Browns149 Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 No, there child is not able to say 'please don't murder me, I want to live' and therefor are fair game for murderin'. God forbid the woman take a birth control pill or the man wear a condom. That's what Hitler would say! don't we have the day after pill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 There is no gray area, if you've actually studied it. The heart begins beating at day 22. (Early cardiac muscle cells can be cultured and beat on their own. They can beat in unison if connected) The sex is determined at conception. At conception all of the DNA for the human is present within the zygote. So please, shine a light on the theoretical gray area. There is plenty of gray area, if you've actually studied it. That early on, the fetus is less sentient than flies, which we have no problem ending the life of. A heartbeat doesn't define a human. Sex doesn't define a human. The DNA alone does not define the human. Stating facts about the gestational timeline doesn't make this issue black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 There is no gray area, if you've actually studied it. The heart begins beating at day 22. (Early cardiac muscle cells can be cultured and beat on their own. They can beat in unison if connected) The sex is determined at conception. At conception all of the DNA for the human is present within the zygote. So Science is OK to determine these facts but religion can trump such facts when it's convenient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 There is plenty of gray area, if you've actually studied it. That early on, the fetus is less sentient than flies, which we have no problem ending the life of. A heartbeat doesn't define a human. Sex doesn't define a human. The DNA alone does not define the human. Stating facts about the gestational timeline doesn't make this issue black and white. So are you suggesting there's more to life than a heartbeat, a person's DNA (which scientifically, absolutely defines everything about each human), or it's gender? A soul perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 So are you suggesting there's more to life than a heartbeat, a person's DNA (which scientifically, absolutely defines everything about each human), or it's gender? A soul perhaps? Sentience is what sets humans apart from every other form of life, but nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 Sentience is what sets humans apart from every other form of life, but nice try. Sentience is a reaction to a stimulus. It doesn't require saying "ouch" to a pin prick to qualify, but nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 Sentience is a reaction to a stimulus. It doesn't require saying "ouch" to a pin prick to qualify, but nice try. Sentience is a spectrum, not a checkbox, but please continue to educate us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 Sentience is what animal cruelty laws are based on. Therefore not unique to humans. Please continue to be misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 You can't deny that the sentience argument applies to abortion law. Clinical complications aren't the exclusive reason that late term terminations become legally complicated. Fetal pain, a measure of sentience, is an argument commonly used against abortions. Brain waves, another measure of sentience also get brought up in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 I never was. Your initial comment was that fetus' share the sentience of the housefly. I countered that just because a fetus can't say "ouch" doesn't mean it doesn't react. Which is why I brought up the "reaction to a stimulus" argument. The embryo/fetus will react to stimuli earlier in development that when the heart begins beating etc. Alcohol, nicotine come to mind. Again, this is all my response to "how early is too early?" My initial comment, before you introduced "sentience" formally, implied there were plenty of variables early in development where sentience could be applied - not just a listing of development facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 You were responding to this from Woody before I even entered this argument "No I think there is some point in there over half way in where it should be illegal. Since it is a gray area maybe beva little conservative and move the deadline a few weeks less. But I don't think "life" happens at conception and I don't think all abortions at any point should be illegal." -Woody Your response said this: "There is no gray area, if you've actually studied it." Then you listed a bunch of traits of the developing fetus. This list of developmental traits does not show that woody was wrong, even though you seem to think so. You're a dentist, and that carries some weight around here, but the scientific arguments you've presented on this forum have ranged from outstanding (responding to cysko about the niche simple bacteria have filled), to sketchy (this one), to outright wrong (your descriptions of developing universe). I'd like you to back up why you think there isn't a gray area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 I think you're missing the point I'm making on sentience which is why I brought up the "bunch of traits of a developing fetus". If a fetus will respond to a stimulus, then it can be considered "alive" to a degree. So my response to Woody, is accurate even though you or he may not have the same definition* of "alive." I was providing him an idea of where "life" can be qualified by using your definition of sentience. Woody appeared to be unsure of when life began, which is why he felt theres a gray area. It seems that after that point of establishing "life," he's hesitant on the legality of abortion. I pointed out areas where "life" can be considered, and it makes it pretty black and white. Heartbeat is kind of a deal breaker for whatever argument it is you're trying to make (I haven't figured that out yet). Time of death is noted when the heart ceases to function. *I'm amused you've appointed yourself the browns board scientific review chairman with a m.s. in Bio. Congrats on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 I mean, as far as matters of biology and the life sciences go I would bet the guy currently studying to be a doctor would be the most knowledgeable. I also wouldn't consider a heartbeat as any sure fire way to say something is alive. We can stimulate muscles in many ways without them being considered "alive". I wouldn't consider a muscle doing what it is supposed to as evidence that something is alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Legacy, Gotcha. A heartbeat is a good definition for life, but a poor definition for human life. I'm okay with destroying a chicken so I can eat dinner, so I have no problem with a woman destroying her less-sentient fetus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Legacy, Gotcha. A heartbeat is a good definition for life, but a poor definition for human life. I'm okay with destroying a chicken so I can eat dinner, so I have no problem with a woman destroying her less-sentient fetus. So using your chicken example abortion should be legal years after birth? Fine with me. There are a lot of kids I would like to get rid of. