The World Can't Wait Drive Out the Bush Regime

[faust9]

Why would it endanger her life?

What part of high labor mortality rates in poor nations did you miss?

Would you like to tell me how does the education of the poor stop when abortion is not an option?

When President Bush changes rules to make this so. You should read the news from time to time. I know this was published in european papers because I was there in 2001 when this first started to appear:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1837283.stm

 

[DM]

And the other part of the question: on what doctrine do you base yourself to say that this is a human being ?

Involuntary euthanasia and religion. You may ignore the latter, religion, since I'm becoming aware that you are not a religious person.

I tried to argue that such a zigote is about the same thing as just any OTHER cell of a human being. So what differentiates a zigote from that other cell ?

You argued that "spitting" is the same as a zygote. Has it crossed your mind that spitting is twofold?

A) People choose to spit in dependence of bad habits.

B) To extract or get rid of impurities.

The difference is clear. The creation of a zygote is the result of cells between two parties being formed into one life form.

 

[faust9]

Involuntary euthanasia and religion. You may ignore the latter, religion, since I'm becoming aware that you are not a religious person.



You argued that "spitting" is the same as a zygote. Has it crossed your mind that spitting is twofold?

A) People choose to spit in dependence of bad habits.

B) To extract or get rid of impurities.

The difference is clear. The creation of a zygote is the result of cells between two parties being formed into one life form.

Again, we come back to this idea of a lifeform. What doctrine tells you the zygot is a life form? What guarantee is there that this zygot will mature to a living beathing human being?

 

[DM]

What part of high labor mortality rates in poor nations did you miss?

A clear excuse. You completely concentrate on the poor, is that your strategy to forget the rest of the world? In addition, instead of pointing your finger on women that live in parts of Africa, you ought to focus on the absence and lack of aid.

When President Bush changes rules to make this so. You should read the news from time to time. I know this was published in european papers because I was there in 2001 when this first started to appear

From your given reference:

"This dream is unlikely to be realized if Alice gets pregnant again, as she cannot afford another child."

It's not all about abortion, or is it?

 

[DM]

Again, we come back to this idea of a lifeform. What doctrine tells you the zygot is a life form?

What doctrine?! I don't even need to use religion to argue your question. A zygot is a life form, there are no doctrines, it's a pure biological fact.

What guarantee is there that this zygot will mature to a living beathing human being?

The guarantee is on permitting the life form to develop and to be delivered.

 

[faust9]

A clear excuse. You completely concentrate on the poor, is that your strategy to forget the rest of the world? In addition, instead of pointing your finger on women that live in parts of Africa, you ought to focus on the absence and lack of aid.

Ok, what right do you have to force your ideology upon Japanese women?

From your given reference:

"This dream is unlikely to be realized if Alice gets pregnant again, as she cannot afford another child."

It's not all about abortion, or is it?

This makes no sense. You need to do some investigation on your own; moreover, you should have added the following to your quote because by presenting the small tid-bit that you did you changed the meaning of the article to suit your argument which is a very disingenuous thing to do. I'll help you by including the follow on paragraphs from my source

Once a month, she receives a contraceptive injection at this clinic. But a decision taken far away in America is about to have an impact on Alice's life.

"I'm sorry to tell you", says the nurse, as Alice rolls up her sleeve for the injection, "This is the last time you will be here."

"From the end of the month, we are closing down."

The clinic is one of five across Kenya to be shut because of a decision taken by George W Bush shortly after he became President last year.

He announced that the US Government would not fund international agencies which support abortion.

The move was seen as an attempt to appease the powerful anti-abortion lobby in the United States.

But the clinics run by pro-choice organisations in Kenya, mainly offer family planning services, not abortion.

 

[faust9]

What doctrine?! I don't even need to use religion to argue your question. A zygot is a life form, there are no doctrines, it's a pure biological fact.

