01-09-2002 10:18									#91
	Support Apolyton

if woman do not want to fall pregnant they should stick to oral sex to satify their man.

	01-09-2002 10:18									#92
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The egg is separate from the chicken physically. It requires no contribution from a separate entity to survive in the world. It becomes a separate entity when its yolk-sac and eggshell have developed sufficiently to allow it to hatch safely after more time has passed.

Unlike, for instance, a parasite, an embryo requires a lot more than just warmth or nourishment that it can steal from another organism; it requires a complex and active cooperation on the part of a parent it cannot choose in order to survive and develop. Until it becomes viable, it is a part of the parent's own body.

	01-09-2002 10:19									#93
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Mihai And in this case the woman should make a cezarian (sp?), not an abourtion.

Yes. Third trimester abortions should not be practiced except in the case of medical necessity.

	01-09-2002 10:33									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Frogger It becomes a separate entity when its yolk-sac and eggshell have developed sufficiently to allow it to hatch safely after more time has passed.

It's still an embryo, though. The chicken is at the same stage in its life cycle as the human, the only difference is that the human is developing inside the uterus during this part of its life cycle while the chicken is developing inside of an egg. Unless mammals have completely different life cycles than practically every other creature (i.e. unless a mammal's life cycle doesn't begin until birth, even though most animals' life cycles begin well before then), then there's no reason to conclude that a chicken is an independent entity in its embryonic stage but that a human is not, and every life-cycle diagram I've ever seen starts at the zygote.

	01-09-2002 12:05									#95
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: the only difference is that the human is developing inside the uterus during this part of its life cycle while the chicken is developing inside of an egg

That makes all the difference in the world. One is self-sufficient, the other is not.

	01-09-2002 12:11									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: every life-cycle diagram I've ever seen starts at the zygote

Only if you define it (organism) in a particular way (genetic). I would start life-cycle with baby and end it with pregnant-woman-and-child.

	01-09-2002 16:38									#97
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 If the fetus is left along for 9 months it will be borne.

Not necessarily - a very high of pregnancies don't make it to term, often without the mother knowing she's pregnant.

What about the Jewish idea that human life begins when you draw breath?

	01-09-2002 17:11									#98
	Remove this text

Men debating abortion makes about as much sence to me as an anti-abortionist who is for the death penalty.



How can someone claim to be be anti-abortion and still eat eggs?

	01-09-2002 20:13									#99
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Frogger That makes all the difference in the world. One is self-sufficient, the other is not.

So you're saying that even though every non-mammal that reproduces through meiosis is a separate entity in the embryonic stage (being inside of an egg that is not part of its mother's body), a mammal is not.

Problem being, if a human embryo isn't a separate entity from its mother, then why does it have vastly different DNA from its mother? No other "organ" in the mother's body (with the exception of eggs, which clearly aren't separate human entities by virtue of the fact that they've only got half the number of required chromosomes) have such radically different DNA from the rest of the body.

So in order to conclude that a human embryo is just another organ, we'd have to assume a. that the same life cycle that applies to all non-mammals somehow doesn't apply to mammals, and b. that the embryo is part of the mother's body despite the fact that it's got a vastly different set of genes than the rest of the mother's body.

quote: Only if you define it (organism) in a particular way (genetic). I would start life-cycle with baby and end it with pregnant-woman-and-child.

How do you define an organism without using genetics?

	01-09-2002 20:35									#100
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Akka le Vil Second moral of the story : your previous avatar was much better than the new one

Yeah, I know. But at least this way, people don't think of me as a hot chick. If I had left Lexa as my avatar for long enough, I'm sure someone here would have hit on me . This way, at least if I get hit on, it will be because of the way I really look. Even if it is a guy, it's still a compliment. I'm one of those straight guys that doesn't mind getting hit on by gay guys. In most cases, they care more about appearance than the ladies. Higher Standards = Yes, I'm a Sex0R beast!

	01-09-2002 20:38									#101
	Inflate your Upload Space

I consider the life-form to be complete when it can medically survive outside the womb (or eggshell for birds and stuff). I would accept the medical interpretation of a human being (with rights and such) being defined at the point of its ability to survive in the outside world (I'm not including the ability to feed).

	01-09-2002 20:54									#102
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The problem with that definition "the ability to survive outside the womb", is that it is based on our technological capabilities of the day. Fetus' of the past that were born at 26 weeks had no chance of surviving, while now a days they have a small chance of doin so. So in the future when we are capable of developing without a womb, are we then going to chage the definition?

Frogger, you keep saying independent, which you are correct, the embryo isn't an independent biological entity, rather it is a unique biological entity that relies on the body that created it to use as a home until it developes.

Well Loin it looks like I really did convince you of the biological portion of our debate.

