Elaborate

A doctor, of course.

Did you check? Most of them were above 90% I'm not "forcing" anyone, just advocating personal responsibility.

[/QUOTEAnd if the woman is irresponsible, is the solution to force this irresponsible creature to undergo pregnancy (against her will)? Is she likely to then become responsible and behave in such a way as to produce a healthy child?[/QUOTE]
She would be less likely to chance pregnancy again. No one is making her raise the child.

Doubting Didymus

I agree. The sperm and egg can not become human until they join. The zygote can not become human until it divides, the blastocyst can not become human until it embeds in the uteris and develops specialised tissue, etc. Semantics, I know, but you can't place your magic potentiality distinction at one of these and not the others.

Its already sunk in. You just have to prove it.

The potential is not any different after fertilisation. It is the same potential.

You know that that is not my argument. We are not arguing over what is human and what is not. I thought we were arguing over what has the potential to become human and what does not. The potential to become human is the same in an almost fertilised agg and in a zygote. I don't think humanity is present in either.

Good. Now stop saying it and demonstrate it to be true. How does a zygote have more potential than an almost fertilised egg? Why does fertilistion increase the potential, if is does not improve the probability?

You think fertilisation is where human potential starts. Big deal. Show how fertilisation increases potential and you might have a case.

Sure there is. Look at my IVF patient example. In the case of the zygote and the almost fertilised egg, the IVF patient has the same chance of a working pregnancy. Therefore the potential for causing a working pregnancy is the same in both cases. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

Exactly! But in my example too, unless something stops the sperm from entering the egg, which it otherwise would have, its going to become human. The same criteria applies.

Because you think a zygote IS a human, this naturally follows. I don't see any reason to consider a zygote human, so obviously I can not see the difference between destroying the zygote and preventing its otherwise certain creation.

If you could demonstrate that humanity starts at fertilisation, you have a case. But I se that you have not yet been able to point to anything about you that makes you human that a zygote also posesses. Why are you human?

No, you missed the point. A seed is not a sperm, it is a complete embryo. If you want abortion to be murder, then it follows that it is the responsibility of environmentalist groups to prevent the destruction of seeds. Again: seeds are embryos, not sperm. By your argument, the oak is already begun in the acorn, and destroying the acorn is equivalent to felling an oak. The parralell is not loose. It is exactly equivalent.

MarcoPolo

Ok. With that type of 'potential' then your argument extends the other way as well. My wife and I destroy the potential for life each night we go to bed without intercourse. The 'potential' is there for life to start, right?

Your seed example below (the one I agree with yet you still find something to argue) is a good place to start. The seed will not 'grow' until it receives all the nutrients to grow. That's the same as a zygote. But it's still a seed/zygote with the potential to become human. Just nourish it and you're there.

Ok, we'll try that then.

1. Does a sperm have the potential to become human without an egg?

2. Does an egg have the potential to become human without a sperm?

3. Can an unfertilised egg become human?

4. Is an 'about to be fertilised egg' fertilised?

I tried to offer that we're talking different definitions of 'potential,' did you get that part?

By your definition of 'potential,' a married couple has the potential to become human. (Sound absurd? I think so to.) After all, they WILL meet, they WILL fall in love, they WILL get married, they WILL have sex, the sperm WILL fertilise the egg. Therefore, they have the potential to become human.

Right. Once the egg is fertilised, it has the exact same potential. I agree. But UNTIL that time, no.

I agree with that!!! The potential for CAUSING a working pregnancy isn't the pregnancy itself. I've been saying that all along. The sperm and egg have the potential to cause a zygote to form.

Right. Again, you're stretching out the potential to an infinite regression of causes where I'm leaving it at the result.

If you don't stop the couple from seeing each other, there is potential. If you don't stop the couple from falling in love, there is potential. And so on and so on.

This is becoming a semantic nightmare.

I see what you're saying. Can you at least see where I'm coming from?

I don't know that I believe that, but if you can't determine where humanity starts, how can you say that's wrong and be certain about it? Or are you certain?

Ok, let's do a little test then.

If it can be proven that a zygote is human, would it be wrong to destroy it?

If it can be proven that a zygote is NOT human, would it be wrong to destroy it?

Is it proven either way at the moment? If so, can you show some sources?

I agree. And I can't. Conversely, once you can prove when humanity starts, you have a case.

I don't have an answer for that. Again, it's the benefit of the doubt thing until I know for sure. If you know for sure, I'd appreciate some links.

I didn't miss your point. I was trying to draw a parallel to the TYPE of statement, not make a direct comparison.

