Quote:
It is plain that you are unaware that 1 in 4 fertilized eggs does not implant and gets flushed out with the next period. And even once an egg implants another 1 in 4 fails to thrive as it's called and self-aborts.
Clearly, God loves abortion.
Plain is it? You missed or ignored my response to your original post:
Quote:
Quote:
Let's say cloning is perfected in the near future. It has been done in other mammals since 'Dolly' the sheep was born in 1995, but the mortality rate is too high to consider human experiments as ethical. When that point is reached, to be rationally consistent the arguments that claim a fertilized egg is a human being will also have to apply that status to a single skin cell kept alive in a petri dish that has an equal potential to be a human being. Almost makes you wonder if that's why the anti-abortion crowd overlaps so highly with those who are against stem cell research, cloning, etc. - too many awkward theological questions.
If you're interested in my viewpoint, I will oblige. There is more to it than just being a fertilised egg, in natural conception not every egg that is fertilised will result in pregnancy. The pregnancy has to take, many other things have to be just right for pregnancy to occur. I don't have any particular qualms about people experimenting with eggs in laboratories. But if the mad scientist in question created a cloned human fertilised egg and implanted it into a woman _and_ the implantation was successful such that in 9 months time (excluding unforeseen medical problems) she will give birth to a child. Then that future member of the human race becomes worthy of protection.
The single skin cell you describe isn't going to be a human unless you take further action. The implanted egg will be, nay, is a human on the way unless you interfere. There might be a moral argument to say that every created clone egg should be implanted (aka it's immoral not to roll the dice - similar to the catholic position) I struggle to see that side of things myself, but I am certain once the dice have been rolled, in general, it's immoral to end that life.
As soon as circumstances arise where a child will be born, medical complications aside, that human child deserves protection at any stage of development.
Quote:
Please stop telling women what their view is ("Women...do not see it as such"). Just stop. There are plenty of women who do want the eventual child that may develop, and yet understand the biology involved and do not imbue the cells with personhood or a "soul", as it does not yet qualify and they do not Believe. You have no right to speak for them.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Basically, this whole argument comes down to this: define, "personhood". So stop arguing about "life". Single celled algae are alive. Bacteria are alive. The lettuce in your sandwich is alive, until you digest it. But they are not a "person". Cut through the rhetoric and false equivalencies, define "personhood" as you see it and the argument will be much cleaner.
The challenge is yours to meet, it is your side trying to define these things to justify abortion. Life, personhood (something I don't think anyone inside a womb, at any stage can have really), whatever terms you wish to use, the problem is the same. At what stage in prenatal development does the embryo/fetus/collection of cells/parasitic worm/baby have the right to some protection? For me, until I am convinced otherwise, the deserve protection from day 1.
05 Nov 2015, 2:25 pm