Then supply the medical doctrine that supports this 'fact'

The guarantee is on permitting the life form to develop and to be delivered.

So what about the health of the mother?

 

[DM]

Ok, what right do you have to force your ideology upon Japanese women?

To force my ideology? You're obsessed.

This makes no sense. You need to do some investigation on your own; moreover, you should have added the following to your quote because by presenting the small tid-bit that you did you changed the meaning of the article to suit your argument which is a very disingenuous thing to do.

It makes perfect sense, I think you're the one who's being "disingenuous". The fact remains, this article also addresses women that would like to conceive a child but are forced not to due to funding.

I'll help you by including the follow on paragraphs from my source

I have already commented about it; you should concentrate on aid, not abortion. For the sake of transparency, these are my opinions, THEY ARE NOT "FORCED IDEOLOGIES".

 

[DM]

Then supply the medical doctrine that supports this 'fact'

Oh dear, now you want to dissent scientific facts.

So what about the health of the mother?

A healthy mother is a mother that stays at home. Again, reiteration; aid.

 

[faust9]

Oh dear, now you want to dissent with scientifical facts.

You used the term fact. I just want you to support the use of the word.

A healthy mother is a mother that stays at home. Again, reiteration; aid.

Utter rubbish! Barefoot, pregnat, and in the kitchen right? Now come the true colors.

 

[faust9]

To force my ideology? You're obsessed.

Glass houses.

It makes perfect sense, I think you're the one who's being "disingenuous". The fact remains, this article also addresses women that would like to conceive a child but are forced not to due to funding.

Utter nonesense! Support this claim please.

I have already commented about it; you should concentrate on aid, not abortion. For the sake of transparency, these are my opinions, THEY ARE NOT "FORCED IDEOLOGIES".

The aid is being cut because because the organization---not the actual clinics in many cases---supports abortion as a viable means of family planning.

 

[DM]

Utter rubbish! Barefoot, pregnat, and in the kitchen right? Now come the true colors.

Opposed to "high labor mortality rates"? I'm bemused by your recent statement. Just what exactly causes "high mortality rates"?

Your comments have been reduced to vagueness and incomprehension.

 

[DM]

The aid is being cut because because the organization---not the actual clinics in many cases---supports abortion as a viable means of family planning.

I imagine you're pretty content then. You support abortion!

 

[faust9]

Opposed to "high labor mortality rates"? I'm bemused by your recent statement. Just what exactly causes "high mortality rates"?

Your comments have been reduced to vagueness and incomprehension.

What the hell are you talking about? How is high labor mortality rates vague? Poor women are much more likely to die during child birth than developed nations. Your response here shows you are out of touch with reality---kind of like the a mother is safe at home comment. Here, I did a little leg work for you to find some readily available statistics:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_1999_May_31/ai_54888648
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Aug/23-564085.html
http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=26928
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/matmrtlt.html
http://www.childinfo.org/eddb/mat_mortal/

 

[faust9]

I imagine you're pretty content then. You support abortion!

For the health of the mother yes. Read the thread--I made mention of this already.

 

[vanesch]

Involuntary euthanasia and religion. You may ignore the latter, religion, since I'm becoming aware that you are not a religious person.

I AM a religious person, I worship the Great Bangaloo! :tongue:, but that shouldn't matter when discussing what is to be legal and not FOR OTHER PEOPLE. The separation of religion and state has exactly this as its foundation: religion cannot be used to argument any legal rule. You are FREE to your religious opinion, but you are NOT FREE to impose it upon others. So all reasoning leading to a law should be free of religious arguments, but solely based upon scientific and logical arguments. It is exactly this lack of separation which is the total disaster of theocracies.

You argued that "spitting" is the same as a zygote. Has it crossed your mind that spitting is twofold?

A) People choose to spit in dependence of bad habits.

B) To extract or get rid of impurities.

The difference is clear. The creation of a zygote is the result of cells between two parties being formed into one life form.