You're getting into the differences between humans and plant life. It'll take a lot more patient person to debate that with you if you don't know the difference.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: MarcoPolo ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Elaborate:
<strong>

A doctor, of course.</strong>

Again, what is a "good possibility"? 99% possibility that the woman might die? 90%? 75%? What if she disagrees with the doctor, or the doctor is strongly anti-choice? Can she get a second opinion?

<strong>In that case it would be justifiable. The point is that I think it wrong for a woman to hae an abortion for no medical reason.</strong>

So we've gotten women's rights to have an abortion :

1. if life is at risk - YES
2. if medical conditions exist - YES, but unspecified (how bad do the medical conditions have to be to warrant an abortion)
3. rape - NO, because she should have been on the pill

Is this all correct so far?

What happens, by the way, to a woman who is on the pill, but gets pregnant anyway as a result of rape?

<strong>There is more than one type of pill. Not all of them is the. </strong>

Not all of them is the what?

<strong>If one has bad side effects, she can use another.</strong>

What happens if she has adverse side effects to all of them? What if the only one that does not give her adverse side effects is far too expensive for her?

<strong>If they cannot pay for a pill, how weel could they pay for an abortion?</strong>

You have not answered the question. I hereby repeat it : How do you expect women who don't have money to pay for the pills? Please note that this includes all women capable of pregnancy, whether they are thirteen or thirty.

<strong>Is it being unreasonable to expect people to change some unhealthy attitudes to change about sex? </strong>

You have not answered the question. I hereby rephrase it : What should a twelve-year-old is supposed to do if her parents refuse to let her purchase contraceptives and someone else says "Take birth control pills whether you are in a relationship or not"? It's all very well and good to want to change people's attitudes, but do you suggest that women are forced to deliver children they do not want until attitudes change?

<strong>And I notice that it doesn't, "Only use one method at a time."</strong>

What happens to women like frostymama, who, for example, are allergic to such products? Do you suggest that women who are being raped should say, "Excuse me, Rapist, but could you please slip on a condom, because that would reduce the risks of my getting pregnant"?

<strong>I how would they then afford an abortion?</strong>

Coathangers.

<strong>Only possible in extemely exceptional cases. I'm only argueing against unecessary abortions.</strong>

So, if a female relief worker in, say, Afghanistan, is held and raped repeatedly, would you consider it permissible for her to get an abortion? Who gets to define "unnecessary" - you or the involuntarily pregnant woman?

<strong>Did you check? Most of them were above 90%</strong>

What happens to the women who are in the unlucky 10%? Should they be forced to undergo pregnancy and labor against their will, perhaps jeopardizing their jobs, relationships and mental health? Who compensates them for the cost of pregnancy and delivering the child?

<strong> I'm not "forcing" anyone, just advocating personal responsibility.</strong>

I don't see why a woman should be held responsible for what the consequences of a rapist's actions. Could you explain the reasoning behind this?

<strong>She would be less likely to chance pregnancy again.</strong>

Please provide evidence for this statement, such as a survey that shows women who are forced to undergo pregnancy and labor are less likely to chance pregnancy again.

<strong>No one is making her raise the child.</strong>

Let's concentrate on simply developing and delivering the child. I will repeat the question you did not answer : Is she likely to then become responsible and behave in such a way as to produce a healthy child?

MarcoPolo

I'd be interested in hearing when you feel an abortion is OK.

1. Life at risk?
2. Medical conditions?
3. Rape?
4. Birth control fails?
5. Prostitute?

My answer is I don't think it's right in any case. But in the same breath, I wouldn't want to take the right to decide away from anyone either.

I know a woman that is the product of a rape. She is a very nice and loving woman, and frankly the world is a better place because her mother decided to keep her.

Queen of Swords

<strong>I'd be interested in hearing when you feel an abortion is OK.</strong>

I don't think of abortion as "OK" or "not OK". I see it as a choice individual women have to make, and whatever they decide is up to them. I don't have the right to make such a choice on anyone else's behalf, nor do I think anyone (besides myself) can make such a decision for me.

<strong>My answer is I don't think it's right in any case. But in the same breath, I wouldn't want to take the right to decide away from anyone either.</strong>

That's fine, then. Frankly, I don't care what people think about abortion as long as their intention is not to force women to undergo pregnancy and labor.

<strong>I know a woman that is the product of a rape. She is a very nice and loving woman, and frankly the world is a better place because her mother decided to keep her.</strong>

If you go by what the fundamentalists say, pregnancies would give rise to Einsteins and Beethovens, if only they weren't cruelly, cruelly aborted!