	01-09-2002 20:59									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I'm talking about surviving naturally, without the help of incubation hoopajoobs and stuff. Natural survival... without the help of machines.

	01-09-2002 21:23									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What does that have to do with anything? (Meaning assistance with machines?)

Are you trying to tell me that if you have a baby on a respirator it really isn't by your definition a human?

	01-09-2002 21:46									#105
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I'm just using the popular Pro-Life argument against you. I.E. Humans perpetrate the killing of babies (abortion) which is interfering with "god's" natural will. On the flipside, medicine and technology interfere's with god's natural will. It's only logical to assume that the natural definition of a human being be the state in which a human being can survive and live on its own without the aid of medicine and technology.

IMO, souls aren't simply created at conception, or even at birth. They grow along with the body and with time. The loss of a fetus is simply not the same degree of loss of an adult. Also, the fetus doesn't suffer. And by your own Christian beliefs, upon death, the soul either goes to heaven, hell, or purgatory. A baby would either go to heaven or the soul would be reborn. Either way, I don't see a negative. In fact, the negative would be bringing the child into a world and situation where it isn't wanted.

A baby on a respirator is human. But it doesn't have the same level of growth as an adult. Death isn't a bad thing, IMO. Death is the same state of existence as before you were born. The manner in which the death occurs is where the evil lies. Specifically, in suffering and the significance of loss on family. If God does exist in the manner in which Judeo-Christians believe, then he obviously is taking care of the babies killed by abortion. I seriously doubt that they are all burning in hell.

I just don't see the negative aspect of it.

	01-09-2002 21:54									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Sava, a lot of this has to do with the parents as well. Sure the fetus would go to heaven, but then what's the difference if someone drowns infants? They would go to heaven... sorry that argument doesn't work for me.

Actually Sava, wouldn't the natural definition of a human be when the human organism is created, and the begginig state in which it will continue to develope.

I agree death isn't a bad thing, but at the same time one should not rush to embrace it, nor bring it to another person. It comes to us all regardless.

Sava not all people believe that using machines goes against God's will.

	01-09-2002 22:02									#107
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I know about the machine thing, I was just playing devil's advocate. The difference between drowning and abortion is that the parents had ample opprotunity to abort the pregnancy. Plus, holding a baby underwater and draining the life from it is a more direct and brutal way. I doubt that many people who get abortions could in fact go through with drowning a baby. As often as I think about how brutal and evil I could be against Nazis and terrorists, there is no way on Earth that I could kill a baby. And I sometimes have some very cruel thought .

For me, it just boils down to the idea that nobody can tell a woman what to do with her body. For me, that right supercedes any right to life for a fetus, which BTW, has more in common with an unfertilized egg or sperm cell than a fully mature adult human. That's why I prefer to take the approach of education, birth control, and just a better overall quality of life for society to curb the amount of abortions as opposed to a religious/moral legislative approach. Nobody knows what God wants. As hard as this might seem to believe, he didn't write the bible. No human has had any contact with him or what's beyond death. We're on our own. We've got to make the best decisions for what's good for society, and not worry about God wants. I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to do that when we die.

	01-09-2002 22:39									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sava I'm sure your aware that infact fetus' really have more in common with an infant than a sperm or egg.

Hell by the 8th week the fetus is allready developing a nervous system.

By the 24th week it has pretty much every organ that it is going to require as an adult.

Sava you are trying to justify your argument with a fallacy.

"For me, it just boils down to the idea that nobody can tell a woman what to do with her body. For me, that right supercedes any right to life for a fetus, which BTW, has more in common with an unfertilized egg or sperm cell than a fully mature adult human."

You are trying to dehumanize the fetal stage of our life, to make it seem as if there is nothing "wrong" with the act of abortion.

	01-09-2002 23:30									#109
	Got spare money?

You're correct, that's not the best part of the argument. There's no correct answer either way if a fetus is truly deserving of the same rights as a developed human. That's not the main part of the issue. As long as the baby is part of the mother's body and cannot survive outside the mother. It's the mother's choice; government and religious zealots simply don't have the right to tell the mother what she can or can't do with her body. It's the same with drug use.

Abortion is very similar to euthenasia, IMO. I'm not sure about your stance on that issue, but Ashcroft and other ultra-righties believe that terminally ill people don't even have the right to die.

But I leave it up to you Nov. Adam... convince me why an undeveloped mass of cells has more rights than a mother.

For the record, I am morally against partial birth abortions, but I still don't think it is an issue that should be legislated. Unless it is life-threatening to the mother, I don't see how education can't eliminate partial birth abortions. I doubt many people get to 9 months and simply say, "Oh, we don't want this baby."

A human fetus does not become an individual with rights until it can live independent of the mother. Until then, it is simply a part of her. Every single cell in its body is created from the mother. It does not grow or consume any resources (food, oxygen, water) on its own.

