How very republican of you to pass judgment on someone's personal choices that are non of your business.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

Of course, those liberal minded, progressive democrats wouldn't pass judgement on people. You know, like conservative religious folk who oppose something like gay marriage. I mean their opinion should affect you right?

I didn't realise one can't have an opinion on what was a journalistic, public opinion piece. Me bad.

ISIS beheading people in Syria, mass shootings in the USA or people eating dog in Asia are none of my business either. They still affect my moral compass, so I'll express an opinion on it.

Everyone here knows I'm not prochouce but pro abortion. I think calling it choice is silly but ok. I still support her choicenof aboring a fetus but do in this case think it isn't the greater good and 100% selfish. But I also think if it were the case where she got pregnant her situation might change. My wife was ready but I wasn't st 30 when we found out. And once it happened my acceptance of the situation instantly changed.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I don't see why that should bother me at all.

Does in vitro fertilization bother you just as much as abortion?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

RE: "To me, at that age, if you're educated and financially stable, to not take adequate precautions (on multiple levels if required) is beginning to show a genuine contempt for life"

The fact that you jumped to the "contempt for life" conclusion shows me you had an agenda that was narrow in focus because you wanted one and only one answer. If you drive drunk do you have a contempt for life, drinking problem, making an error in judgement none of the above or all of the above?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Nope, not one iota of difference. Do you really think folks here haven't thought this through? This story is pretty basic stuff. I don't believe that a fertilized egg has any rights, and I place no moral judgment on what my friends who have had in-vitro fertilization do with their zygotes.

I don't believe that a fertilized egg has any rights

Until when?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Good question! That isn't any aspect in the example. How about for you?

I think from the point of conception.

Question remains. You were a fertilized egg once. In a very real sense, you're still a fertilized egg. You speak of fertilized eggs contemptuously. At what point, in your opinion, do they obtain rights?

Related but distinct question: At what point, in your opinion, do they obtain value?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

certainky not before there is any conciousness.

how do you feel about in vitro fertilization

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Define "consciousness."

Then, is the point at which a being has "rights" the same point at which a being has value?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

in this context i wouls define it as an awareness of stimuli.

value is subjective.

abortion at 1 week of pregnancy vs successful ivf procedure. which one is worse in your opinion?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

in vitro?

in this context i wouls define it as am awareness of stimuli.

lol. Nice try, if you're even cognizant of the attempt.

Define "awareness."


value is subjective.

Yeah, aren't they all. So what? Answer the question.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

awareness is perception.

i did answer the question. value is subjective, so there is no tidy answer to your question.


you arent answering my question.

successful vitro vs abortion after 1 week. which is worse?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

25 weeks when regular brainwaves are present. You can pull the plug on an adult when regular brain waves aren't present. Same with a fetus.

If it would end the argument I am perfectly willing to drop it to 20 or 22 weeks just to error on the side of caution.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

How very republican of you to pass judgment on someone's personal choices that are none of your business.

There are lots of things people make personal choices about that don't have a direct impact on my life. If a couple makes a "personal choice" to abort a child, and the child can't speak for themselves, is it okay to speak out on that child's behalf or is it only the business of the couple?

A fetus who does not yet have brain waves is not in the same situation as an adult human being who doesn't exhibit brain activity, though, is it?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I see, so you're relying on what current technology can measure.

Single cell organisms exhibit awareness of stimuli.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

How very liberal of you to assume all republicans pass judgment on the choices another makes regarding abortions...

this is the same position ive taken in many discussion. it never seems to end the argument. they often fall back on an outcome bias argument. "you used to be a fetus! or thank your mom for being pro life!"

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Your business ends at the end of you nose. If it has no impact on your life, it doesn't concern you. If you have sperm in the game, then it does.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

such as?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Using your logic, if I walk upon a woman being raped or a child being sexual abused, I should just keep walking because it isn't any of my business.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Your business ends at the end of you nose. If it has no impact on your life, it doesn't concern you. If you have sperm in the game, then it does.

What if the woman makes the choice on her own?

The vast majority of hypocritical conservatives / republicans are far too concerned with other people's business and rely on government to enforce their intolerance.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

That's quite a leap, even for you. The last time I checked, abortion was not a criminal act. Those who believe it is are radical conservative terrorists.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

Yeah, ok.

 
awareness is perception.

Is it? Then define perception.


i did answer the question. value is subjective, so there is no tidy answer to your question.

You most certainly did not answer my question. Does a being only have value if it has rights? How does that response pertain to the human fetus?

It's true that values are subjective. So what? You're values about the sexual abuse of minors are subjective, right? Never heard you object to answering a question about that on the grounds that values are subjective and therefore meaningless.

Stop hiding and answer the question.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Um ... bacteria.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'm not comparing abortion to anything. I did not mention abortion, did not refer to abortion, and was not addressing abortion.

Look at what you wrote. Look at it. Using your logic, if I walk upon a woman being raped or a child being sexually abused, I should just keep walking because it isn't any of my business.

If that is not what you meant, then learn to write intelligently and work on your ability to express yourself through the written word.

So, do you care to revise your original answer to Sanuk or continue to look like a unintelligible boob?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

She must have had a good reason not to have your baby, and, quite frankly, I don't blame her.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

How very elitist and judgmental of you. Of course, you are the guy who thinks a man should not intervene when coming upon a woman who is being raped or a child being sexually abused because it is none of your business.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I love how you people wander off topic and then take the [supposed] logical high ground when someone responds within the context of the original posting. Responding appropriately to stumbling upon a criminal act is one of the responsibilities we assume when we decide to be a member of a society that has gone to the trouble of determining what is, and what is not, a criminal act.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

You have no idea what I think, and, you have no proof of my gender.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

thats the 2d level of consciousness. its not the same thing.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Until when?