Doubting Didymus

Yep. Well done.

That's right. Potential galore.

Absolutely. Isn't that stupid? What an absurd reduction we would have to believe in, if we were trying to define human by the potential to become. Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to completely ignore the potential to become human, and wait until the thing IS human, before offering it rights? This has been the entire purpose of my sperm/egg argument: defining things as human because they have the potential to become human is silly.

No, not without an egg.

As long as you specify that no sperm will get near this egg, no, it has no potential.

Yes, of course it can. If unfertilised eggs could not become human, there would be no humans. Saying "but it cant become human UNTIL it is fertilised", is just semantics. By any sensible definition of potential, unfertilised eggs can become human.

That should read: Can an 'about to be fertilised egg' become human? and the answer is obviously yes.

Again, you simply claim this as though it were obvious. The about to be fertilised egg has the same potential, because it will result in the same probability of pregnancy. How can there possibly be a distinction between their potentials, if their respective results will definitely be the same.

The potential for causing a working pregnancy is exactly the same in a zygote and in a near-fertilised egg. Once we establish this trivially obvious fact, we can move on to whether or not there is a difference in interrupting the potential by destroying the zygote, and interrupting the potential by removing the sperm.

Why is the zygote miraculously the result? why not the blastocyst? It seems like you have set this distinction where you want it, for no obvious reason.

I know what humanity is, because I am a human myself and I know many humans. I can not see a single defining attribute that makes any of us human that is shared with a zygote or a blastocyst. That is why I am confident that a zygote is not a human.

As long as the definition of human is satisfactory to me, then yes, it would be wrong to destroy it. Posessing a full genome is not good enough.

I can not see what is wrong with destroying a thing that is not human, does not care if it is destroyed or not, and does not posess any other value.

Unless I know what you would consider proof, I can not help you. I think it is proven enough for me that a zygote is nothing more than a cell with a potential, and a potential does not make anything human.

The only thing I can see that makes me human is that I am a thinking being of the human species. I would not have any meaningful humanity if I could not think. Therefore I think humanity begins in an foetus as it gradually attains consiousness.

I cant tell you unless I know what you consider to be human and what you don't.

Ah, but I am not claiming that tree life has the same value. I am simply using the exact argument that you use to condemn abortion, and applying it to the plant world. It is a terrible shame, and in some cases, a crime, to fell a mighty oak tree. By the logic that makes a zygote human, the burning of an acorn should be an equal shame, and an equal crime, as felling the tree. But, I don't think it is the same at all. Do you?

MarcoPolo

Ok. Now can you see where we're using 'potential' differently then? You're saying there is potential if the ingredients are in the same vicinity, which is always. I'm saying the potential starts when the ingredients mix.

You see the difference in our 'semantics' right? You understand what I'm saying and how it's different from what you're saying right?

Only in a world where people love to debate without purpose.

Sure. When is that exactly? Gray area? You know it's not when the sperm and egg come together. (You know it's not when they're in the general vicinity too, right?)

Only because you can't settle on a what potential is. (To remind you, it's an infinite regression of potential to you.)

The question still stands as written. Please answer it.


How so? By first becoming fertilised? Well, then it's a fertilised egg, not an unfertilised egg. (I'm agreeing that this is a semantic battle, just agree with that and we can finish.)

No it shouldn't. It's asked exactly how I wanted to ask it. Please answer.

Is a 'near-fertilised egg' fertilised? (I know I know, that's painfully obviously no. But getting you to answer that is like pulling teeth.)

Since we're never going to agree on 'potential' we'll never finish this debate. You're making a perfectly logical argument with your infinite regression potential. I'm defining an exact moment to begin potential. Can you see that?

I can't believe you can't see this. I'm starting to think you're doing this just to be difficult.

One sperm and one egg become one zygote. It is no longer two things, but one. The growth of the zygote is given different names at different stages. Just like we 'label' kids. Infants, toddlers, pre-teens, teenagers, etc...

You've got zygote, blastocyst, fetus, etc... (I don't know the exact progression, but I think, er, hope you can see the point I'm making.)

That's well thought out and I see exactly what you're saying.

What is humanity? You say you know it because you are human. That's like a fundy saying, 'I know God exists because the bible says so.'

You also say 'you cannot see...' any humanity in a zygote. Do you know everything about a zygote?

And when is it labeled a foetus?


I don't know enough to define humanity. Send me some links that make you sure.

Only if it has the same value as a human.

Only if you equate the value of a human to the value of a tree.

I AGREE that destroying an acorn is the same as destroying a zygote.