	02-09-2002 02:02									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

A person someone able to feel and think.
An embryo isn't able to do one or the other.
Hence an embryo can be get rid of as a simple pack of cells.

	02-09-2002 05:11									#111
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Sava You're correct, that's not the best part of the argument. There's no correct answer either way if a fetus is truly deserving of the same rights as a developed human. That's not the main part of the issue. As long as the baby is part of the mother's body and cannot survive outside the mother. It's the mother's choice; government and religious zealots simply don't have the right to tell the mother what she can or can't do with her body. It's the same with drug use.

The fetus is not part of the mother's body, it is genetically distinct.

	02-09-2002 06:18									#112
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Sava You're correct, that's not the best part of the argument. There's no correct answer either way if a fetus is truly deserving of the same rights as a developed human. That's not the main part of the issue. As long as the baby is part of the mother's body and cannot survive outside the mother. It's the mother's choice; government and religious zealots simply don't have the right to tell the mother what she can or can't do with her body. It's the same with drug use. Abortion is very similar to euthenasia, IMO. I'm not sure about your stance on that issue, but Ashcroft and other ultra-righties believe that terminally ill people don't even have the right to die. But I leave it up to you Nov. Adam... convince me why an undeveloped mass of cells has more rights than a mother. For the record, I am morally against partial birth abortions, but I still don't think it is an issue that should be legislated. Unless it is life-threatening to the mother, I don't see how education can't eliminate partial birth abortions. I doubt many people get to 9 months and simply say, "Oh, we don't want this baby." A human fetus does not become an individual with rights until it can live independent of the mother. Until then, it is simply a part of her. Every single cell in its body is created from the mother. It does not grow or consume any resources (food, oxygen, water) on its own.

First off, a fetus' cells are created by it's own body. You are cofusing the environment in which it lives, with what it is. The fetus' food supply comes from it's mother, but the cellular growth is its own. As to your comment "every single cell in its body is created from its mother." I'm sorry but this shows a lack of understanding. he mother provided half a DNA strand, the father the other half. From that point on the zygote will continue to split, the cells will modify to distinct uses. Although I believe the mother does supply the baby with hormones as it develops.

So you leave it up to me to persuade you, do you. Well how do you figure the human developing in the mother has more rights than the mother? I can really think of only one right that I am arguing the fetus to have, and that is the right to continue to develope. You will probably say that this right violates the mothers right to her body. At which point I would say that the right of a human to continue to develope superseds the mothers right to her body, when it is by an action of the mothers that put the new human there to begin with.

	02-09-2002 07:03									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Look you people are never going to get to the bottom of this. It goes to the heart of the mystery of life. Who knows when God creates souls? That is the real issue for the religious. I suspect God doesn't waste souls on tissue that will never draw breath.

Having fathered 4 children and been through the whole process I don't hold black and white views any more but I do tend to be much much more sympathetic to the woman's interests than I was before and to the pro choice arguments. Maybe you'll find the same.

I'm just glad to have come through the whole process with 4 healthy bouncing baby boys

	02-09-2002 07:07									#114
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove The fetus is not part of the mother's body, it is genetically distinct.

So are sex cells.

	02-09-2002 08:04									#115
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Sex cells have half of your own DNA.

An embryo has 2 halves of other DNA to call its own.

So a sex cell is not distinct, as it is comprised wholly of your own DNA, not someone else's

Alexander's Horse, I am personally not able to accept the termination of a human in their embryotic, or fetal stages.

	02-09-2002 08:53									#116
	Put an end to popups!

Sava, you say that children should be educated so abortions can be avoided.

What would you have them be taught? You are defending abortions in this thread yet have said they are undesirable, why are they undesireable?

	02-09-2002 09:00									#117
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

How can a fetus have rights? It has no capacity to claim or defend those so-called rights. Rights only exist if you calim and defend them. This is why animals do not have rights. This is why children do not have fully formed rights. A fetus simply does not have any right what so ever. It is mindless.

	02-09-2002 09:14									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Chegitz, have you ever heard of an advocate?

	02-09-2002 13:37									#119
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara How can a fetus have rights? It has no capacity to claim or defend those so-called rights. Rights only exist if you calim and defend them. This is why animals do not have rights. This is why children do not have fully formed rights. A fetus simply does not have any right what so ever. It is mindless.

It would seem you are saying the more powerful you are the more rights you have as you have a greater capacity to claim and defend them. Doesn't society have a duty to protect those who are unable to calim and defend their rights

	02-09-2002 18:49									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Frogger So are sex cells.

No they are not. They may be haploid vs. the diploid number of other sex cells, but every gene in your spermatozoa also exists in all the other genes in your body. Unlike the other cells in your body your gametes don't carry the duplicated complimentary strands.