Latest News Article

[Metadigital]

haloreachcp123username, on 10 November 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

Second, life begins at conception. You are stealing the life of a child with infinite potential. Sure, they go to a better place faster, but denying them a place here is awful.

...

And researching stem cells? I would rather give child life then to inject it into somebody to better their medical state. I will never take a child's life just to make my life easier from a medical perspective.

Is this life?


Certainly.

Is it a human? Well, there is human DNA in there. It could become a human under the right conditions. Then again, so could all these little guys:



Should we protect the lives of every single sperm, too? They are just as much alive as a stem cell, and there are about 40,000,000 of them each ejaculation (about 225 times the current population of the world). Men produce more of these guys each day than our feeble brains can comprehend.

Are you sure you want to protect the right to live based only on the potentiality of becoming a human?

Perhaps we should save such protections for actual humans. There may be no clear line as to what makes an actual human, but that doesn't mean that we can go around and give anything and everything that title just because it could turn into a human (strictly speaking, the pizza I ate today turned into a human).

[haloreachcp123username]

Metadigital, on 10 November 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

Is this life?


Certainly.

Is it a human? Well, there is human DNA in there. It could become a human under the right conditions. Then again, so could all these little guys:



Should we protect the lives of every single sperm, too? They are just as much alive as a stem cell, and there are about 40,000,000 of them each ejaculation (about 225 times the current population of the world). Men produce more of these guys each day than our feeble brains can comprehend.

Are you sure you want to protect the right to live based only on the potentiality of becoming a human?

Perhaps we should save such protections for actual humans. There may be no clear line as to what makes an actual human, but that doesn't mean that we can go around and give anything and everything that title just because it could turn into a human (strictly speaking, the pizza I ate today turned into a human).

You are still denying the life of a soon to be human. It's like demolishing a building because it isn't habitable just yet.

[CycloneX5]

haloreachcp123username, on 10 November 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

First off ,the mother has no choice. The child is not her property just because it is inside her. That is like saying I can murder you inside my house, because my house is my property.

Second, life begins at conception. You are stealing the life of a child with infinite potential. Sure, they go to a better place faster, but denying them a place here is awful.

And researching stem cells? I would rather give child life then to inject it into somebody to better their medical state. I will never take a child's life just to make my life easier from a medical perspective.

Why shouldn't the mother have a choice? She's the one that's raising it inside herself and going through a long and tiring process for 9 months. I think she should have a choice in this instead of just being used as a baby factory.

And you can say that a child can have infinite potential, but what if they don't? What if the baby just ends up being a janitor or a crook. We can't possibly know what's going to happen in the baby's life, so stop making statements like this.

[Metadigital]

haloreachcp123username, on 10 November 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

You are still denying the life of a soon to be human. It's like demolishing a building because it isn't habitable just yet.

That's hyperbole. I'm denying the humanhood of a single cell, such as the above stem cells and sperm. You're oversimplifying the issue to the point of absurdity, unless of course you are claiming that sperm are humans. If that's the case, then you kill 225 times the population of the earth with every ejaculation, and women get abortions each time they have a period containing a fertilized egg (which supposedly occurs as often as 40% of the time when trying to get pregnant). If you think that either of those statements are true, then you're not willing to think about the issue, and we're done.

[Yourself]

Quote

They are just as much alive as a stem cell, and there are about 40,000,000 of them each ejaculation (about 225 times the current population of the world).

About 40 million per milliliter*.  Most men ejaculate more than one milliliter, the typical sperm count for a single ejaculation (or at least the median) is about 250 million.  Also, that's 1/28 the population of the world.  It's about 8 times the population of Canada, though.

[Hellfire]

Here is my 2 cents on it.

I have a somewhat common opinion but with something that makes it different.

Abortion should only be used in the cases of rape and incest.

The flipside of this, is that I believe healthcare should supply birthcontrol and all other means of preventing pregnancy.

[Travis]

haloreachcp123username, on 10 November 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

You are still denying the life of a soon to be human. It's like demolishing a building because it isn't habitable just yet.

And so we get to the most important question:
So?

[lolpierandom]

So guys, I'm thinking we should punish women every time they have a period.

After all, they're denying the potential of life.

[MiracleMouse]

Metadigital, on 10 November 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

Should we protect the lives of every single sperm, too?

Travis, on 10 November 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

And so we get to the most important question:
So?

lolpierandom, on 10 November 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

So guys, I'm thinking we should punish women every time they have a period.

In all fairness, I think you all understand his argument.  Even you meta, and I am honestly disappointed that the only rebuttal is "Well sperm is alive too!".  Weak!