Yes, but there is no law against spitting (or bleeding, or poking my nose, or scratching my buttocks... or any other behaviour that can result in separating living cells from my body, hence denying them the right to live). You want to instore a law against removing a SINGLE CELL (a zygote).

Of course a zygote is a life form. So are the other cells in your body, and so are bacteria and mushrooms. The only fundamental thing that separates these cells from each other are the DNA content in the latter cases. In the former case THERE ISN'T EVEN THIS DIFFERENCE.
So I come back, once again, to my question: WHAT EXACTLY is it that makes a zygote more "rightfull" than a T-cell in your blood, or a chimp's zygote, or the bacteria that you are killing by millions when you are taking antibiotics to get rid of an infection ?

 

[DM]

What the hell are you talking about?

Likewise. Example:

How is high labor mortality rates vague? Poor women are much more likely to die during child birth than developed nations.

Why are poor women in third world countries more susceptible to death during child birth? The reason is clear; intensive LABOUR!

Your response here shows you are out of touch with reality---kind of like the a mother is safe at home comment.

Actually when I made the "mother is safe at home" comment, I did use "aid" in support of it. That meant personnel such as midwives attending the conceived women.

 

[DM]

For the health of the mother yes. Read the thread--I made mention of this already.

So why do you critise Bush's policy. Again vagueness.

 

[vanesch]

Actually when I made the "mother is safe at home" comment, I did use "aid" in support of it. That meant personnel such as midwives attending the conceived women.

We're concentrating on the wrong argument here. It is not because you're in deep misery and have a health risk that you should be granted the "right to abortion". It should be simply a right to every woman (at least during the first part of the term), simply because THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT THAT GOES AGAINST IT. The only argument to DENY THE RIGHT (no matter whether it is because of misery or just for personal convenience) to remove a small cluster of cells from your body is purely religious and as such, totally vain when accepting the separation of state and religion.
I still want to see a non-religious, scientific argument that tells us that there is "human suffering" when you remove a zygote. It cannot be done. In the same way as nobody makes a fuzz about the cells you kill when you spit or scratch your back, one shouldn't make a fuzz when a woman decides to get those cells removed.

 

[DM]

I AM a religious person, I worship the Great Bangaloo! :tongue:, but that shouldn't matter when discussing what is to be legal and not FOR OTHER PEOPLE. The separation of religion and state has exactly this as its foundation: religion cannot be used to argument any legal rule. You are FREE to your religious opinion, but you are NOT FREE to impose it upon others. So all reasoning leading to a law should be free of religious arguments, but solely based upon scientific and logical arguments. It is exactly this lack of separation which is the total disaster of theocracies.

I'm not preaching Vanesch.

Sometimes in Christianity, discussing what is to be legal or not does matter to us. But that does not mean we're trying to impose our religious perceptions on others. Sometimes we base our beliefs with our religion, a quintessence of this is abortion.

The only fundamental thing that separates these cells from each other are the DNA content in the latter cases. In the former case THERE ISN'T EVEN THIS DIFFERENCE.

That's where I just disagree.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The bible on when the fetus becomes viable.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7 KJV)

 

[vanesch]

That's where I just disagree.

And that's where I want to hear an argument...

 

[DM]

And that's where I want to hear an argument...

I believe I have argued that point.

 

[vanesch]

The bible on when the fetus becomes viable.

That would be much more liberal than even most liberal legislations: BREATHING would mean that it becomes a human being then. So birth would be that moment.

But again, what is written in an old book should not affect the daily life of people if they didn't choose to adhere to it.

I can perfectly accept that people (including doctors !) do not want to participate in actions that are, according to their beliefs, in contradiction to the values those beliefs impose. For instance, I can perfectly well accept that a certain doctor would refuse to practice an abortion. However, it goes also the other way: one should not use the legal machinery to IMPOSE these values (derived from religious beliefs) upon people. They are free to subscribe - or not - to those values.

