Ireland legalizes the killing of the unborn

[One Bad Pig]

That’s ironic.

Not really. Roy is rather smart.

[Mountain Man]

[Skin cells] do not have the attributes that science uses to describe life (they don't organize, adapt, self-sustain, metabolize, respond to stimuli, etc.)

They do all those things, they have all those attributes.

No, they don't! You say stuff like this, and then you wonder why we laugh at you and question your credentials? Seriously, man, if you came out of your science program believing that skin cells are organisms then someone took your money and handed you a worthless diploma.

I challenge you to find just one credible scientific source that describes skins cells as life-forms.

Take your time. I'll wait.

[Mountain Man]

Not really. Roy is rather smart.

Then why does he say such stupid stuff like insisting that hair and spermatozoa are organisms? Is he just trolling us?

[One Bad Pig]

Then why does he say such stupid stuff like insisting that hair and spermatozoa are organisms? Is he just trolling us?

He has a position to defend. Intelligence does not preclude one from suffering from ideological blinders, or from grasping at straws rather than admit the other side is correct - especially when the other side is despised.

[rogue06]

Cancer is not an organism. It's the body's own cells run amok.

Ironically, there are pro-abortion advocates who liken an unborn baby to an invasive tumor or cancer. It's idiocy like that which leads to folks asking Is a fetus technically a tumor? and articles like A Tumor, the Embryo’s Evil Twin. And of course there's the often linked claim about an unborn baby being a parasite: Is it wrong to call a fetus a parasite? (60% in the poll said "no" it is not wrong ), Can a fetus be scientifically and biologically categorized as a parasite?, and Is the human fetus a parasite according to science? -- which is prevalent enough that it required a rebuttal: New scientific study proves “fetus as parasite” arguments are false.

[Mountain Man]

He has a position to defend. Intelligence does not preclude one from suffering from ideological blinders, or from grasping at straws rather than admit the other side is correct - especially when the other side is despised.

Fair enough.

[carpedm9587]

Cancer is not an organism. It's the body's own cells run amok.

It's not clear to me why/how/if that distinction changes anything. I started the discussion pointing out the independent/interrelated nature of cells, how they form organs, how organs make up a individual animal/plant, and how all of these combine to create what some people call Gaia. So noting that cancer is a collection of cells run amok does not seem to alter this or the parallel being drawn.

[CMD]

Since I don't think MM even did high school biology since he doesn't seem to understand the most basic definition of 'life' typically used, and Sparko thinks being anti-abortion is all about not killing 'souls' so makes me roll my eyes at him, let's try discussing this with you, CMD, and see if you can put forth decent arguments...

In your post you highlighted the phrase "new individual" in three different quotes, so I assume you see that as an important fact. It is certainly true that an embryo is a developing new individual member of the species in a way that an average cell is not. I note that there are alternative science-based methods for creating new individuals from existing cells, such as creating a clone by implanting DNA into an existing egg, or various processes on a stem cell to create a new individual. However, since you seem to be identifying the idea of a "new individual" as the point of focus and moral concern, I doubt it matters in your morality what the particular origin of that "new individual" member of the species is.

I note that the majority of such "new individuals" die fairly quickly due to developmental failures - they fail to implant properly in the womb, or something goes wrong in their development, etc. In your mind is the death of these developing clump of cells a severe tragedy on par with the death of a 40 year old?

Can you explain why we should consider the point at which the cells become a "new individual" a point of particular moral concern? Why should our morality toward a microscopic clump of cells change just because a few technical changes have occurred in the details of the function of the cells?

My apologies; not long after posting I got some bad personal news, and I don't really have the time or energy to give the more detailed response that your post deserves, so for now I'm just going to give a really simplified overview of my position on the issue:

1. A human fetus is an individual organism belonging to the Homo sapiens species at the earliest stages of its development (i.e., it's human). It is not the same as a mere skin cell or the like.
2. Humans should not kill other humans without having a really, really good reason for doing so.
3. I don't consider "having a kid would be a real inconvenience for me right now" or the like to be a "really, really good reason" to terminate a human life.
4. Thus, I think that abortion should be reserved only for extreme circumstances, such as when the life of the mother is at risk. Abortion on demand, whenever and for whatever reason, no matter how trivial, should be off the table.

