Abortion: Murder

[cwes99_03]

Awesome pic of a c-section. Though a bit graphic, might want to throw a warning on that.

 

You might believe that my view is religious. You might be right.

But explain to me where the practical advantages of any of my suggestions is wrong. If we only had sex after marriage, then there would be a lot fewer problems. Sure you could say that, people will just start getting married and then divorced or annul their marriage after they have sex. Gut that loop-hole then. Go back to Biblical laws on marriage. Then only not only will recreational sex be gone, which has proven psychological problems as well as the physical ones of stds, unwanted pregnancy, etc, but problems of broken homes, single parents, dead-beat dads, .........................

That list goes on for a while, courts would be amazingly freed up to take care of real criminals (not to say that dead-beat dads aren't criminals, but lessor criminals than say murderers and rapists.

 

Thus all of this comes back to my point about Ghandi.

If everyone in the world were to live their life by the principles found in the Bible, the world would be a much better place.

 

In my opinion, a perfect place.

[pgrmdave]

The problem with saying that it is a woman's right to choose is that once the fetus become human in it's own right (which I think is at conception), the woman is a carrier of another being, and so it isn't her body she's killing, it's another human's body who happens to reside within her.

[C1ay]

Awesome pic of a c-section. Though a bit graphic, might want to throw a warning on that.

That's not a c-section. That's little Samuel getting an in utero procedure for spina bifida. I usually like to ask the pro-choice crowd who's getting operated on there, Samuel or his mother? As you can tell, I am generallyy in favor of fetal rights but not at the complete expense of the mother's rights.

[cwes99_03]

Yes, I see that now, still basically same procedure, only the baby is remaining in utero for a bit longer. Doesn't change the fact that it is a bit graphic.

[rockytriton]

as for rape or incest, the baby is always innocent. say it to yourself, the baby is always innocent. that is a scientific fact.

 

I told myself I would stay out of this damn debate, but I'm bored, so what the hell. Anyway, is not the mother always innocent in rape as well? Also, life begins way before conception, the egg and the sperm are living cells, so if you really want to get technical, then using the pull-out birth control method is behaving like adolf hitler :friday: .

 

edit:

and if the mother is still free to do what she wants with her own body, she is free to drink alcohol and smoke and do other things that are dangerous for the baby, should she then have these rights taken away from her as well?

[C1ay]

Doesn't change the fact that it is a bit graphic.

Yes. Then again, this is an adult topic so anyone that doesn't want to explore all the gory details of the abortion dbate probably shouldn't be participating in this thread anyhow :friday:

[Rincewind]

If you think that sex for the fun of having sex is a good reason for having sex, then you aren't paying any attention to the idea behind procreation. Then if you are only having recreational sex, and the woman becomes pregnant, why should I feel sorry for either one of the participants.

What makes you think there's an "idea" behind procreation? Procreation is the biological process for the continuance of the species. I don't think, given our numbers on this planet, humans are destined to die out because a few zygotes don't make it out into the world.

 

And I don't think anyone's asking you to feel sorry for those who engage in recreational sex, just to allow them to make their own decisions about whether and when a new pregnancy constitutes a new human being, and whether to proceed with or terminate that pregnancy.

[Jay-qu]

the are far to many people here with their own opinions, that are so intent on making sure everyone knows them that they are to narrow minded to accept anyone elses. This topic as pointed out at the start is only going to go around in circles unless we talk science - as we should be since its a science forum!

 

For this reason im out of the discussion, its pointless unless we consider cold hard facts.

-Jay

[pgrmdave]

Well, at what point do people here feel that a fetus becomes a human? That is central to the argument, as it is the point at which the fetus gains rights, before then it is simply a collection of cells which, while 'alive' may not constitute 'life'.

[goku]

i think we must first define life.

[Edge]

Defining the concept of life

How can one tell when an entity is a lifeform? It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it (see biosphere), but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence. Also, loosely speaking, some theories are grounded in the basic assumption that "ideas have a life of their own".

