<p>
this would also apply to the animals we kill for food. It is even true of the vegetables we kill for food.</p>
<p>
yes, and they use cortical brain function for that, which is not present in the fetus in the first trimester, when most abortions occur.</p>
<p>I don’t think there has been agreement over when * life* begins
<a href=“http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm[/url]”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm</a>
</p>
<p>texas137 - you want an argument. you asked me to define life and I did. I also said that defining "human life’ is a different kettle of fish. It is not something that the scientific method can address. It is only something metaphysics or theology or ethics can deal with. Life as I said is easy to define. Yes vegetables, cows, fish are all alive before we kill them and eat them. I can observe if a thing is composed of cell, has DNA, and is metabolizing. I cannot observe a soul and because I cannot observe it I cannot either prove or disprove its existence using the scientific method.</p>
<p>emeraldkitty - if there is not agreement over when human life begins then shouldn’t we err on the side of caution? Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard we use before greasing a scumbag like Tookie Williams shouldn’t the unborn get the same consideration?</p>
<p>
As Feminists for Life say, “Women deserve better than abortion.” The psychological result is absolutely devestating - timeliness of the surgical procedure aside. It takes a few painless seconds to have a stroke, but no one claims that it isn’t devastating for the person in question. My (very faint) pro-choice leanings arise from the fact that I don’t think that any rational, caring woman goes through that procedure lightly; and I think that most women are possessed of forethought and a heart.</p>
<p>Cato: by your own admission then, life does not begin at conception. The cells may have their own DNA but do not “metabolize” in any recognizable way - no different from the way that sperm “metabolize.” Until the fertilized egg is implanted, the cells do not grow (in fact, they shrink in size, as there are more of them taking up the same volume!), do not metabolize (unless I’m completely mistaken, the basic metabolic processes of oxygen to carbon dioxide do not occur), and have no method to grow or metabolize until further development. </p>
<p>Furthermore, it is absolutely clear that a fertilized egg cannot be endowed with a single soul: the twinning process occurs long after fertilization. Presumably, if there are twins, they must each have a soul - not be sharing one. Ergo, if you presume a soul, you would be hard-pressed to presume its presence prior to the division of the embryo into two mirror images. </p>
<p>Physicians used to place a feather in front of the nose: the patient was considered dead if it did not move from his breath. As other posters have noted, modern physicians use brain death - the absence of brain waves - to indicate clinical death. Both of those definitions apply to embryos. </p>
<p>The other factor pushing me (anti-abortion as I am) into the pro-choice camp is a desire for consistent laws. So long as IUDs are legal, IVF is common, and the Bill of Rights (particularly IV-VI) is respected, there is little reason to define life as beginning at conception for the purposes of outlawing abortion. We allow women to have IUDs, which act (in some forms) to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. In-vitro fertilization results in the creation of many (quite deliberately, and with great expense) embryos, which will never be implanted into women. Are we to, in the spirit of being against abortion, demand that women bear all of the eggs created from IVF? Are we to prosecute physicians who implant a half-dozen fertilized eggs, knowing that only one will take hold, at best? That’s five abortions, right there! Whatever role you may ascribe to “responsibility” applies more to IVF than to sex; it is absolutely clear that the woman in question acted with the purpose of creating another human. Not so much with accidental pregnancy, birth control failure, rape, or the other zillion reasons that women get pregnant when the don’t want to be pregnant.</p>
<p>If we disallow any abortion, the end result is that the Bill of Rights will be trampled in enforcement. I cannot imagine how, while respecting the Warrant Clause, the Reasonableness Clause, and other protections, any government can begin to enforce the prohibition against early-term abortion. Are we to follow and monitor any woman who buys a pregnancy test? Are we to subpoena the results? Would we restrict the travel of any woman who lives in a “life” state, should she have taken a pregnancy test in the past month, lest she leave her state to obtain an abortion?</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with refusing abortions except in dire medical necessity if fetus is viable-
If it is between viability and conception however- I think that since we can determine pregnancy quite early-( 6 or 7 days after conception for blood test-10 days for urine test) long befor the neurological system is formed for example- that the morning after pill and RU 486 should be available in all states by prescription .