 

[DM]

But again, what is written in an old book should not affect the daily life of people if they didn't choose to adhere to it.

But they choose to adhere. Hence religion and beliefs.

 

[vanesch]

I believe I have argued that point.

I haven't seen it. You've only said that a zygote is a life form, which is correct. But being a life form doesn't give it human rights. Bacteria and mushrooms are also life forms, and I think we agree that they don't have human rights. Chimp zygotes are also life forms.

Now, the difference between an unfecondated egg cell and a fecondated one is only its DNA content. So is it this DNA which makes it have human rights ? There, I argued that, say, T-cells in your blood contain EXACTLY THE SAME DNA.

Another argument is that a zygote can devellop into a human being, given the right environment. There too, you can do that with the DNA of a T-cell (it has not yet been done with humans as far as I know, but it has been done with sheep - it is called cloning). So the T-cell also can potentially devellop into a human being.

Again, could you repeat the SCIENTIFIC argument that makes the difference between a zygote and a T-cell, or between a zygote and an unfecondated egg cell, or between a human zygote and a chimp zygote, such that it is clear that we have to assign human rights to the zygote, and not to all those others ? Sorry if I make you repeat, I didn't see the argument clearly.

 

[vanesch]

But they choose to adhere. Hence religion and beliefs.

?? How does making abortion illegal coincide with "they choose to adhere" ? Of course a woman that has the belief that abortion is wrong can choose to adhere and not abort ! But the woman that doesn't adhere to these beliefs ? Why should she be denied that right ??
If it only counts for those that "choose to adhere" I'm with you of course (that was btw my joke: abortion should not be IMPOSED upon a woman
). But then there is no need to make laws about it.

 

[DM]

I haven't seen it. You've only said that a zygote is a life form, which is correct. But being a life form doesn't give it human rights.

I've used Involuntary euthanasia to support and protect the human rights of a zygote.

Bacteria and mushrooms are also life forms, and I think we agree that they don't have human rights. Chimp zygotes are also life forms.

HUMAN life forms. Very different to bacteria and mushrooms.

Again, could you repeat the SCIENTIFIC argument that makes the difference between a zygote and a T-cell, or between a zygote and an unfecondated egg cell, or between a human zygote and a chimp zygote

A zygote is a human life form constituted from two parties. It has ABILITIES to develop into a human being. Any other cell such as an infertile egg does not have the potential to create a human being as it only consists of one part of a party, in this case the woman. The human life form respires with the aid of organs.

 

[DM]

But the woman that doesn't adhere to these beliefs ? Why should she be denied that right ??

I suppose nothing, except for legality I would assume. But again passing legislations permitt abortion.

 

[1123581321]

I've pretty much decided to stay out of this kind of discussion because it goes nowhere, but 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 there is no perfect form of birth control. The most responsible of people may still have an accident. They may not be ready to have a child and I am in full support of first trimester abortions for any reason. I am in full support of abortion in later trimesters for medical & psychological reasons.

I have to ask how many unwanted children you have adopted, or if you're too young, how many you plan to adopt? It's so easy to tell people how to live their lives, not so easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Also, there is no way adoption would be a viable alternative to abortion, are you aware of the numbers?

yeah, i know that there is no way that all the kids could be adopted. if you can combine that with all the other forms of birth control, i'd say that it could be done.
I cannot adopt a child because of my age, but i have not dropped that possibility. Remember, there are plenty of people who would.

 

[vanesch]

A zygote is a human life form constituted from two parties. It has ABILITIES to develop into a human being.

Yes, but exactly the same can be said about a T-cell (white blood cell).

I want to point out to the arbitrariness of the definition: constituted from TWO PARTIES, human life form, the ability to devellop.