 

[edit]

A conventional definition

Unsolved problems in biology: How did life start? Is life a cosmic phenomenon? Are the conditions necessary for the origin of life narrow or broad? How did life originate and diversify in hundreds of millions of years? Why, after rapid diversification, do microorganisms remain unchanged for millions of years? Why have so many biological systems developed sexual reproduction? How do organisms recognize like species? How are the sizes of cells, organs, and bodies controlled?In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

 

Growth, full development, maturity

Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste

Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion

Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet separate from, itself

Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. This property is also called homeostasis.

 

[edit]

Exceptions to the conventional definition

These criteria are not without their uses, but their disparate nature makes them unsatisfactory from a number of perspectives; in fact, it is not difficult to find counterexamples and examples that require further elaboration. For example, according to the above definition, one could say:

 

Mules and people who are infertile cannot reproduce and thus would not qualify as lifeforms. Also worker bees and other organisms living in colonies would not qualify; only the queen and the drones (or the whole colony) can be considered 'alive'.

Fire and stars could be considered lifeforms.

A virus does not grow and cannot reproduce outside of a host cell and thus would not qualify as a lifeform.

Many individual organisms are incapable of reproduction and yet are still considered to be lifeforms; see mules and ants for examples. This is because the term "lifeform" applies on the level of entire species or of individual genes. (For example, see kin selection for information about one way by which non-reproducing individuals can still enhance the spread of their genes and the survival of their species.) It is important to keep in mind the difference between a "lifeform" and "a being that is alive." One example of sterility does not render the rest of the species a non-lifeform, any more than one dead animal renders the rest of the species dead.

 

Note also that the two cases of fire and stars fitting the definition of life can be simply remedied by defining metabolism in a more biochemically exact way. Fundamentals of Biochemistry by Donald Voet and Judith Voet (ISBN 0471586501) defines metabolism as follows: "Metabolism is the overall process through which living systems acquire and utilize the free energy they need to carry out their various functions. They do so by coupling the exergonic reactions of nutrient oxidation to the endergonic processes required to maintain the living state, such as the performance of mechanical work, the active transport of molecules against concentration gradients, and the biosynthesis of complex molecules." This definition, in use by most biochemists, makes it clear that fire is not alive, because fire releases all the oxidative energy of its fuel as heat.

 

(Note: Actually, the definition does not help much at all. For it is circular. What we are looking for, after all, is a definition of "living entity." We agreed that part of the definition is "capable of metabolism." We then tried to define "metabolism" in order to get clear on which entities are capable of it and which not. But the definition of "metabolism" just offered is in terms of living systems. And those are exactly what we are trying to define!)

 

This could also be remedied by adding the requirement of locality, where there is an obvious structure that delineates the spatial extension of the living being, such as a cell membrane.

 

A conceptual problem with saying that fire is life is that it collapses the distinction between "growth" and "reproduction." It is possible to think of a spreading flame as either growing or reproducing, but what would it mean to say that the same act is both growth and reproduction?

 

Viruses reproduce, flames grow, some software programs mutate and evolve, future software programs will probably evince (even high-order) behavior, machines move, and some form of proto-life consisting of metabolizing cells without the ability to reproduce presumably existed. Still, some would not call these entities alive. Generally, all five characteristics are required for a population to be considered a lifeform.

 

[edit]

Other definitions

Biologists who are content to focus on terrestrial organisms often note some additional signs of life, including these:

 

Living organisms contain molecular components such as: carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins.

Living organisms require both energy and matter in order to continue living.

Living organisms are composed of at least one cell.

Living organisms maintain homeostasis for some period of time.

Species of living organisms will evolve.

All life on Earth is based on the chemistry of carbon compounds. Some assert that this must be the case for all possible forms of life throughout the universe; others describe this position as 'carbon chauvinism'.