Sperm on its own will never begin the process from human life.  An egg cell on its own will never begin the process for human life.  Travis, I am not sure if your rebuttal would fit in with the other two, but it seemed along the same lines.  If I am wrong I apologize.

If you want to argue personhood that's understandable, but saying that a fertilized egg, is not a human being in a very early stage of development.  A sperm is not a human being in development, neither is an egg cell in development.  Until the two combine, neither will develop into anything short of a possible stain on the bed sheet.

And yes, Meta, even your cells are human life, but they are not human beings in development.  Your rebuttal was very lacking for you Meta.  I always look forward to your views and take time to read them, because there are so few people who express more than their opinions and you are one of them.  However you honestly dropped the ball.

[Metadigital]

MiracleMouse, on 10 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Even you meta, and I am honestly disappointed that the only rebuttal is "Well sperm is alive too!".  Weak!

I'm sorry to disappoint.

I wasn't going to tackle the the whole problem of when the soul enters the body. That's just too messy, so I figured I'd instead point out the obvious: sperm cells, egg cells, stem cells, etc. are not human beings. Neither are skin cells, heart muscle cells, or lung cells. Those aren't humans, either. As it turns out mitochondria are definitely not human, and in fact, much of the human body is itself not human, either.

Similarly, a potential human isn't a human. As I pointed out earlier, women who have periods which contain fertilized eggs are not having an abortion. Neither is harvesting stem cells for scientific research. If we suppose that a potential human is a human, than I should be in jail for years of protected sex. Really, I should have got charged with at least manslaughter when I was 14 for dumping my 13 year old girlfriend. I would perpetually exist in a morally grey state, as I tend to spend a lot of my days doing things other than actively getting women pregnant. The number of potential babies I've singlehandedly prevented the birth of is mind blowing.

A human being is an incredibly complicated multicellular organism / ecosystem / ideal. They aren't a cell or even a small collection of cells, nor are they a potentiality. On the other hand, I am a human being. My life matters. Your life matters. Let's not make this any more confusing than it needs to be. It's already confusing enough as it is, because there's no hard and fast line between "human" and "not human".

One of the central concerns I pointed out at the very beginning is the problem of what it means to be human. If this has all the quantification of being human:


Then I must be something more than human, because I'm capable of so much more. I can hear, see, feel, taste, touch, smell, think, talk, eat, poop, run, swim, jump, make posts on indie gaming forums, and even make new humans with the help of another!

The zygote above? It just sort of sits there, and if external conditions permit, it might be form, one day, into a human being as well. But not left on its own. There's nothing about this little bundle of cells that is anything like any humans I know of. To argue that its a human just because its one of the required components to make a human is absurd.

MiracleMouse, on 10 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

An egg cell on its own will never begin the process for human life.

Neither will that zygote. That zygote requires an entire human to manufacture a human being. It's not like it magically materializes a baby out of itself, growing organs from organelles, limbs out of cytoplasm, and a brain from one of its nuclei. All these things still have to come from somewhere else; the mother.

[toast_burner]

MiracleMouse, on 10 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

In all fairness, I think you all understand his argument.  Even you meta, and I am honestly disappointed that the only rebuttal is "Well sperm is alive too!".  Weak!

Sperm on its own will never begin the process from human life.  An egg cell on its own will never begin the process for human life.  Travis, I am not sure if your rebuttal would fit in with the other two, but it seemed along the same lines.  If I am wrong I apologize.

If you want to argue personhood that's understandable, but saying that a fertilized egg, is not a human being in a very early stage of development.  A sperm is not a human being in development, neither is an egg cell in development.  Until the two combine, neither will develop into anything short of a possible stain on the bed sheet.

And yes, Meta, even your cells are human life, but they are not human beings in development.  Your rebuttal was very lacking for you Meta.  I always look forward to your views and take time to read them, because there are so few people who express more than their opinions and you are one of them.  However you honestly dropped the ball.

A fertilized egg on it's own wouldn't develop into a person. It still needs the mothers body and nutrients.

[Typical_Name]

haloreachcp123username, on 10 November 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

First off ,the mother has no choice. The child is not her property just because it is inside her. That is like saying I can murder you inside my house, because my house is my property.

You're simply wrong on this point.  The fetus exists only by the mother's benevolence, which is voluntary on the part of the mother, who can cut off the relationship at any time if she decides that she does not want the child for whatever reason.  A similar relationship exists between citizens and the State.

Quote

Second, life begins at conception. You are stealing the life of a child with infinite potential. Sure, they go to a better place faster, but denying them a place here is awful.

