Scientists: "Fine, we won't kill the fetuses. Now please fund us."

[padren]

Yes' date=' but fertilization is the first of those steps. All things before it will not make a human. And all things after it will not make a human without it. It's a unique step. And dependency of multiple processes to sustain life is certanly nothing new. Fertilization is the absolute starting point of human potential. Which is why choosing it is not arbitrary.

 

If not fertilization, when does the instruction of building the human take place? And with what? Do you have a better idea of what causes a human to start being created?[/quote']

 

While I could agree that fertilization is an important turning point of the development of a potential human, and if all things go a certian way - the development of an actual human, why would stopping a potential human from growing into a human be vaguely the same as killing a human?

 

Its not like a human would die in the process - a human would simply never be. Regardless of whether its interfered with at the fertilization stage, after that or prior, as long as its the "potential human" and not an actual one that is stopped, what is the difference?

 

You can scrap a shipbuilding project before the designs are made, after the blueprints are finalized, or sink it at sea - but only sinking it at sea is destroying a ship. Once the blueprints are done it may be more emotional to discontinue the construction as you can see a specific ship will never get to sail (much like how at fertilization the DNA blueprint of a potential human is finalized) but no matter how you look at it its still not a ship at that point any more than a fertilized egg is a human being.

[-Demosthenes-]

Well, you're right it does make sense to me. But it still isn't arbitrary. It's, chronologically, the earliest point of human production. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

 

The problem is, you could chose any moment in development and call it the "earliest point of human [re]production." You very might well call the sperm the earliest development, or the egg.

 

Rather, we are thinking that conception is when the mass of cells has the potential to be a person without any outside manipulation besides the supplement of nutrients. -- The point at which the lump of cells has no concrete separation from being a human being except, or course, birth, which is arbitrary.

 

Most children could have been earlier and been completely fine, or later for that matter. There is no difference between a child an hour before birth and that same child an hour after. Birth is an arbitrary event, even more so than conception.

 

We should delude ourselves into think that that either side ever defined a "human being" using anything other than arbitrary events, be it conception or birth.

 

Some will call conception the "beginning of human development" and some will not. On a completely scientific basis it's rather inappropriate to kill anything where the actual development (in relation to being "human" and therefore having protective interest) is in question.

 

Of course I'm ignoring the right of a person (potential mother) to destroy something/someone that is using their bodily resources, and if they have any responsibility for voluntary sexual encounters and the potential consequences thereof.

[Skye]

I can grow a baby in a dish

I doubt it.

[ParanoiA]

I doubt it.

 

wow...the intellect is just oozing from that statement...I surrender

[ParanoiA]

The problem is, you could chose any moment in development and call it the "earliest point of human [re']production." You very might well call the sperm the earliest development, or the egg.

 

See, I don't think you can because sperm will not make a baby on its own. The egg will not make a baby on its own. The processes that trigger the building of a human aren't active when these ingredients are on their own. That's the whole point of my position. At what point do the "instructions" become active and the actual building of the human begins?

 

That, to me, is the start of the human potential.

 

If you start to analyze the growth of the fetus and try to determine when it has human value, then it would be different for all fetuses. For example, one person might say 11 weeks. But not every fetus is in the exact same state of production at exactly 11 weeks. That's more arbitrary than my life at conception point.

 

But, this is also why I don't think we should legislate pregnancy. A mother ought to have the right to kill anything in her body at any time. Once it comes out, that's another story. That would avoid all of this worrying about when to call it murder and blah blah blah. Personally, I think it's murder if you take the morning after pill. I just don't think it matters since it's your body and it's nobody else's business what you do with it.

 

And since you don't have to kill babies to get the stem cells anymore, what's the issue?

[Pangloss]

Let's keep it respectful, or warnings will be issued.

[Skye]

wow...the intellect is just oozing from that statement...I surrender

Sorry, please carry on with talking crap then.

[ParanoiA]

Let's keep it respectful, or warnings will be issued.

 

With all due respect, what was point in this shallow post?

 

I can grow a baby in a dish

 

I doubt it.

 

I think it deserved an equally shallow response. It's apparent that Skye doesn't care for any of my arguments, yet can't seem to muster a point of his own.

 

Sad really, because I have not come here to crap on anyone. I haven't been disrespectful or insulting to anyone, yet I get a cheap shot like that. I don't understand where the animosity would come from. Is this how intellectual people debate?

[Skye]

The point is that no-one has made a baby in a dish before, or anywhere outside of a womb. So honestly, it's pretty reasonable of me to doubt you when you say that you can.

[swansont]

I think it deserved an equally shallow response. It's apparent that Skye doesn't care for any of my arguments' date=' yet can't seem to muster a point of his own.

 

Sad really, because I have not come here to crap on anyone. I haven't been disrespectful or insulting to anyone, yet I get a cheap shot like that. I don't understand where the animosity would come from. Is this how intellectual people debate?[/quote']

 

Engaging in logical fallacies and making unsupported statements of supposed fact aren't the way of intellectual debate. I don't see how "I doubt it" is a cheap shot. It's a call for evidence, which should not be mistaken as a personal attack.

[ParanoiA]

The point is that no-one has made a baby in a dish before, or anywhere outside of a womb. So honestly, it's pretty reasonable of me to doubt you when you say that you can.

 

See, that's what I would expect. A point. And that's a good one. I was under the impression that's what fertility clinics are doing everyday. Of course, you probably mean the entire growth schedule. I know we can't do that today, but we will be able to in the future. We will be able to artificially recreate all of the functions of the womb.

 

That was a reply to a suggestion from someone else that it took a womb to make a baby, implantation...etc. So, I was trying to make the point that all of these processes can be artificially done, but fertilization will still be required. I know, it's weak, but that was my point.

 

And when I said I could grow a baby in a dish, I think it was more than obvious I didn't mean myself personally. Weird that you would comment on something so meaningless.

[Pangloss]

Ok, you had your chance.