I do not consider some cells that may or may not develop into a child, to be the “unborn” its potential- but it isn’t a child-
I don’t think we should anthropomorphize dna.</p>
<p>An extraneous two cents before I turn in for the evening:</p>
<p>this has been of the most civil discussion of abortion between positional adversaries as I’ve witnessed in years. “Abortion” is one of the Toxic Three for on-line discussions of issues , along with gun control and the causes of the Civil War.</p>
<p>Of course a fertilized egg metabolizes. Where did you learn your cell biolgy? Cell division begins almost immediately and by the time the blastocyst implants in the uterine wall the now scores of cells have already begun to differentiate. What do you think goes on during in vitro fertilization?</p>
<p>As for twining and the soul, shifting gears from science to metaphysics for this one, who says one soul cannot populate two bodies? Or that two souls cannot populate one? How do I know that the zygite of future twins doesn’t have two souls? If science ever invents a soulometer and we can observe a soul then maybe science can answer the question. And if you are one of those many rationalists who doesn’t believe in anything you cannot directly observe be thankful for the simplicity of your life.</p>
<p>refresher course
[BIO 101](<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/About/primer/genetics_cell.html”>www.ncbi.nih.gov/About/primer/genetics_cell.html</a>)</p>
<p>TheDad - you spoke too soon.</p>
<p>Cato - always happy when the competition has to resort to attacking me as a person, esp. when they’ve never met me! Don’t you have anything else to use?</p>
<p>Nice retreat on the soul issue. Moving towards uncertainty, are we? Perhaps moving towards the fact that you cannot know that a soul is given to an individual at the moment of conception - at which point, legislating on that metaphysical uncertainty looks a little sketchy. Given (cited by CGM, heard elsewhere as higher numbers) that many pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion, and many fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus, one would have to wonder why so many “souls” would be allowed to die. </p>
<p>Empty, simple life? It would be a lot easier if that were the case, but it’s more the idea that I see far too many counter-arguments to your simplistic recitation of religious dogma to accept it as fact and to make the further leap that our laws should reflect that fact. Similar “facts” have been used to justify discrimination - using the belief that women and blacks are inherently inferiour than white men, discriminatory legislation has been upheld. Or the “fact” that God put the races on separate continents has been used to justify miscogeniation statutes. Perhaps, before legislating in a way that could have disatrous long-term consequences for our country, we ought to throw out completely unsupportable presumptions - like “life begins at conception.” Too much to the contrary to accept that as immutable fact. </p>
<p>Finally, check out dictionary.com: metabolism is defined as, “The chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life.” Little circular to then define life as something that metabolizes! Sperm use energy in a way that could be deemed metabolic, as they chemically break down sugars for energy… do I need to make the Legally Blonde argument here? Both those and the resulting blastocyst are incapable of long-term sustained cell division, metabolism, or other indicia of life, yet protection is only argued for one. </p>
<p>Cells are not differentiated by the time of implantation.</p>
<p>I think that 1/4 of pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion?