The million dollar question that we seem to never spend any time or money attempting to figure out. For me the "When" is at the exact moment that the fertilized egg crosses from a fertilized egg to a human individual life. Unfortunately I don't think we have either adequately defined what exactly constitutes a human individual life and certainly have not discovered when that takes place in the development of a human being.

To me this is a question that needs to be answered and will play into all of the other discussions like end of life scenario's, coma, dementia, various mental illness etc etc. What exactly must exist for a human individual to exist? We simply don't have that answer yet, IMO.

If at some point we define that then abortion would be murder after that point...assuming that point even takes place in the womb. It would not be murder to stop the beating heart of a human that had lost those qualities, something I think that is not only possible but probably quite probably in cases of dementia, coma etc.

Personally I don't think we even attempt to figure this out for the reason that I think that no matter what is discovered it's going to make a good portion of the population uncomfortable.

~Matt

 
thats the 2d level of consciousness. its not the same thing.

lol.

I say again: Define consciousness.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

this is really rich since ive asked you a question multiple times and you repeatedly ignore it.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

i gave you a simple definition for the purposes of this discussion. i even said that's what i was doing.

glad you got the joke.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Unfortunately I don't think we have either adequately defined what exactly constitutes a human individual life

We have, and it's really not a matter in serious dispute: And individual human life, or individual human organism, or human being, comes into being at conception. That's simply a matter of science, as they say. It's not really arguable, and that science was settled a very long time ago.

When a human being/human life/human organism becomes a person is perhaps more arguable. Perhaps.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You didn't, and now you're pretending to talk about "levels" of consciousness, as if they're not only known to every but settled, and meaningful.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The vast majority of hypocritical conservatives / republicans are far too concerned with other people's business and rely on government to enforce their intolerance.

I am conservative and oppose abortion, not because I am concerned with other people's business as much as a concern for murdering a defenseless human being. I gather that makes me "intolerant"...

By the way, what exactly does the government enforce about my opposition to abortion?

If it's not arguable (perhaps), then there would never be a debate on this. In vitro?

That you would turn a blind eye towards sexual assault makes you a despicable person regardless of your gender.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

 
If we are talking about a fetus before brain waves (~12 weeks) it is, for all intents and purposes, no different than any other organ, excepting that it will probably become a separate sentient human being, eventually.

One point to be clear on, if you disagree with that, that's fine. But understand that selfishness and immorality are not the motivators that drive that decision.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

You obviously missed my response to your accusation. Try paging up.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

So now you sit as judge and jury to decide what is and is not a criminal act???

Wow. I really hope these posts merely evince your inability to formulate a coherent thought into written word and are not a reflection of your insanely warped mind.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

What is? I am using YOUR definition. If you don't like it, fabricate a new definition.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

 
If it's not arguable (perhaps), then there would never be a debate on this.

Ha ha! That's cute!

You're not a denier of basic biology, are you?

At the point of conception, a unique human organism (otherwise know as a human being, or a human life) comes into existence. Like I said, that's not really arguable. It's just basic science. If you believe that there should be no debate about whether or not it should be allowable to end a unique human life, welcome aboard. But that doesn't seem to be your position.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's simply a matter of science

No, "Human life" is not "Individual human life". There is no question that human life exists at the moment of conception. That is not to say that an indivual human life exists at that point...and yes it is a matter of science and science has not answered that question yet.

When a human being/human life/human organism becomes a person is perhaps more arguable. Perhaps.

And that is the point I'm making. Scientifically speaking individual human life is not the same as human life.

~Matt

That's a pretty MASSIVE difference!!!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Are you drunk, or just stoned? What, exactly, do you not comprehend in my statement?

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

At the point of conception, a unique human organism (otherwise know as a human being, or a human life) comes into existence. Like I said, that's not really arguable. It's just basic science.

I think if you did some looking around you'd find that in science "Human life" and "Individual human life" are used differently, at least that is my understanding. Human life defines life that is human or associated only with humans, DNA, Human cells, etc etc. Individual Human life tends to be used in discussions surrounding person hood, consciousness and individual human rights.

~Matt

It has nothing to do with my comprehension. It is what your words actually say. The fact that you lack the mental capacity to comprehend what your own written words actually say and the asinine position they express, comes of no surprise.

Your express position is that another couple's abortion has no direct impact on Sanuk, so he should mind his business. Well, the same can be said of a sexual assault upon which Sanuk comes upon. So, using your logic, he should not intervene in any manner. If you wish to clarify your position, you should do so. But, the words say what they say and that cannot be debated. Therefore, you either lack the ability to express yourself through written word or you truly are a despicable person who feels a person should not intervene in any matter than does not directly impact the person.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

What if the woman makes the choice on her own?

She must have had a good reason not to have your baby, and, quite frankly, I don't blame her.

What are you talking about?

You said abortion was only the business of a man if their sperm was involved so I asked about women who make the choice on their own. The pro-choice crowd typically supports a woman's right to choose, not a couple's right.

So, my question is, are you pro-choice if the woman can choose without any input from the man?

excepting that it will probably become a separate sentient human being,

That's a pretty MASSIVE difference!!!

I think this is an interesting perspective. It applies a value to potential. I'm not making a judgement call I just think it's an interesting note that for the most part there is a very high value placed on potential in this case.

In some cases we don't put a whole lot of value on potential and even in some cases it's regarded negatively if we do place value on potential. If for instance we were able test children at birth and could determine ones ability to learn, say a more sophisticated IQ test, I think there would be significant push back to placing more value on the child with more potential then the one with less potential. We in fact see this in our spending on severely handicapped children. Spending much more on children that will struggle to ever become independent then we would on a very gifted child.

So in the case of abortion we place far higher value on positive potential then we do in the case of intelligence and potential to benefit society.

