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 no, i wasn't trying to justify it. I was attemtping to see the extend of Aileron "moral theory" through exemples. If petrajs reread my post he should see that i wasn't trying to bash USA nor was i making a point of it. I was just asking if those exemples were covered by the "future life" theory.
Aileron Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 why are you calling names Aileron? Ducky's views are as legitimate as yours. Ducky's or anyone else's views aren't legitimate when I cover a base he needs for his arguement. I repeatly said "future HUMAN life" and he kept citing animals that will never be human. My agruement doesn't apply to animals, so Ducky's "counterarguement" went nowhere. I've covered that arguement before he posted it...it does not work. The difference between a sperm, egg, and zygote I've already covered in my first post, though it got buried. A zygote is a being; sperm and egg are potential beings. A zygote is something that has a future human life. A sperm and egg have a potential human life. (Technically both cases are potential, but there is a big shift in probability before and after.) If I only remembered what reading I got this from, I could post the link.
Aileron Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 Well, can't find any links. The article is:“An Argument that Abortion is Wrong†by Don Marquis
Bacchus Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 here google > Don Marquis... audio interview i think. I haven't listened to it the BBC on Marquis argument Google owns. it was pretty easy to find stuff about Marquis. It would be interesting to find a biography or something about the man to see from which "mold" he's coming. anyway, i'm in a rush...i haven't read the aticles. I'll do it later.
»Ducky Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 I repeatly said "future HUMAN life" and he kept citing animals that will never be human. My agruement doesn't apply to animals, so Ducky's "counterarguement" went nowhere. I've covered that arguement before he posted it...it does not work.Your arguement not applying to general animals and just humans was my arguement.
Recommended Posts