Against each individual criterium, I can find an obvious counter example:

*) Constituted from two parties: admit that this is a priori a silly criterium: why should human rights be based upon the origin being from two parties ? But ok, let's accept it. Assume now that I CLONE a human being, by extracting its DNA, say, from a T-cell of yours, and putting that DNA into another egg cell. There is no a priori reason why this is not possible; it has been done with sheep. Does that mean then that the grown-up person that would result from such a manoeuver would not have any human rights, it being only the result of ONE party ? I'm sure that if that person grows up like a healthy boy of 15 years, which is biologically your twin, you would not like to deny him its human rights, would you ?

*) human life form: the definition of a human life form must be a cell, containing human DNA in its core. Your T-cells satisfy the definition.

*) the ability to devellop into a human being. Note that by this, in itself, you are already admitting that it IS NOT YET A HUMAN BEING ! But ok. I can take this in several ways. An unfecondated egg cell can devellop into a human being, for instance, I can take DNA from the mother, and put it in its core, and then it will devellop into a clone of the mother.
If it is the DNA that counts, then I can take the DNA of a T-cell, and that DNA, when put into an egg cell, can also devellop into a human being. So in a way, T-cells, when put in the right "environment" can also devellop into human beings.
But there's another way of seeing this: if whatever has an ability to devellop into a human being should do so, then unfecondated egg cells and spermatozoida should always be put as much as possible into contact, because every way of not doing so would deny that potential human being from develloping. In other works, one should deliver oneself to fornication all over the place until exhaustment because NOT doing so would deny the right of development of POTENTIAL human beings.

Apart from these difficulties with your definition of what has human rights:

You can of course improve the biological definition of whatever has to have human rights until there's nothing left but a zygote that satisfies it. But admit that this is totally arbitrary: you are ADAPTING your definition of what has human rights IN ORDER TO ARRIVE at your desired conclusion: namely zygotes. There's nothing NATURAL about it, and I can now try to have you argue WHY the definition you gave should imply the acquiring of human rights. You will have a hard time.

A much more natural definition would be: "when there is the potential for conscious human suffering present", because it is based upon an ethical rule that one should not make other humans suffer consciously.

Or "when it can devellop biologically ON ITS OWN into a human being". This is more based upon the fact that "you own your body" and that you have the right to deny other beings of using it.

These points are discussable. Not a definition made up to arrive at a zygote, in order to give some scientifically sounding background to a purely religious idea.

So again, apart from the above counter examples to each part of the definition, what ETHICAL reason is there that justifies such a definition which is not based upon a religious argument ?

 

[1123581321]

At what point does a Human become a human and what doctrine are you using to base this upon?

Also, euthanasia is typically the right of individuals to choose when where and how they expire---people choosing their own fate.

How much mental capacity does a zygot have? Can a zygot survive without the mother? If I have a kidney can you force me to give it to you to save your life?

A human is always a human, because if it is not a human, what is it? A human zygote is still a human being, it is just in the first stages of development. it is cruel to not even give it a chance to live, even if the mother dosn't want it to live for whatever reasons.
Abortions are wrong, and there are ways around them.
That is my stated opinion, i can see that this thread is not, nor will ever go anywhere productive, so, there you go.

Fibonacci

By the way, don't take anything that i say as a personal insult, even if it sounds like one.
unless you're that crazy guy from India that left a few months ago, i don't like you.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My ancestors were not considered human beings and were murdered by their government. Just how far do you trust your government to pick and choose whom it will protect?

 

[DM]

Does that mean then that the grown-up person that would result from such a manoeuver would not have any human rights, it being only the result of ONE party ? I'm sure that if that person grows up like a healthy boy of 15 years, which is biologically your twin, you would not like to deny him its human rights, would you ?

I believe this is a deficient criterion. Citing genetic engineering as a means of constituting a human life form with only one party still represents TWO PARTIES as you need the donor to donate the sperm. Would you agree?

the ability to devellop into a human being. Note that by this, in itself, you are already admitting that it IS NOT YET A HUMAN BEING !