Again, not a judgement or even an argument, just what I would consider to be an interesting observation.

~Matt

I agree with your observation regarding valuing potential, but question whether we are truly valuing "potential" here. Are we?

A group of developing skin cells only has the potential to become skin. A zygote has the potential to become a birthed baby. So, we are talking about two different entities completely rather than assigning value to "potential" of the cell grouping, aren't we?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

so you didnt get the joke after all.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

no its not. you abort a fetus, not a possibility of a human. you have no way of knowing if the aborted fetus would have ever survived or aborted on its own.

if you want to talk about the possibility of life as an argument against abortion then you commit a holocaust every time you masturbate. monster!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

W.T.F.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

I am not pro-choice, I am anti human procreation. Why would anyone, in their right mind and good conscious, create a being who knows it is going to die? Having children is a selfish act of cowardice.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think a woman should be forced to be a human incubator for 9 months for a baby she doesn't want.
An analogy I use is organ donation. Lets say someone needs a kidney transplant and you are the only tissue match they can find. The patient will die without a kidney and you have two. You might choose to donate a kidney and save someone's life or you might decide that you don't want to. It is your choice and nobody would force you to donate one of your kidneys.
As far as a woman's vs baby's rights. Roe V Wade divided pregnancy into trimesters. In the first trimester the mother's rights are paramount so abortion cannot be denied to her. In the middle trimester the rights of mother and child can be balanced. In the last trimester the foetus' rights can be considered above the mother's so more regulations can be made.

You are not very good at this. Of course we know what happens to a fetus when not aborted. We have over 7.4 billion examples currently walking around.

More to the point - it is inconceivable to me that a vegan could be "pro-choice."

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You words, buddy. Now, you are at a loss to explain yourself as you have backed yourself into a morally deplorable corner.

Ok, let me help you out here. There are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people who believe hunting for sport is morally deplorable and are vociferously vocal in opposition to same. However, it is not illegal and it does not directly impact these people. Therefore, you believe these people should just shut the fuck up and mind their own business, right?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Aren't there ways to prevent the pregnancy?


The woman (along with her partner) created the fetus to be aborted. You did not create the patient with the failing kidney. Not even remotely analogous.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Holy shit. I finally figured out who you are. Welcome back, doc. We missed you.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Do you care to share what mind altering substances you have consumed this evening?

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

no, you dont. you know one possible outcome and are incorrectly assuming that it is the only outcome. you would be correct only if 100% of pregnancies resulted in live births if not aborted by choice.

we know thats not even close to reality.


heres how a vegan can be peo choice in a super dumbed down argument: a cow demonstrably suffers more than a 12 week old fetus. about 90% of abortions happen before the 13th week..

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

if the patient was their adult child?

regardless, it doesnt matter. if the maker was under obligation to save its creation....well you can see where that argument is going.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

How do you know that?

I simply cannot comprehend the mental gymnastics required to maintain these two moral philosophies at the same time.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I am not pro-choice, I am anti human procreation. Why would anyone, in their right mind and good conscious, create a being who knows it is going to die? Having children is a selfish act of cowardice.


Now I understand your signature line...

i base that on what we know about the nervous systems of a 12 week old fetus as well as those of a cow.

there is no mental gymnastics required, the position, as stated, is consistent.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Serious question. If abortion is murder, then what do you do about miscarriages? Should there be a funeral? Should women who miscarry without saving the products of conception (this is the medical term) be charged with indignity to human remains?

The key term is "what we know." It's going to be quite embarrassing to a number of you when we know more.

I guess there isn't any mental gymnastics required when you are able to fool yourself into certain beliefs.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

 


no. it wont. because i base my position on the best available evidence. thats the cornerstone of science based skepticism.

being wrong is never a source of emarrassment because im happy to change my mind. its fundamentally no different than gaining knowledge. further, basing your position on what we know, if what we know is incorrect, while wrong in facts, is not analogous to holding a position contradictory to what is known and accepted.

its a really odd of you to say that learning new information through scientific study is embarrassing. i doubt you actually believe that and wouldn't argue it, if you paused to consider it for a moment.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Often there are funerals. A friend of mine miscarried. They had a funeral. It's fairly common.

Also, if you kill a pregnant you can be, and often are, charged with two murders.

Even here in ultra-liberal California that happens.

For what it's worth, I believe the dirty, selfish, worthless cunt the OP is talking about has every right to kill her babies as a form of birth control for purely connivence related reasons.

And I also have the right to consider her a dirty, selfish, cunt whore. Fuck that lady. I'm glad she'd kill for convenience. She'd most likely raise her kids to grow up into real fucking shitty people. Fuck her and fuck her unborn babies.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

The only thing that's odd is refusing to destroy the eggs of a chicken, while harboring no hesitation to destroy the fertilized eggs of a human.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Those chickens are exploited!!!!!

Don't forget, he doesn't eat honey either. It comes from exploited bees!!!!!!

I wish I was joking.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

so you dont understand the reason i am generally against the practice of consumijg chicken eggs. you can save some trouble of having an incorrect argument against me by asking instead of assuming.

ill give you a hint...it has nothing to do with eggs.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

you may not be joking, but youre wrong.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Do you consume honey?

If not, why not?

Why don't you consume eggs?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I think if you did some looking around you'd find that in science "Human life" and "Individual human life" are used differently, at least that is my understanding

I don't know what to tell you. Your understanding is perfectly wrong. A fertilized human embryo is an individual human organism, a unique, distinct, human being. Again, science. It's not just some "organ" of the mother until brain waves develop.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

i do sometimes.

i dont consume eggs because im against the practice of factory farming. im also not against someone eating eggs in every circumstance.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

In California we can only get "cruelty free" eggs certified by our government overlords.

It's the law.

You should move here.