 

The systemic definition is that living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing). These objects are not to be confused with dissipative structures (e.g. fire). Variations of this definition include:

 

Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana's definition of life (also widely used by Lynn Margulis) as an autopoietic (self-producing), water based, lipid-protein bound, carbon metabolic, nucleic acid replicated, protein readout system

"a system of inferior negative feedbacks subordinated to a superior positive feedback" (J. theor Biol. 2001)

Tom Kinch's definition of life as a highly organized auto-cannibalizing system naturally emerging from conditions common on planetary bodies, and consisting of a population of replicators capable of mutation, around each set of which a homeostatic metabolizing organism, which actively helps reproduce and/or protect the replicator(s), has evolved

Stuart Kauffman's definition of life as an autonomous agent or a multi-agent system capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle

Robert Pirsig's definition of life, found in his book Lila: An Inquiry into Morals, as that which maximizes its range of possible futures, in other words, that which makes decisions that result in the most future choices, or that which strives to keep its options open.

A system converting entropy to negentropy, using flow of energy.

Other definitions:

 

That which seeks to continue its own existence (attributed to Clifford A. Schaffer).

[edit]

Descent with modification: a "useful" characteristic

A useful characteristic upon which to base a definition of life is that of descent with modification: the ability of a life form to produce offspring that are like its parent or parents, but with the possibility of some variation due to chance. Descent with modification is sufficient by itself to allow evolution, assuming that the variations in the offspring allow for differential survival. The study of this form of heritability is called genetics. In all known life forms (assuming prions are not counted as such), the genetic material is primarily DNA or the related molecule, RNA. Another exception might be the software code of certain forms of viruses and programs created through genetic programming, but whether computer programs can be alive even by this definition is still a matter of some contention.

 

[edit]

Origin of life

Main article: Origin of life

 

There is no truly "standard" model of the origin of life, but most currently accepted models build in one way or another on the following discoveries, which are listed roughly in order of postulated emergence:

 

Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of the basic small molecules of life. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment.

Phospholipids spontaneously form lipid bilayers, the basic structure of a cell membrane.

Procedures for producing random RNA molecules can produce ribozymes, which are able to produce more of themselves under very specific conditions.

There are many different hypotheses regarding the path that might have been taken from simple organic molecules to protocells and metabolism. Many models fall into the "genes-first" category or the "metabolism-first" category, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that do not fit into either of these categories.

 

[edit]

The possibility of extraterrestrial life

Main articles: Extraterrestrial life, Astrobiology

 

As of 2005, Earth is the only planet in the universe known by humans to support life. The question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe remains open, but analyses such as the Drake equation have been used to estimate the probability of such life existing. There have been a number of claims of the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe, but none of these have yet survived scientific scrutiny.

 

Today, the closest that scientists have come to finding extraterrestrial life is fossil evidence of possible bacterial life on Mars (via the ALH84001 meteorite). Searches for extraterrestrial life are currently focusing on planets and moons believed to possess liquid water, at present or in the past. Recent evidence from the NASA rovers Spirit and Opportunity supports the theory that Mars once had surface water. See Life on Mars for further discussion.

 

Jupiter's moons are also considered good candidates for extraterrestrial life, especially Europa, which seems to possess oceans of liquid water.

 

Other highly speculative and somewhat doubtful places for present or past life include the atmosphere of Venus, Titan cyrovolcanoes, or even Enceladus.

 

From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. :friday: :friday:

[Jay-qu]

good I think there is hope yet! :friday:

 

I was doing some thinking of what a person is - A person must be human but I dont think a human has to be person... As in a body can exsist (and live) without a person in it, ie brain dead - the lights are on but no-one is home.

Is it murder to kill a living body that is without a spirit? for lack of a better word. I only use spirit in the place of the consious part of a person out of ease, the discussion of whether a spirit exsists is for another time and place.

So yes once the egg is fertilised(and beforehand as rocky pointed out) there is living entity seperate but dependant on the mother. Is this zygote any more alive then a tree? they are both biological organisms and both are lacking the consious awareness of an animal...

 

stopping for a break be back later

[automatic existence]

Not trying to offend anyone, but isen´t this a very obvious case in which morals actually become troublesome. That they are actually just in the way?

