AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
edited April 2005
The women or girls arent ofcourse getting it for fun, and if you are not ready to have a child - why torture yourself AND the child. Such an old, twisted, not updated view on the world.
<_< >_> It is a human being. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Aww plz dont go back to the rape thingy, we already explained that, dont keep on making me refer back. I explained 3 times why. Its wrong, it has been forced on the woman. It will already leave here with deep emotonal scarrs...
You pro-choice are so quick to shy away from any lable that links us undeniably to the foetus, because it is human.
CMEast, you say the mother has ultimate choice, but what right has she to terminate?If you say the baby is in her and therefore part of her and therefore she can abort at any time you are mistaken. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry I keep 'bringing you back to it' but your position on it doesn't make sense and you have yet to actually answer my question.
You keep stressing that it is a human life and that we have no 'right' to end it but then you say she can kill her baby because she has 'emotional scars'. Well in the end so what? She will have them whether she terminates the pregnancy or not so how does killing the baby help? Surely she could just have it removed when it can survive without her (and when it does no lasting damage to her).
You keep saying that 'we pro-choice' are avoiding calling it human but I keep telling you I don't care. Want me to change my wording to "Otherwise the baby gets nuked"? It still doesn't change my opinion that the mother comes first. Plus I have said I don't believe it right at 'any time' during the pregnancy, just for a large proportion of it. Unless you mean any time as in any circumstance in which case yes, they can. I personally haven't tried once to discuss whether it is human or not, I am dubious about it but as the question is mostly meaningless I am quite happy to agree for the moment that it is human, that it is a seperate individual from the very moment of conception. You can give it a soul and everything if you want as well, it doesn't affect my point. The mother comes first.
Filthy Larry, in my opinion the father can't decide to abort his legal responsibilities until he can carry the child to term himself. Why? Simple, because in making a child it is the mothers side of it to conceive the child and then carry it as it develops until she gives birth. While she hasn't completed her part in it she can still say no. It is the fathers job to be there at conception, he has done his job and it can't be undone. Otherwise there would be guys impregnating women everywhere and then running off.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 23 2005, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 23 2005, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Filthy Larry, in my opinion the father can't decide to abort his legal responsibilities until he can carry the child to term himself. Why? Simple, because in making a child it is the mothers side of it to conceive the child and then carry it as it develops until she gives birth. While she hasn't completed her part in it she can still say no. It is the fathers job to be there at conception, he has done his job and it can't be undone. Otherwise there would be guys impregnating women everywhere and then running off. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting point of view.
What would you make of the following scenario though?:
The woman decides to lie about taking "the pill" in order to get pregnant and trap a man into marriage.
IMO this an abstract form of rape don't you think? The father has not given consent for his semen to be used for reproduction.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Apr 23 2005, 04:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Apr 23 2005, 04:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Apr 23 2005, 12:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Apr 23 2005, 12:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do appreciate the response. However I thinkyou may have misinterpreted my question.
The idea is not that the man has to give approval for the woman to have an abortion but that he can decide to absolve himself of legal (i.e. financial) obligations to the child if he decides that he is "not ready" to be a father. In other words it is the male equivalent of having an abortion ( a pseudo-abortion if you will).
I was curious to see the ladies response here because they all seem to be pro-choice. It seems a double-standard to then not allow a similar option for the father of the child does it not? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I feel that the woman has the right to an abortion because she's the one who carries the burden. She's the one who has to go through birth or the abortion. All the man has to do is helping the woman when she needs it (which he should be doing before, as well, really), and have sex. If he wants a baby or not, then he should probably make sure the woman agrees with him beforehand...
I hate the term "pro-choice". I'm "pro-abortion". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> See above: What if the woman lies about taking birth-control to have a baby against the man's wishes?
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Apr 23 2005, 11:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Apr 23 2005, 11:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 23 2005, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 23 2005, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Filthy Larry, in my opinion the father can't decide to abort his legal responsibilities until he can carry the child to term himself. Why? Simple, because in making a child it is the mothers side of it to conceive the child and then carry it as it develops until she gives birth. While she hasn't completed her part in it she can still say no. It is the fathers job to be there at conception, he has done his job and it can't be undone. Otherwise there would be guys impregnating women everywhere and then running off. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting point of view.