Btw, I don't eat honey. I use agave nectar instead. Honey is murder!

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

If she's simply saying she's not ready, that (at least to me) sounds like a child is an imposition on her current way of life. How is that not me me me? Just curious on your take.

Are any of us really ready? In general we end up coping

Ok, this little quote here should be saved for posterity sake. And now other stupid things you have said here make a lot of sense. That's a very radical leftist idea you have there, and we should know who we are dealing with when you say the idiotic things you tend to.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Its me me me as much as you eating a hamburger is killing a cow for selfish reasons.

If you were to, say, cut down a tree, we don't generally qualify that as being selfish. Selfishness generally implies that its done at the expense of someone else. I don't consider an organism that has never had a thought to be "someone else."

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Careful with this...somebody will now require you to define "thought" and that will take the whole thread from abortion through eating honey/eggs to something else :-)

Ad Muncher

Vag.


I would like you to explain your ivf comparison. Ignore all other talking points, just telll me what you are getting at. Don't ask me a question either, please explain.

Thanks.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

The problem with IVF is that it results in multiple fertilized embryos, most of which end up being discarded.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I see.

Here's how we did it. We told the Dr not to try to create more than two embryos. We told the Dr to implant all viable embryos (only one of the two was). Amazingly we were the first patients at that clinic to insist upon this. Usually I think they talk people out of it.

Of course we did this so that we would not be discarding any embryos. I can see why people go the 'create 5-9' route but we stood by our convictions. Amidst lots of Dr pressure to not do that.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

That's an admirable course. Sincerely. I have not heard of anyone doing that until now.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

As I said, it wasn't easy. The Dr puts a lot of pressure on you to create more than you might need.

But it can be done. You just have to insist.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Just adding... I had to be talked into this. But I agree with my wife now. A life is a life at any stage.

And yes, Ms. BLeP is an admirable woman.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Do you entertain suicidal thoughts? Serious question. Have you talked to anyone about it? Please do.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I suggested this to our veggie loving friend. It's fun watching his mental gymnastics on this issue.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Of course anyone with any kind of grasp on human reproduction would never use such a stupid argument.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Disagree. If I'm killing a cow to eat it's because I want to eat that cow.

She's partaking in sex for the sake of sex and killing a life form that could be an unintended consequence. As JSA said earlier it's easily preventable. She and her partner are either being lazy and/or selfish.

Bullshit, you said yourself, unplanned. If she had an IUD and used a condom because she wasn't ready, that's not lazy/selfish. No where in your example did you say that she was having unprotected sex.

People need to get it out of their head that it is used as BC.

No, I don't. I do think about what dying will be like since it is the only thing left on my 'things I must do that I do not want to do' bucket list. I stated in a thread a number of years ago that the only thing I fear in life is the moment I realize when I am taking my last breath. I think these are important things to think about so I am properly prepared for the moment. I have begun the laborious task of slowly removing myself from people's lives so when my inevitable passing happens they won't have any reason to feel sad.

I did ask my mother why she didn't abort me when she clearly didn't want to be a mother, and definitely didn't want to have my father's child [poor drunken choice (date rape) on her part]. Her response was 'abortion wasn't an option 12 years before Roe v Wade'. Forcing women to have children they do not want is barbaric.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

if youre referring to me, then by all means, ahow how im wrong.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

they create more than two because its an expensive, imperfect procedure and creating multiple embryos increases the chances of success. it also allows them to select the best embryo for for implantation.

if they created only 2 and you were successful, then you got lucky. congratulations. most people do not have that success.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Believe me, I know why people do it.

And we weren't successful at first.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

How many humans have been created by sperm and sperm alone?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

vitus got at it.

because ivf destroys far more embryos than abortion does. even in your case, you paid a dr to destroy an embryo. THE SAME THING THE GIRL DID IN THE OP EXAMPLE. but, people ascribe all sorts of selfish, cunt, murderer types of labels to her. i seriously doubt anyone here would say that about you, however. (they shouldnt) yet im the one imagined to be inconsistent.

"but we tried to create a life, she didnt" is a typical response. it may be , may not be yours. but its irrelevant anyway, since you both paid a dr to destroy an embryo you did not want. i dont think either you, or the girl in the op example are bad people for making the choices you did. you didnt cause harm.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

The odds of falling pregnant when combining implants and condoms sit around 0.01%, so when she's talking about falling pregnant, you bet your ass she's not doing all she can; don't kid yourself.

Conversely, I'm not going to criticise her if she was (combining both) but still did, because she took all reasonable precautions.

But you know what, I'd see it as a sign that baby was meant to be if it still occurred.

Having unprotected sex doesn't mean you're planning on having a child. You do realise how many people still prefer to roll the dice? If it happens then yes abortions are their backup BC. They are the people I take particular issue with.

I have not stated that it's murder.

I think you'll find that from reading my posts I am not as black and white as others.

I merely stated that educated people who have the means to raise a child well, who choose to perhaps not do everything in their power to avoid pregnancy, then terminate, are selfish and immoral. Should people who terminate not meet the above criterion, then my views on them are somewhat softer, even neutral at times.

Yes, but every form of birth control has a failure rate. My mom conceived me while she was on the then new birth control pill. Even if someone gets pregnant because they didn't take precautions I wouldn't force them to have a child they didn't want.




It still applies. Even if the "someone" was their own child a parent would not be legally compelled do donate one of their kidneys.

There is a point where "personhood" begins and you have to consider the rights of the child. Like I mentioned, I'm impressed with the reasoning in the Roe v. Wade decision. I don't think a zygote or an embryo is a person yet.