We already answered this point.  Read the thread.
Moreover, if the woman is seriously considering aborting her potential offspring, do you think they're going to live a happy life?  Do you think a mother who was forced to carry her fetus will love the resulting child, or will the child be hated as a constant reminder of her past mistakes and future suffering?  Even if she does love the child, will she be prepared for it?  Will that child be raised in a healthy environment and lead a happy life?  If the child would not be happy, it would be a terrible evil to force it to live simply for life's sake.  There can, therefore, be no justifiable broad ban on abortion.

Quote

And researching stem cells? I would rather give child life then to inject it into somebody to better their medical state. I will never take a child's life just to make my life easier from a medical perspective.

Then you are denying a real, suffering human being the chance of happiness (and possibly life), in order to further your mad quest of bringing yet another unhappy life into this planet, to the cost of the society that inhabits it (and the individual that you refused to help).  You have made the patient suffer an illness we could have prevented, you have made the child suffer a life in a broken and loveless household, you have made the mother suffer the pain and cost of raising the child, and you have made society suffer the cost of yet another consumer upon the environment and upon our school and healthcare systems.  Are you proud of yourself?

haloreachcp123username, on 10 November 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

You are still denying the life of a soon to be human. It's like demolishing a building because it isn't habitable just yet.

It's not a great analogy, but building off it, would you then say that if some vagrant came and built a shack wherever he pleased in a city, that it would be wrong to demolish this illegally built shack?  Or if some stranger started building his own house in your backyard without your permission, that it would be wrong to stop him?
These ideas sound silly, because we know that buildings do not have feelings, they are not people, and their value is determined by their effect on the human beings around them.  It is similar with fetuses.

MiracleMouse, on 10 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

In all fairness, I think you all understand his argument.  Even you meta, and I am honestly disappointed that the only rebuttal is "Well sperm is alive too!".  Weak!

Why do people keep making statements like "your only argument against x is this"?  Your assertion is clearly disproven with even a casual reading of the rest of the thread.

But even ignoring this, and pretending he was the only respondent, I think he has argued his position very well, in fact.

[lolpierandom]

MiracleMouse, on 10 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

In all fairness, I think you all understand his argument.  Even you meta, and I am honestly disappointed that the only rebuttal is "Well sperm is alive too!".  Weak!

My argument was against the bullcrap "wasting potential" argument­.

Every time a man ejaculates while not having sex, he's "wasting potential". Every time he DOESN'T ejaculate, he's "wasting potential". Likewise, every time a woman has a period or isn't pregnant, she is "wasting potential".

The argument that you're killing potential makes no goddamn sense- we don't punish people because they aren't crazy 24/7 breeding machines.

[botzee]

I find the "my body, my choice" argument to be ridiculous. If I am pregnant, there are two bodies involved. My body, and the baby's body. And I think men have just as much right to comment on this as I do, because men and women alike start out as babies. It affects everyone, not just women. When the baby's development reaches a certain point, it is hardly just "potential life" anymore -- it IS life. I am generally for government staying out of the affairs of the people, but there are certain things that government is meant to protect. They should obviously not allow murder. A late-term abortion seems to be to be tantamount to murder. And when they kill a baby that comes out alive after a failed abortion, that's absolutely murder. It's not right.

There's a much more effective way to ensure you don't get pregnant after an "accident" occurs. The morning after pill. You take two pills, you get your period, and you don't get pregnant. It seems to be a forgotten element of the discussion. It is actually very easy to get, at least in some places, but I think it should be something you can simply buy at the pharmacy, regardless of your age, in every state.

[Travis]

botzee, on 10 November 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

baby's body

Stop right there. Fetus.

[botzee]

Travis, on 10 November 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

Stop right there. Fetus.

fe·tus/ˈfētəs/
Noun: An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.


Sorry, I meant "unborn baby."

I'm not going to play your foolish language game of using the word "fetus" to somehow devalue the life we're talking about. Whatever word you use, it's life.

[Travis]

botzee, on 10 November 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

fe·tus/ˈfētəs/
Noun: An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.


Sorry, I meant "unborn baby."

I'm not going to play your foolish language game of using the word "fetus" to somehow devalue the life we're talking about. Whatever word you use, it's life.

A tumor is life. Should we stop removing tumors?

[botzee]

A tumor doesn't have a heart and a brain.

[Sting_Auer]

botzee, on 10 November 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

A tumor doesn't have a heart and a brain.

Neither do early fetuses.

[Travis]

botzee, on 10 November 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

A tumor doesn't have a heart and a brain.

And so we reach this question again:
So?