What would you make of the following scenario though?:
The woman decides to lie about taking "the pill" in order to get pregnant and trap a man into marriage.
IMO this an abstract form of rape don't you think? The father has not given consent for his semen to be used for reproduction. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Um, if I were a man in that situation, I would get out of that relationship fast. Nothing good would come from a marriage brought on by force by a child if one partner deceived the other. That's like a man putting holes in his condoms. Actually, isn't that illegal?
Hard and fast rules are so hard to come by in cases like these.
What would you make of the following scenario though?:
The woman decides to lie about taking "the pill" in order to get pregnant and trap a man into marriage.
IMO this an abstract form of rape don't you think? The father has not given consent for his semen to be used for reproduction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um, if I were a man in that situation, I would get out of that relationship fast. Nothing good would come from a marriage brought on by force by a child if one partner deceived the other. That's like a man putting holes in his condoms. Actually, isn't that illegal?
Hard and fast rules are so hard to come by in cases like these. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with Sky. The guy can leave (and probably should).
If the man does have a say, then we would get situations where the man would veto a woman having an abortion if the contraceptives fail. That seems to me to be a lot worse, since the man doesn't carry the burden. In the other scenario, where the man doesn't want the baby but the woman does, the man may get a lenient sentence if he takes matters into his own hands. I wouldn't want that.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Apr 23 2005, 04:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Apr 23 2005, 04:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 23 2005, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 23 2005, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Filthy Larry, in my opinion the father can't decide to abort his legal responsibilities until he can carry the child to term himself. Why? Simple, because in making a child it is the mothers side of it to conceive the child and then carry it as it develops until she gives birth. While she hasn't completed her part in it she can still say no. It is the fathers job to be there at conception, he has done his job and it can't be undone. Otherwise there would be guys impregnating women everywhere and then running off. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting point of view.
What would you make of the following scenario though?:
The woman decides to lie about taking "the pill" in order to get pregnant and trap a man into marriage.
IMO this an abstract form of rape don't you think? The father has not given consent for his semen to be used for reproduction. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Simple, if he can prove 100% that it is true then yes, he should be let off. Maybe if he wears a condom too :/ I have no idea how he would prove it but there are too many males who would use it as an excuse to escape so there would have to be very tight rules.
If a guy takes every precaution possible not to have a child and honestly believes the woman is too but she still gets pregnant and keeps it, I don't think he should have to have the responsibility. He did everything he could do not to have one then no, he shouldn't. Lives shouldn't be damaged just because someone decides to deceive you.
People should be able to have sex without the worry of kids, eventually contraceptives will be good enough but until then these kinds of measures should be around just in case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you insist on trying to make people sound uneducated or indirectly throw insults in that manner then it not only comes off as uncourteous but perhaps shows that your arguements are too weak to allow you to continue in a non-aggressive manner<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry Forum debates are so much harder, in real life you could have told by the intonation of my voice that it was in jest, i was not trying to make you sound uneducated or anything. Hence the big smiley at the end of the sentence. Again, sorry Gem.
Hmm, reading back at my statements, i may have been rather brash, i must stop posting late at night...Let me start by refering back to your first question...
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->not to muddy the arguement further but considering we don't seem to have any concrete line for 'life' I wonder how much of it is also about 'potential life'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You might not have intended to muddy it but you sure have <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For example steel states that 24 weeks they can survive so what about before that? Are they just potential life? Yes, the gametes are just potential life.