My daughter was conceived through IVF. We knew that most of the embryos that resulted probably would not survive. Protocol dictated that we could not donate any unused embryos to infertile couples because of my wife's advanced maternal age. We had no problem with this. We ended up using all viable embryos. Three embryos were transferred, 2 had 8 cells and one had 6 cells. We would have welcomed twins or even triplets but only one made it and we never mourned for the two embryos that didn't.

youre employing an attribution bias.

also,"everything in their power to avoid pregnancy" is silly. theres only 2 ways to avoid pregnancy... sterilization and death. im guessing you dont mean those options.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

No. And I also wouldn't say 'no rights'. But not sure exactly how to apply fetus rights versus mother's rights.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

As opposed to myth and legend? Yes.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

They could put the child up for adoption.



The problem is, we don't really know when "personhood" begins. One cannot seriously debate that, upon fertilization, "life" begins and it is far more than a group of bacterial cells that will always only be bacteria. The only real debate is when that "life" becomes a "human life." People who evince evidence of when human life begins can only support their position by creating their own definition of "human life." Several on this board have said "human life" does not begin until brain waves are present. Ok. But, those people have created their own definition of "human life." Others argue "human life" begins at conception because a potential baby is made at that point. Ok, but those people have created their own definition.

FWIW - I believe this is a moral issue, not a legal issue. I feel abortion (in most cases) is morally wrong, but I would not outlaw it. It is a personal choice and, put in certain positions, I don't know how I would act.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yes, but I have a hard time getting any sort of moral outrage going for having an abortion in the first trimester regardless of how the pregnancy came about.

Well, if the fetus has some rights prior to brain wave activity, it's hard to imagine what they might be if they don't include the right not to be killed.

What rights do you think the mother has? I mean, I realize the mother currently has a legal right to have the fetus killed, but is there some fundamental "right to not be pregnant even though I had sex"?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Therein lies the rub. The problem is when we get into hyperbole. Both sides use the word "murder" to chastise the other. That's ridiculous. But, it is killing and we need to consider that term. We kill bacteria. We kill animals. We kill plants. We kill insects in homes. We also kill in assisted suicides and we kill when we pull the feeding tube from a person in a vegetative state. People need to quit calling it murder. Murder is a legal term with a precise definition and legal consequences. But, people also need to stop claiming it isn't killing. It is. But that doesn't mean is should be illegal.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

One cannot seriously debate that, upon fertilization, "life" begins and it is far more than a group of bacterial cells that will always only be bacteria. The only real debate is when that "life" becomes a "human life."

I'm going to quibble, but it's an important quibble.

At conception, life begins. Human life begins. *A* human life begins. The fertilized egg is a new, individual, human life. It's a distinct organism. It isn't just "life" that will develop into human life, and it isn't just human life the way your liver is human life.

When that human being becomes a person is, as you say, debatable.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I was guessing that people would not take my words literally but rather use sound reasoning to interpret that I meant statistically reliable contraception, both man and woman. I guessed wrong!

It's been an interesting discussion to read. Bordering on the bizarre at times, but still worth the price of admission.

Agree. That's what I was trying to say, but I think you clarify it well.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I could be convinced to say that prior to the fetus attaining personhood the fetus' rights are subsumed into and inferior to the mother's rights. For instance, you cannot kill my fetus without my consent but I can.

The fetus clearly crosses a line in my mind prior to birth where its rights are equal to the mother's.

The rub is deciding when the fetus attains personhood. You go with conception, I go with brain activity. And I could easily go much earlier than 20 weeks, says 12 or 16 weeks if it settled the issue. But I doubt this issue will be settled that easily. Both sides are right that if they give an inch the other side will take a mile.

"but is there some fundamental "right to not be pregnant even though I had sex"?"

Is this not the whole point of contraception? I don't think you mean to outlaw contraception but not sure. The problem with many anti-abortion crusaders is not that they are pro-life as much as they are anti sex without consequences. They don't like sex education, they don't like easy access to birth control, etc. I am very much pro sex without consequences. We know people will have sex, if the threat of eternal damnation won't keep them from doing it, a kid isn't going to. The way to eliminate abortion is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies. The activities of many pro-life groups does not help that.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

And as stated earlier, that's a choice. You don't have to create numerous embryos. Sure, it saves you money and yeah your chances improve. But if you really care about your convictions then you put your money where your mouth is.

Just want to add, I am 'pro choice'. But my choice happens to be life.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

i can be a tad pedantic.


also, what is your basis for "statistically reliable"? that would include any method regularly above chance, but i doubt thats your measure. also, it would also include the pull out method, which is about 75-90% effective.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

If it was easy everybody would do it. :)

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

So you'd be okay with it if she did it with the intent to eat the fetus?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

or even some other use like research?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I could be convinced to say that prior to the fetus attaining personhood the fetus' rights are subsumed into and inferior to the mother's rights. For instance, you cannot kill my fetus without my consent but I can.

That's essentially what the law says now. I think it's an incoherent position. Either the fetus has rights or it doesn't. And if it has rights, it might be reasonable to balance those rights against the mothers in certain situations. But there is no other circumstance in which we say one entity has rights if someone else says so.

The rub is deciding when the fetus attains personhood. You go with conception, I go with brain activity.

That's one rub. I think brain activity is an understandable point at which to ascribe personhood to the fetus. (I also think if you're going to say that, it really isn't hyperbole to describe abortion after that point as murder.)

There's also the question of whether or not it's morally permissible to kill a human being that hasn't yet attained personhood.


"but is there some fundamental "right to not be pregnant even though I had sex"?"
Is this not the whole point of contraception? I don't think you mean to outlaw contraception but not sure.

Well, yes, that's the point of contraception. No, I don't mean to outlaw abortion here. What I'm saying is that there doesn't seem to me to be much of a case for saying a woman who has sex and got pregnant has some fundamental right to erase the biological consequence of that act- after the fact.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

FWIW, I don't even think that this is a relevant point.