Painfully and obviously.

Elaborate

30% would be a good possibility. And I would always get a second opinion for something as serious as abortion.

1. Correct
2. Life-threatening to Serious (i. e. something that would cause extreme sickness and/or disability)
3. Correct

Not all pills use the same drugs.

[url=http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/cchoices4.html#RINGHere's[/url] one that lasts for one month, and is not a drug.

I consider it a necessary precaution to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Not everyone needs a car, but everyone needs to take proper care of their health. And a thirteen year old is provided for by her parents, so they are the ones who should pay for it.

She has no choice in this matter, it is entirely her parents' fault. But how much is a thirteen year old going to need contraception?

Learn self-defence? Again, there are many more products out there than you or I realize, and i would bet there is one she could use without an adversive reaction.

Unnecessary: pregnancy caused by improper protection and/or lack of forethought.

But why would anyone rely on only one method?

And I don't see why the child should be killed for the rapist's actions.

An hour's Google search could not bring about a study. That conclusion seemed, and still seems, logical. If I am incorrect in my conclusion, I retract it.

Possibly. Many unwanted pregnancies occur through failure to use contraception. The woman "forgot her pill", or "he didn't withdraw in time", or "the condom borke". That seemingly small mistake had a large consequence. Faced with this huge responsibility, yes, most would do what they could.

It is obvious that this issue cannot be resolved to our repsective satisfactions in on debate on a message board. Neither of us will "win" (if winnning a debate is possible), and convince the other of his or her position.

Doubting Didymus

Of course I do. The zygote is obviously different to a separate sperm and egg. My only point here is that the sperm and egg have the same potential to become a human. Of course they have to proceed through various forms before they manifest the potential, but it is nonetheless the same potential. I understand you want the potential to start with fertilisation, but if the probability of creating a child is the same in the case of an almost fertilised egg and a just fertilised egg, the potential of those two different things must be equal.

Sorry, what? Did you just agree that a fertilised egg is not human? As above, I think humanity does not 'begin', but develops. I think it becomes gradually impermissable to terminate a foetus as it develops a mind.

I don't quite understand.

I did. As long as it is guaranteed that no sperm will ever fertilise the egg, it has no potential. If there is a possibility of a sperm fertilising it, then the sperm and egg TOGETHER has some potential. If the sperm is so close to fertilising it that it will be definite unless action is taken, then the sperm and egg together has the same net potential as any zygote.

So the question as it stands is no, because there is no sperm.

Yes. By first becoming fertilised. If you seriously want to claim that this is not the potential to become human, because it must pass through a different form first, then neither does the zygote have human potential, only blastocyst potential. Total and utter semantics and nothing more. ALL the forms have human potential: foetus, blastocyst, zygote and conjugating egg-sperm. Completely separate egg and sperm have a reduced potential, because of the possibility they will never meet. If the meeting is a given certainty, however, then the sperm and egg have the net potential as a zygote.

I really dont see what you hope to acheive by this: No. A nearly fertilised egg is not a zygote. So what? Is a zygote a foetus?

Yes, but I don't see what you are basing the sudden appearence of potential at fertilisation on, exactly.

Yes, and? Remember: my scenario is that the meeting of sperm and egg is a given definite. That means they have the NET potential (that is, together they have a total potential) equal to a zygote.

Not really. It would be like God saying he knows god exists because he is god himself. I know that if I had my brain removed, I would not be me. I don't believe in a soul. I know that if any other human on the planet could not think, they would be nothing but lumps of meat. From this, I extrapolate that a single cell, or four cells, or eight, given that they can not think, can not experience conciousness, that there is nothing human about them. It seems quite a fair extrapolation to me.

I know a fair amount about zygotes. What did you have in mind? I am quite certian that a single cell can not have human conciousness to a fair degree of certainty, if that's what you mean.

When it develops specialised tissues and begins to exhibit the physical fetures of the adult. In other words, when it is that little curled up think with stubby fin-limbs and a tail. At that stage it looks just about like every other vertebrate foetus. Why do you ask?

Links to what? scientific journal articles? What do you want to see?

On to oak trees, and how it is a shame to destroy one:

You must have missed what I said. I will make it a clearer scenario: You are in a national park. Felling a tree in this park is a crime punishable by a hundred thousand dollar fine. You may camp there, however.

While camping, you chuck an acorn in the fire.
Should you be fined one hundred thousand dollars? Why not, if destroying an embryo is the same thing as murder? I am not paralelling the crime to human murder, but id abortion of an embryo is murder, then abortion of a tree embryo must be the same act as destroying a tree.