[carpedm9587]

My apologies; not long after posting I got some bad personal news, and I don't really have the time or energy to give the more detailed response that your post deserves, so for now I'm just going to give a really simplified overview of my position on the issue:

1. A human fetus is an individual organism belonging to the Homo sapiens species at the earliest stages of its development (i.e., it's human). It is not the same as a mere skin cell or the like.
2. Humans should not kill other humans without having a really, really good reason for doing so.
3. I don't consider "having a kid would be a real inconvenience for me right now" or the like to be a "really, really good reason" to terminate a human life.
4. Thus, I think that abortion should be reserved only for extreme circumstances, such as when the life of the mother is at risk. Abortion on demand, whenever and for whatever reason, no matter how trivial, should be off the table.

Generally - I agree with points 1-3. Morally, I agree with point 4 as well. Here's my problem. If the government steps in and makes a law about #4, then the government is stepping in to tell an independent citizen with mature faculties who has not committed a crime what they can and cannot do medically with their own body. There is simply no way I can walk through that door. Neither can I endorse "abortion on demand." This is an issue that pits two closely held ideals against one another: life and liberty. The government exists to protect life - but also exists to protect liberty. Because of the entwined nature of the mother/child, there is simply no way to resolve this issue without sacrificing one or the other position.

Ergo, I believe abortion should be as non-existent as we can make it. I also believe the only way we can achieve that is to come together (left and right), put all of the techniques we can conceive of for avoiding unwanted pregnancies on the table, and then implement programs to drive unwanted pregnancies as low as they can go. Focus on the impact on the child, the mother, and the community. Emphasize birth control in all of its forms (abstinence, condoms, etc.). Make "unwanted pregnancy" something nobody wants to do. And then implement programs to support those mothers who do end up with an unwanted pregnancy, to encourage them in every way possible/effective to carry the child to term and then either raise it, turn to an adoption agency, or turn to family.

I believe it is possible to get abortion to a fraction of what it is today - but it requires us to work together to achieve it. As long as the focus is law and pitting one side against the other, nothing more will happen and abortions will continue unabated - which would be a travesty.

[Starlight]

1. A human fetus is an individual organism belonging to the Homo sapiens species at the earliest stages of its development (i.e., it's human). It is not the same as a mere skin cell or the like.

That is technically true, but I don't see it as being relevant. I guess what you need to explain to me is why you see this as important.

2. Humans should not kill other humans without having a really, really good reason for doing so.

Agreed, but when I agree I am thinking of developed self-aware humans like children, teenagers and adults. If you want to extend this principle back to applying to fetuses and embryos, then I don't agree.

3. I don't consider "having a kid would be a real inconvenience for me right now" or the like to be a "really, really good reason" to terminate a human life.

Well I don't think "you're inconvenient" would be a good reason for killing your 10 year old kid, but it seems legitimate grounds for swatting a fly or a human embryo that has similar mental capabilities to a fly.

Well you've stated your view but given no reasons for me or anyone else to adopt it. When you're feeling better and have some time, please share your view further.

[Cow Poke]

Well I don't think "you're inconvenient" would be a good reason for killing your 10 year old kid, but it seems legitimate grounds for swatting a fly or a human embryo that has similar mental capabilities to a fly.

To equate a fly - which has no chance whatsoever of becoming anything other than a fly - with a human embryo who can well become a beautiful baby boy or girl.....

wow

[Tassman]

To equate a fly - which has no chance whatsoever of becoming anything other than a fly - with a human embryo who can well become a beautiful baby boy or girl..... wow

But it is NOT a “beautiful baby boy or girl” when it is an embryo. What it may become later is not what it is, when it’s an insensate entity in the womb. As Aquinas put it “The rational soul ought to be united to a body which may be a suitable organ of sensation… before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot be receptive of the soul.” I.e. it cannot be considered a 'person'.

[Cow Poke]

But it is NOT a “beautiful baby boy or girl” when it is an embryo.

Which is EGGZACKLY why I worded it like I did. And I guess you're in the same camp that would "swat a fly" just like he would "swat a human embryo".

No surprise there, whatsoever.

[Tassman]

Which is EGGZACKLY why I worded it like I did. And I guess you're in the same camp that would "swat a fly" just like he would "swat a human embryo".

Abortion is not undertaken lightly, or on a "whim", as you lot try to portray those who are pro-choice.

No surprise there, whatsoever.

Typically snide!

[Starlight]

Abortion is not undertaken lightly, or on a "whim", as you lot try to portray those who are pro-choice.

All the abortions I've ever had have been undertaken on a whim.


In all seriousness, I think it's reasonable to assume that for most women who are considering getting an abortion, that it's one of the biggest decisions of their lives.