Lets assume that 100% of 10 week old fetuses will eventually become "people." That doesn't mean that they are people. It means that they are organs that will turn into people.

The issue that they have (assuming that they accept this premise) is that you would be terminating a future human being, except that future human beings don't actually exist in any other way than as a concept.


Consider this (and I think this is what you meant). I have a sperm, my wife has an egg. Lets assume we have the technology to make pregnancy 100% likely. If I pull out, am I committing murder? I just killed a sperm, which is alive. The egg will likely die, too. And those two would have become a person had I stayed in.

The difference is at what stage in the process does someone believe that the organism has a right to not have its development terminated. But a thoughtless organism is most certainly not yet a person.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Lets assume that 100% of 10 week old fetuses will eventually become "people." That doesn't mean that they are people. It means that they are organs that will turn into people.

Not "organs." Organisms. Human organisms. Human beings that will develop into - not "turn into"- persons.

, except that future human beings don't actually exist in any other way than as a concept.

That is just not true. Before your parents conceived you, you didn't actually exist in any other way than as a concept, maybe. Once you were conceived, you existed. Just as you existed as an infant, even though adult Barry had not yet developed. You are the same human organism.


The difference is at what stage in the process does someone believe that the organism has a right to not have its development terminated.

No, the difference is at what stage in the process science tells us an organism exists- and that stage is conception. Your sperm cells are not organisms. Your wife's ova are not organisms. The fertilized egg is.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

is your position that we must treat fertalized eggs as humans because they have the potential to become humans?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

this is one of the ways the potential human argument breaks down.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

is your position that we must treat fertalized eggs as humans because they have the potential to become humans?

Is it your position that they aren't humans?

What are they, then?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I understand. The point I was making is that they are no different, other than one *becomes* a person. They are both just living tissue.


I disagree. *I* am my mind, not my flesh.


Science tells you a lot about human development. It doesn't, however, tell you at what point an organism should have rights.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

you didnt answer the simple question.

yes that is my position. they arent humans, there fertalized eggs.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

they are not human beings - they are a single cell.

Many fetuses that are in the first trimester move away from the abortion instruments and fight to live in the womb based on testimonies and videos that I have seen, so do they meet the consciousness standard you have set?

 
I disagree. *I* am my mind, not my flesh.

That's a stunningly dualist statement- and wholly unscientific. But OK.

What happens when you fall asleep and don't dream? Barry ceases to exist other than as a concept or a potentiality, and only living tissue remains until you wake up?


Science tells you a lot about human development. It doesn't, however, tell you at what point an organism should have rights.

Completely agree. Science doesn't tell you when an organism has rights, or if there are any rights, or even if there are persons. We're deep in remedial work here, though, just trying to establish what basic biology has conclusively determined- that the fertilized egg is a distinct human organism. Once we get past bio 101, we can move on to the interesting stuff. How about it?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

they are not human beings - they are a single cell.

So what? How many cells does an organism need to have before it's a human being?

If it's not a human being, what is it?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

im doubtful, please convince me with evidence.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

they arent humans, there fertalized eggs.

It's like saying you aren't a human, you're a biped.

On the spectrum of science denial, your position is closer to the flat earthers than it is climate change skeptics.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

how many water molecules does something need to have before its wet?



i already answered this. why are you asking again?

also, why wont you answer my simple question?

is it your position that fertaized eggs should be treated as humans because they have the potential to become humans?


eta: i mistakingly thought you were replying to me.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

not remotely accurate. can you pick out a picture of a human in a line up? yes or no?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

The difficulty with that whole line of argument for the pro-choice side which want to use "humaness" as an argument to allow abortion is that even newborns and young children aren't really human beings from a cognitive standpoint. The cognitive traits that makes a person a human being and not just some sort of really smart animal take a few years to develop.

Modern society seems to have decided birth is the moment the human gets rights but I know historically many cultures found nothing particularly wrong with infanticide which probably reflects to some degree the recognition that a very young child isn't really fully human yet.

youre equivocating between human-adjective and human-noun.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

how many water molecules does something need to have before its wet?

The question is how many water molecules does something need to have before it's water.

And the answer is, of course, only one. Just because you can't perceive it as wet, or because you can't pour it into a glass, or water your garden with it does not matter in the least. It remains water.

How can it be water when it doesn't look to us to have any of the characteristics we associate with water, though?! It's just a molecule!

It's a molecule of water. It's water. Basic science.


is it your position that fertaized eggs should be treated as humans because they have the potential to become humans?

No, it's my position that fertilized human eggs should be treated as humans because they are humans. Again, basic science. Very basic.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Regardless, the point is there is very little that is distinctly human (unless all you mean by the term "human" or "human being" is a member of the species H. sapiens) about a very young child that differentiates it from a fetus beyond both of their potentials to become a fully human being.

Really the major difference is that after birth some other human beings could potentially provide the life-giving support that pre-birth only the mother could provide.

no. its not basic science. its simply your assertion.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Modern society seems to have decided birth is the moment the human gets rights but I know historically many cultures found nothing particularly wrong with infanticide which probably reflects to some degree the recognition that a very young child isn't really fully human yet.

Professor Singer of Princeton would argue they were on to something. If personhood is the cut off, and if person depends on consciousness, there's a decent enough argument to be made that consciousness isn't evident at least until use of language develops. Brain wave activity is not consciousness. Nor is response to stimuli. People use those benchmarks, I think, because they're just super creeped out by the thought of infanticide. But many of their objections to protecting life from conception could be applied quite consistently to their own position. If you choose development of a brain stem or brain wave activity or the ability to respond to stimuli as the point at which a fetus has rights, you aren't really protecting a person- especially not if you hold that the person is the mind, wholly distinct from the body. You're still just protecting a being that is developing into a person, and is only farther along in the process.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yes, similar to my assertion that a single molecule of H20 is water.