most of the time, I don’t think women even realize they were pregnany
implantation doesn’t begin until about two weeks after conception, and lots of things can interfere with implantation</p>
<p>20% of KNOWN pregancies end in spontaneous abortion, so add to that a percentage where they women doesn’t know yet, and its a not insubstantial number</p>
<p>Ive had probably two
I say probably because the first time- I didn’t have a pregnancy test- but it was a very very heavy, very heavy period. ( and I could ahve been preg)
the 2nd time I was 16 weeks pg- but I had been having contractions about a week or so before.</p>
<p>A sperm fails the definition of life because it does not have its own DNA. It is haploid and has the fathers. An egg fails for the same reason, plus their is no cell division.</p>
<p>“Both those and the resulting blastocyst are incapable of long-term sustained cell division”</p>
<p>Define long-term. You and I are incapable of long-term cell division too which is why we will die sooner or later, and there are many species whose life-cycles are measure in days or eve hours.</p>
<p>There is in fact no point at which we can say definitively this clump of cells, whether the clump is 140 cells or the millions that compose our bodies are possessed of a soul. In fact we cannot establish that souls even exist and of course a fair number of people don’t believe they do or view the very question as irrelevent. Why ask a question you cannot answer? That is not an unreasonable position.</p>
<p>However you are aries are making the argument that we cannot prove a fertilized ovum has a soul therefore the state should not protect it. Problem is that logic can be extended and I can say we cannot prove that you have a soul therefore… or we cannot prove that Black people have souls therefore… In fact people did make that argument with respect to American Indians in the 16th century. It got over-ruled by the Church. Pope said they had souls so you couldn’t just willy-nilly kill them. Enslave them yes, kill them no.</p>
<p>In any event I don’t know if a fertilized ovum has a soul or if souls even exist. I don’t know if an 8 month fetus has one or a two year old or an 80 year old. But if at any point in our life cycles we have a soul and if it is wrong (right and wrong, another question science cannot address) then it would seem to make sense to err on the side of caution in which case the burden of proof falls on the one doing the killing.</p>
<p>But what then if souls do not exist? Would society repeal all the manslaughter laws?</p>
<p>Aries…sorry.</p>
<p>I was thinking about this thread while having lunch and it occurs to me that there’s a subtext that’s being completely ignored: sex. </p>
<p>What, you think there’s too much attention to sex? Perhaps too much attention, but too little understanding. From a purely social point of view, the old simple “Thou shalt not…” simply doesn’t make sense any more. The age of puberty has been dropping consistently over the past several centuries…diet?..and meanwhile the average age of marriage is going upward. The underlying “no sex until marriage” of-- please forgive the unwieldy neologism, common law morality–even if honored only in, ah…, the breach, makes as much sense as other parts of the Mosaic Law designed for a nomadic society are either applied or expected today.</p>
<p>Beyond this broad social outlook, there is a feminist objection as well. The enjoyment that women derive from sex appears to be heavily partner-dependent, with any given women hanving an experience from 1 to 10, depending upon partner. In contrast, I’ve never known of any guy who would rate any experience of intercourse as less than an “8.” Moreover, many women also have to learn sexual gratification by experience; it is not, as “The Joy of Sex” so memorably put it, a matter of dropping a quarter in the slot. From this it follows that if a woman is to enter a monogamous marriage where she can expect sexual gratification, it might be well and good if she’s had some variety of sexual experience before hand. There may be many objections against the currently reported practices of casual sexual hookups, but the focus on unidirectional oral sex makes me think that women are getting accustomed to being shortchanged.</p>
<p>It reminds me of the scene in legally blond where the questions is asked about a man wanting to see his child concieved out of “wedlock” and the argument was made, why this child, and was he negligent when he would you know, um…mastubate and lose potential children</p>
<p>pretty good scene I am not doing jsutice to</p>
<p>CGM: Great scene! Actually thought of it during this discussion. Let me dig into my memory bank:
Elle: why this sperm? Why this time? Has he called every single one-night stand to see if a child resulted from those unions? Futhermore, if we are going to consider all sperm as potential children, wouldn’t every act of self-gratification be considered reckless abandonment?</p>
<p>TheDad: wow - have you been ripping off my earlier posts? I’ve often argued the same - that the prohibitions against pre-marital sex make a lot of sense when puberty hits at 16 and marriage at 17 or 18 - everyone can figure out how to keep it together for a year or two - but is senseless when decades go by between puberty and marriage - if the latter happens at all. Then again, I’ve often stated that the Church needs to say more than “Becauase I said so” for a justification for the prohibition - “because I said so” can get you through a few years, but not from age 13 until 30. One of my (very religious) friends said that a lot of the stuff that the church (not Catholic, mind you) says is for your own good - that having promiscuous sex is bad for your body and your psyche. Sadly, that is not the explanation given from on high; rather, it’s some nonsense about giving your body to your husband or being a bride of Christ. (The latter weirds me out - too much like the 72 virgins thing - except there’s no virgin limit and it’s an honour to be among them.)</p>
<p>Men do have the “pizza” attitude: even when it’s bad, it’s still good. Making a woman happy is more like making a good risotto: takes time, practice, correct star alignment, but doesn’t always come out right. (Italian theme seems appropriate for this. 