There must be an incipient stage for the development of an embryo to form a human life form. The zygote has been constituted, its chromosomes are locked and ready to be developed. This is the threshold at which development begins. I agree with discussing this point further with your inputs.

you are ADAPTING your definition of what has human rights IN ORDER TO ARRIVE at your desired conclusion: namely zygotes.

Yes, I am adapting my definition of what a zygote is in order to admittedly mould my perceptions with what I understand and believe is right.

There's nothing NATURAL about it, and I can now try to have you argue WHY the definition you gave should imply the acquiring of human rights. You will have a hard time.

HUMAN rights. A zygote with locked chromosomes is in my opinion a human being. When defining a HUMAN, everything is reduced to chromosomes and DNA, but ultimately chromosomes.

A much more natural definition would be: "when there is the potential for conscious human suffering present", because it is based upon an ethical rule that one should not make other humans suffer consciously.

The flaw with this definition is that we are unable to prove whether a zygote possesses senses or not. But I would agree that the present ethical rule is "one should not make other humans suffer consciously".

This is more based upon the fact that "you own your body" and that you have the right to deny other beings of using it.

Why shouldn't a life form that is dependent to another human life have human rights? A terminally ill patient with unabilities to communicate and walk is heavily dependent on another human being. What makes it different? I know you'll have a hard time explaining this, or so I expect.

what ETHICAL reason is there that justifies such a definition which is not based upon a religious argument ?

Debatable but in my opinion the threshold at which a zygote acquires its full chromosomes.

 

[vanesch]

I believe this is a deficient criterion. Citing genetic engineering as a means of constituting a human life form with only one party still represents TWO PARTIES as you need the donor to donate the sperm. Would you agree?

No, that's the point exactly. Chromosomes (= DNA + its enrolling polymers btw ; for the sake of argument here, they mean the same thing) DO NOT HAVE TO COME from two parties. Every human cell has a FULL SET. It are ONLY the sexual cells which miss half of it ; all other cells have a complete set. When fecundation occurs, the sexual cells COMPLETE THE SET. But I'm not obliged to go that way. I can take AN ALREADY EXISTING COMPLETE SET somewhere, and put that in the core of an egg cell. So I don't need a "father and a mother". I think you're confusing this genetical engineering with in vitro fertilisation. I can take ANY SINGLE PERSON, take a non-sexual cell, take out its FULL CHROMOSOME SET, and put that in the core of an egg cell (previously emptied of its contents of half a set). When I do this, and the egg cell is given a chance to devellop (and other boundary conditions), then what devellops is a biological copy of the being from which I took the full set. This is called CLONING. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning

The point is, I can take that full set from about any cell of your body (except sex cells and a few others, like red blood cells). I don't need any "father".

HUMAN rights. A zygote with locked chromosomes is in my opinion a human being. When defining a HUMAN, everything is reduced to chromosomes and DNA, but ultimately chromosomes.

That's exactly my point. ALL (or almost all) of your cells have that chromosome content. So why deny them then "human rights" ?? That was my point with spitting.

The flaw with this definition is that we are unable to prove whether a zygote possesses senses or not.

Ah, come on. You need a central nervous system for that.

Why shouldn't a life form that is dependant to another human life have human rights? A terminally ill patient with unabilities to communicate and walk is heavily dependent on another human being. What makes it different. I know you'll have a hard time explaining this, or so I expect.

He doesn't depend on A SPECIFIC HUMAN BEING. Society, or a group of human beings, can decide to care about him/her. I would oppose any OBLIGATION of caring for a terminally ill person, if it biologically depended on my body. I would reserve the right to make that decision for myself.

Debatable but in my opinion the threshold at which a zygote acquires its full chromosomes.

Yes, but then you cannot deny those rights to ANY CELL WITH A FULL SET OF HUMAN CHROMOSOMES. Most of your cells are in that case !