But by all means, let me know what your alternative theory is.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

a fertalized egg is not the organism it may develop into. its just not. it has the information and building blocks that give it the potential to become a human, if nothing goes wrong, which happens often.

a pile of building materials has the potential to be developed into a building, but no one would say it is now a building. im assuming you would not either. a fertalized egg has the potential to become human, but it is not now. most biologist would not agree with you. yet you claim its "basic science"

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

No, it is basic science. Once that egg is fertilized, it is human. It goes from an egg to a zygote to an embryo to a fetus, but at every stage, it is human and will never be anything else. What you want to argue is that it is not a "person" until a certain point and that is highly debatable, but from the time of conception, it is human.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I've never argued otherwise and I think few reasonable people have. Many argue where "life" begins or where "human life" begins, but what they really mean is where does a "person" begin.

Keep in mind, deciding what should or should not have rights to life can't be based on semantics. ie "We use this word to describe this thing" is not a good argument. Exactly what the thing is should be the basis for the argument.

When you say "Science tells us," it doesn't really. Its a bit circular. "We used this word to categorize that, so using that definition we can now determine that this is that."


You make a great point. I'll take it a step further. What if I get into a car accident and my heart stops and, lets just say hypothetically, my brain waves shut off for some brief period of time. There's a paramedic who can zap me with something to bring me back to life. But before he can, you slit my throat.

Did you murder me?

Most people (myself included) would say yes.

So what's the difference between that and killing a fetus before brain development? The difference is (not arguing that its an important difference, just stating what it is) that I have been alive, have the ability to be alive again, and have made a whole bunch of attachments with people. So "Barry" which we know as "that prick from the internet" died, and could have been saved, but Vitus went out of his way to make sure that didn't happen. Technically you didn't kill me, but for all intents and purposes you did.

The difference between that and the fetus is that "it" never was anything.


For you, the fact that it can develop into something is enough to give it right to life. Just like for me, the fact that Vitus has been a sentient person is enough for me to give you right to live again. I don't personally see where we can really debate further beyond this point other than one person feels one way and another person feels differently.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

A pile of building materials is a pile of inanimate objects that require the hand of man change it to some else. It can be taken to build a building or a road or a fireplace or an outdoor grill or ... or ... or ...

Sperm and an egg are objects that have the ability to combine to create something new. Once they combine, they create something new. At that instant, they create a human and will never be anything other than a human being. It may not survive. It may not be born. But human entity is created and will never be anything other than a human being.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

a fertalized egg is not the organism it may develop into.

Why not? Because you say so?


a pile of building materials has the potential to be developed into a building, but no one would say it is now a building. im assuming you would not either.

A pile of building materials can be assembled into a building. It doesn't develop, because it isn't alive. See how that works?

Is the fertilized egg alive? Yup.

Is it human? Yup.

Is it a being distinct from the mother? Yup.

Is it in the process of growing and developing, directed by a process internal to it? Yup.

And there is complete continuity between you and fertilized egg you once were. You are the same organism, now fully developed.

On what grounds do you claim it's not a human organism? At what point does it become a human organism, according to you? Why?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

When you are king, are IUD's acceptable?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Right, but (I'm just playing devil's advocate here) really a new born baby just has the potential to become a human being, it's got at least a few years before it develops the cognitive hallmarks that make it such. And some never do.

Yet we generally consider it morally wrong to kill babies or people that are never going to get there or get back there (e.g. severe congenital abnormalities or severely brain damaged individuals).

Personally I have no need to draw a line in the sand but apparently some do. The idea of third trimester abortion creeps me out, basically everything is there mostly just growth occurring by that point. First trimester abortion doesn't bother me in the least. Birth seems like a reasonable enough, convenient enough place to draw the line. Someone else besides mom can care for the kid at that point if she doesn't want it.

Not quoting to keep the replies from getting too long.


Yes, unwanted children can be put up for adoption but that doesn't mitigate the fact that denying a woman an abortion she is being forced to serve as a human incubator for 9 months. As in Roe v. Wade I think you have to consider both the rights of mother and child.


Life doesn't begin. It is a long chain. I'm alive, my sperm are alive, ova are alive, zygotes are alive. Life doesn't begin at any magical place. It is also human at every step of the way. The important question is when personhood begins. This question has a lot of implications. I don't pretend to be able to definitely answer the question but I also know that I don't want you or some politician deciding when it is either.


I don't mourn for the embryos that didn't make it when we used IVF. The cells didn't start to differentiate yet so they didn't have a single neuron.


I think we probably agree more than we disagree. I don't see abortion as a good thing. I think it is always a tragedy on some level. I also think that to a certain point (12 weeks according to Roe v Wade but still debatable) that it should be entirely up to the woman if she wants to continue with her pregnancy or abort.

I've never argued otherwise and I think few reasonable people have. Many argue where "life" begins or where "human life" begins, but what they really mean is where does a "person" begin.

Seems like I drew that exact distinction several times, and people still want to argue over it. I'm not saying they're reasonable in doing so, they're clearly not. Looks like climate change skeptics aren't the only ones who throw science overboard when science conflicts with their political beliefs.


Keep in mind, deciding what should or should not have rights to life can't be based on semantics. ie "We use this word to describe this thing" is not a good argument. Exactly what the thing is should be the basis for the argument.

I have no problem with that. I have a problem with people denying that a fertilized egg is human, or alive, and then proceeding to base their argument on that very obvious mistake. I don't say that calling a fertilized human egg a human organism necessarily leads to any particular conclusion about its rights. I do insist that we all acknowledge the basic scientific truth that it is a human organism and proceed accordingly. Policy should be informed by science, right?

The difference is (not arguing that its an important difference, just stating what it is) that I have been alive, have the ability to be alive again, and have made a whole bunch of attachments with people.