) There’s also the idea (which I abhor) that men can do whatever, but women should be pure - notice that men aren’t expected to dress to announce their purity at their nuptials! </p>
<p>As for souls/conception - does not make sense to me, in the least, to legislate based on unanswered questions. You cannot determine if there is a soul at conception, although this is the underlying rationale for a total abortion prohibition. There are too many other rational places to put the development of a soul (see EmeraldKity’s post) - brain waves, birth, heart beat, implantation, cell differentiation, viability… why choose the one that causes the greatest hardship to women? It is not “err[ing] on the safe side” to legislate based on pure conjecture, knowing the disastrous consequences. (See studies about crime rates, poverty, abusive relationships, lack of education, health effects to the mother, and, of course, back alley abortions sought by desperate, scared women.)</p>
<p>By the way, thanks for the personal attack - I’m sure that I live a very simplistic and empty life. Will say that it’s always fascinating to me to see how people insult those whom they do not know or insult gratuitously: it is usually a wonderful indicator of the insultor’s own weaknesses or insecurities. We’ll explore your existential angst in another thread.</p>
<p>“The age of puberty has been dropping consistently over the past several centuries…diet?..and meanwhile the average age of marriage is going upward.” </p>
<p>“… when decades go by between puberty and marriage”</p>
<p>Since there is presumably not much you can do about when you reach puberty (there are obviously some exceptions, like gymnasts or ballerinas who keep their weight so low that they do not menstruate, or possibly even delay puberty), could it be that part of the obvious solution would be to NOT WAIT SO LONG TO GET MARRIED?</p>
<p>For those who believe that sex outside of marriage is perfectly fine, then I have no advice on this matter. But for those who truly think (usually for religious reasons) that it is better to wait until marriage for sex, it certainly makes sense to not wait until your mid-30’s to get married. Sexual liberals will point out that marriages of young people can fail. But, just as I have no advice for those who have no limits on sex outside of marriage, those who hold such a position have no useful input to a young person trying to figure out realistically HOW to wait until marriage. </p>
<p>Contrary to what some may believe, it is definitely possible to enjoy the college years and have a great time, including lots of interaction with the opposite sex, without ever having sex. Also, if you find a like-minded person, and you are mature enough to have a career started, etc., then WHY NOT GET MARRIED in your early 20’s? If you look at the marriages that have lasted decades, many of them are of those who got married young and learned to go through good times and bad together.</p>
<p>Good point, Pafather. While I don’t recommend teenage marriages, most college age people are surrounded by the largest number of potential mates than at any other time in their lives. Marriage in the early or mid twenties allows a couple time to learn to live together, establish careers or grad school, and hopefully become more stable financially before they have children. Recent studies have shown that women’s fertility declines earlier and more rapidly than the popular media would have us believe. And I don’t know of any data that shows that marriages where the couple is in their 30’s have a better chance of success than marriages for people in their 20’s.</p>
<p>half my friends ( who range in age from 40 to 60), did get married in their early-mid 20s.* to their first husband-* because women are no longer- generally dependent on men for social position or income- you don’t have to stay with your first husband</p>