 

Now they might weigh up for that in other ways, but I just don´t see the point. Morals are actually very arrogant. People think the universe circle around them. If every single human being was wiped off the surface of earth, nobody would care. Nothing would change. Maybe the ecosystem would adapt, but it has done that for millions of years. I guess this is even controversial here, but isen´t it fairly obvious that nature, which we are created by don´t care at all. We can kill, rape, torture, steal, do anything for thousands of years and nobody cares. Hell, even nature kills millions a year. When you think about it, its actually nature who kills everyone who dies. Nature give us our instincts which tells us to kill, or to do abortion, or manufactures our body to die in about 80 years. So I don´t see the problem. What would happen to our dear nature if nobody died? It wouldn´t work. Simple as that. Killing people is like putting gasoline on your car. a) its not a crime :friday: its necessary. I don´t think we should all start killing each other, I´am only talking in theory.

 

I don´t want to be a destructive nihilist here, but I don´t wont to dodge what is obvious either. Is there something you all see that I don´t? Or am I just not so bound by pre-existent dogmas?

 

 

Edit: I don´t want to drive the discusson of track here, I just wanted to mention the absurdity of discussing what is best for others based on your own opinions. Also, to put things in perspective, which many people lose as they go trough re-enforcing their way of thinking over many years. I believe we are bound stronger by habbit of thought than most are aware of and that does not lead to a fruitful discussion, but only an exchange of unbacked opinion.

[cwes99_03]

I think the only thing we see is the difference between a natural process, I.E. defined by natural law, and an un-natural process. In this case, abortion is un-natural because it requires human thought to occur. Miscarriage (not forced miscarriage as i have pointed out before happens when a boyfriend beats his girlfriend to cause a miscarriage, or like cases) is a natural process.

 

Also we as humans are constantly fighting, natural phenomenon. We fight by finding ways to prevent sickness and disease, to prevent death due to hurricanes and tornadoes. The government steps in and mandates things in many of these cases (such as building codes, etc.)

 

To go back to an earlier post, no one has commented on this.

But explain to me where the practical advantages of any of my suggestions is wrong. If we only had sex after marriage, then there would be a lot fewer problems. Sure you could say that, people will just start getting married and then divorced or annul their marriage after they have sex. Gut that loop-hole then. Go back to Biblical laws on marriage. Then only not only will recreational sex be gone, which has proven psychological problems as well as the physical ones of stds, unwanted pregnancy, etc, but problems of broken homes, single parents, dead-beat dads, .........................

That list goes on for a while, courts would be amazingly freed up to take care of real criminals (not to say that dead-beat dads aren't criminals, but lessor criminals than say murderers and rapists.

[cwes99_03]

Might I also point out that anyone can edit Wikipedia pages at any time. While there are moderators and masters of that domain, they don't catch, nor revert to previous version very rapidly. They are pretty much free for anyone to present their opinion on.

 

So let's have someone go out and find a couple of reputable websites, that commonly agree on a couple of points to begin that discussion.

[goku]

Not trying to offend anyone, but isen´t this a very obvious case in which morals actually become troublesome. That they are actually just in the way?

 

Now they might weigh up for that in other ways, but I just don´t see the point. Morals are actually very arrogant. People think the universe circle around them. If every single human being was wiped off the surface of earth, nobody would care. Nothing would change. Maybe the ecosystem would adapt, but it has done that for millions of years. I guess this is even controversial here, but isen´t it fairly obvious that nature, which we are created by don´t care at all. We can kill, rape, torture, steal, do anything for thousands of years and nobody cares. Hell, even nature kills millions a year. When you think about it, its actually nature who kills everyone who dies. Nature give us our instincts which tells us to kill, or to do abortion, or manufactures our body to die in about 80 years. So I don´t see the problem. What would happen to our dear nature if nobody died? It wouldn´t work. Simple as that. Killing people is like putting gasoline on your car. a) its not a crime :friday: its necessary. I don´t think we should all start killing each other, I´am only talking in theory.

 

I don´t want to be a destructive nihilist here, but I don´t wont to dodge what is obvious either. Is there something you all see that I don´t? Or am I just not so bound by pre-existent dogmas?

:friday:

[cwes99_03]

Sorry one more thing. While the pull out method is willfull sacrifice of the sperm, thousands(?), millions(?), of sperm die naturally in the act of conception.