Which part is operative in that? Your connections with other people, or the fact that you were a person before you were unconscious and can be a person again?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

now you changed the debate by adding "organism"

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Sperm is not human. Sperm can never (on its own) become human. So no the argument doesn't break down in any way shape or form.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I agree that you have to consider the rights of the mother and the child. But only one of those is facing death, so it isn't exactly an evenly balanced scale.


I think you are correct (that we agree more than we disagree). I mentioned this earlier, but will say it again -- I think it is a moral issue and not a legal issue and I would not outlaw abortion.

But, I think we need to recognize what it is -- killing. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we kill animals and plants for food. We kill bugs because they bother us. Assisted suicide and pulling the feeding tube on a person in a vegetative state are both killing. We generally accept all these killings, but we generally acknowledge what they are.

Not sure why it is so difficult for so many to acknowledge that abortion is killing. But it seems most to are vehement pro-choice advocates cannot bring themselves to that very basic reality.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Go back and see how long I've been using "organism" in this thread.

You agree that it's an organism?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Sperm is human, like your toe is human, but it is not A human. A fertilized egg is both human and A human.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

the "potential human" argument is rife with problems. guess what, fertalized eggs dont becone human on their own either.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

of course its an organism. but just because you can draw a direct line (as you said) between a fertalized egg and a human adult, does not make the fertalized egg human.

you can also draw andirect line between the first sexually reproduced cell on this planet, some billions of years ago to you. im sure you wouldnt say that cell was human. this is why the life begins at conception stance is arbitrary. its not simple sience as you keep insisting. the lines are all blurred.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

 
of course its an organism. but just because you can draw a direct line (as you said) between a fertalized egg and a human adult, does not make the fertalized egg human.

So it's an organism, but not a human organism?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

To be more specific I would say that in embryo is the early stage of the human organism.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

To be clear, if you were to pull the plug while I was unconscious, I would never know. If you asked me if I wanted to die, I would say no. But if you killed me in my sleep, it would make no difference.

So having said that, its really the connections with other people that are what matter. Keep in mind, this is about the attachment/feelings/etc. that we have for human life.

When it comes right down to it, its difficult to answer any of these questions:

Kill a person?
Kill a brain dead person?
Kill a (insert ethnicity)?
Kill a criminal?
Kill a cow?
Kill a dog?
Kill a fetus?
Kill an early stage fetus?

With regard to abortion, you can take each one of those questions and add to it, "that's inside your body?"


My personal opinion: If you abort, do it in the first 12 weeks, the sooner the better. If you do it later than that, I sure hope its for serious health reasons. Be responsible and use contraception.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

So it's a human organism, then. In other words, a human. Got it. Took an embarrassingly long time for you to admit that.

Obviously it's an early stage of the human organism. Literally, the earliest stage of the human organism. It's still a human. It remains a human throughout it's development from one stage of the human organism through the next, all the way to death.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

When do you think a fertilized egg officially transitions to human?

Yeah, that is kind of what the whole thread is about.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Just trying to get a clear defining moment from venanerd.

no. is a carerpillae a butterfly? is a sperm a human? no. no. no.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

As little no as it was cooked. Eating a raw foetus is just sick

I don't know anyone who would claim an abortion does not kill anything. I've been getting pre-cancerous patches called actinic keratoses. Since they can become cancerous my doctor freezes them off with liquid nitrogen. My wife had a mole surgically removed that her doctor thought might become cancerous. I have a skin tag on the back of my leg that is bothering me that I'm going to get tied off. I don't worry that I'm killing cells when I have AKs frozen off or my skin tag tied off. These are living human cells but like a zygote they are not a person.

The embryos that we transferred had few cells. They were nothing like a person at this point and their death bothers me no more than the cells my doctor kills with LN2 or a suture. Any of those embryos that survived would joyously be welcomed into our family because they were wanted but I also wouldn't fault someone for aborting them at such an early stage. I love my daughter more than life itself but I don't mourn about the two other embryos our doctor transferred that didn't make it.

Oh for crying out loud. Are you kidding me?

It's an organism, and an early stage of the human organism, but not a human organism and not a human?

You are being more than ridiculous here.

At what point do you "believe" the organism turns into a human? Please explain why you believe that, and how it's backed by science.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

from a biological perspective, there isnt one.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

So to run with that logic, we either are't human now, or we are all human from the moment of fertilization. There is no separation of the two, correct?

Would it help you if instead of using the term "human," we said a "member of the species homo sapiens"?

From a biological perspective, a human organism is a human. You might still be trying to hide, inexplicably, behind the difference between a human and a person.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

there isnt a definite point. there are no clear lines in biology.

if you lined up the entire line of skeletons from the first ape like ancestor to a modern human, at no point could you make a distinction ;this is a homo sapien, and this one isnt. but you could look at the first one and say "thats not a human" quite easily. any point in between is purely arbitrary.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

no. the lines are fuzzy. at what point does a person become old? give me an exact definitve day we can all agree on. do you get that? now apply it to biological development.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

 
there isnt a definite point. there are no clear lines in biology.

Yeah, there really is.


if you lined up the entire line of skeletons from the first ape like ancestor to a modern human, at no point could you make a distinction ;this is a homo sapien, and this one isnt. but you could look at the first one and say "thats not a human" quite easily. any point in between is purely arbitrary.

Has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about. What we're talking about is an individual, living organism, biologically distinct from it's mother, with it's own, complete, human DNA, growing and developing under it's own internal direction. Just because some lines in biology are fuzzy does not mean that we cannot also make definitive statements, or that all lines are fuzzy. What you have with a fertilized egg is, undeniably, a human organism. A human being. There is no question of it being an ape or a the next stage in human evolution, and the point of conception is not arbitrary.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."