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Jonathan Swift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Are the mentally Retarded sentient? Florida could use some clarification, so they can enact a death penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Jonathan Swift. Yummy, but no. So using your chicken example abortion should be legal years after birth? Fine with me. There are a lot of kids I would like to get rid of. WSS If you think that a two year old is less sentient than a chicken, you're just being obtuse. Are the mentally Retarded sentient? Florida could use some clarification, so they can enact a death penalty Yes, they are sentient. Even people with trisomy 21 have more self-awareness than a chicken. Nice try fellas. I take it all of you are against pulling the plug on someone who's braindead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 You'll never get me to agree that abortion is ok, I really don't give a Fuck what the brain activity is after the heart starts beating. If It's not murdered the fetus will invariably develop your vaunted sentience. It's not growing info a chicken its growing into a child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Yummy, but no. If you think that a two year old is less sentient than a chicken, you're just being obtuse. Yes, they are sentient. Even people with trisomy 21 have more self-awareness than a chicken. Nice try fellas. I take it all of you are against pulling the plug on someone who's braindead? That person had a chance to live and died. They're not bring denied their right to life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 You'll never get me to agree that abortion is ok, I really don't give a Fuck what the brain activity is after the heart starts beating. If It's not murdered the fetus will invariably develop your vaunted sentience. It's not growing info a chicken its growing into a child Cool story, bro. Until Congress agrees with you, abortions are still legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 You'll never get me to agree that abortion is ok, I really don't give a Fuck what the brain activity is after the heart starts beating. If It's not murdered the fetus will invariably develop your vaunted sentience. It's not growing info a chicken its growing into a child To play devil's advocate - which I know you love doing - where does it stop? After all, women produce eggs, all of which have the possibility to develop sentience when fertilized, and men produce sperm to do the fertilizing. Is it immoral to not use every egg/sperm possible to have a baby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Here's a thought exercise - Carlos Boozer's first child had sickle-cell anemia. He and his wife wanted to ensure that their second child did not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWU22DGOO2c They didn't want an abortion for their first child, it never was an option. For their second child, they used in vitro fertilization, which required the fertilization of ~20 ova. Only a few of these embryo did not express the sickle-cell trait, those which did were destroyed. Would you consider Carlos Boozer a mass murderer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Cool story, bro. Until Congress agrees with you, abortions are still legal. Legal and ok are two different things. Legally George zimmerman was within his rights to escalate the situation with trayon Martin and then kill him. That doesn't make it right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Also, how do you feel about in vitro fertilization? Explain your comparison. In vitro is sort of an anti abortion. Science using their powers for good and not evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Explain your comparison. In vitro is sort of an anti abortion. Science using their powers for good and not evil. I edited my post above. And you really are showing that you have no idea how IVF works. If you have time, please watch the video. It's from ESPN's Outside the Lines and it's a great example of the dynamic of medical ethics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Here's a thought exercise - Carlos Boozer's first child had sickle-cell anemia. He and his wife wanted to ensure that their second child did not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWU22DGOO2c They didn't want an abortion for their first child, it never was an option. For their second child, they used in vitro fertilization, which required the fertilization of ~20 ova. Only a few of these embryo did not express the sickle-cell trait, those which did were destroyed. Would you consider Carlos Boozer a mass murderer? Sort of, yes. I can't agree with them destroying embryos to prevent sickle cell which is a disease that can be lived with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 I edited my post above. And you really are showing that you have no idea how IVF works. I've no reason to. I've never had to go the IVF route. So everybody should know everything in your world? My understanding of IVF is that its primarily used to help couples who can't conceive naturally have children. That is at least a noble cause. Abortion somewhat less so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Sort of, yes. I can't agree with them destroying embryos to prevent sickle cell which is a disease that can be lived with The median life expectancy for sickle cell is in the 40's. Those with sickle cell are significantly more susceptible to stroke, penile infarction, spontaneous abortions, ulcers, renal failure, and many more symptoms that would make life hell. To deal with these symptoms is going to require a lifetime of close medical attention. That's a huge financial burden that many people are not willing nor able to take on. If I have a low/middle-class income, I'm very much considering an abortion in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 70's with medical advances I just looked it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.