If that's the case how far do we take the protection of 'potential life'? Do we remove the eggs/sperm from people and store them safely so none can be lost to menstration/masturbation? After all every sperm and egg is half of a potential life... do we only go so far as to count the ones that combine even though each one has a chance to combine to be a fully-grown human?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes we do only count the ones that combine.In my views two gametes are not a human being. Sure they have the potential to become a human being, but they are not one yet.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you insist on fusion being the defining point of a baby based off the arguement that the two gametes that make it a whole aren't a fully formed thing in themselves then doesn't it logically follow that the zygote isn't a baby as it also isn't a full creature with organs, blood and form. It has to first split and duplicate several million times to become the building blocks of the foetus... even then when do we draw the line?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Zygote is a full creature, it is rapidly growing and most importantly its own full set of Genetic information, DNA. This DNA is different from its mothers DNA or its fathers DNA. It has a full diploid number, this enables it to build all organs, cells and structures in the body. It is, therefore, an independent life, its nature is human as that nature is inscribed in the genes, and its life is separate from the mother.
<!--QuoteBegin-WIKIPEDIA+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WIKIPEDIA)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Animals: The embryo of vertebrates is defined as the stages between the first division of the zygote (a fertilized ovum) until it becomes a foetus. An embryo is called a foetus at a more advanced stage of development and up until birth or hatching. In humans, this is from the eighth week of gestation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*conception, start of life** =>Zygote => Embryo=>Foetus=>Baby=>child=>Teenager=>Adult
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm only trying to work out what your stance really is as I'm really not seeing the dividing line here...... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not defending all the haploid cells, which would be impractical and not rational in the fact that they are not alive. To be alive
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In biology, an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence: 1. Growth 2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste 3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion 4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself 5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A sperm cell and an egg cell can not reproduce individualy, and therefore they are not alive.
<span style='color:red'>EDIT, WTH Steel?? Were you standing on top of a stupid tree, slipped and fell hitting yourself on every stupid branch on the way down??Only to be run over by the retard ambulance? GG n00b ;P The previous sentence was just flipping st00pid </span>
So storing them just because they have a chance of becoming alive only if they come into contact with each other is not practical. There are millions of half cells, they are not human. They are not an animal. They are just vessels carrying half of one of your DNA strands. They are expendable biological-molecule carrying cells.Not human.
I am defending a living homo sapiens in an earlier stage of life. A foetus will probably feel pain when the abortion is carried out. A sperm cell or egg wont feel pain, as it is not alive.
Is my stance now clear?
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have no intentions of watching the clip... why? Because I've probably already seen it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why dont you click on the link and then see if you have seen it,the link takes you to the website not the actual video.. If you have seen it, tell me what you thought of it,if you havnt, then watch it. <a href='http://www.silentscream.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.silentscream.org/</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After a certain stage of development I might be inclined to agree with you but to outright illegalise abortion at any stage of pregnancy seems flawed<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am not advocating outright illigelisation of abortion. There are exceptions. They were stated in my very first post. Why does a stage make it any less human? Most of you dissagree with lables, is isnt a stage name just a lable? Is it not a homo sapiens from the moment of conception?
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 24 2005, 08:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 24 2005, 08:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In biology, an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence: 1. Growth 2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste 3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion 4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself 5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A sperm cell and an egg cell can not reproduce individualy, and therefore they are not alive. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/male_reproductive.html' target='_blank'>Male reproductive system</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Once a male has reached puberty, he will produce millions of sperm cells every day. Each sperm is extremely small: only 1/600 of an inch (0.05 millimeters long). Sperm develop in the testicles within a system of tiny tubes called the seminiferous tubules. At birth, these tubules contain simple round cells, but during puberty, testosterone and other hormones cause these cells to transform into sperm cells. The cells divide and change until they have a head and short tail, like tadpoles. The head contains genetic material (genes). The sperm use their tails to push themselves into the epididymis, where they complete their development. It takes sperm about 4 to 6 weeks to travel through the epididymis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong, they do split individually, well at least the sperm do. Therefore, they fit your biological definition of alive. You kill a sperm cell you are killing a (potential) human.
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 24 2005, 02:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 24 2005, 02:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 24 2005, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 24 2005, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wrong, they do split individually, well at least the sperm do. Therefore, they fit your biological definition of alive. You kill a sperm cell you are killing a (potential) human. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is A-sexual reproduction, bacteria and plants do this, and so do sperm. I meant sexually reproduce. They cannot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahh so by your definition, bacteria are not alive. Bacteria are by definition, single celled organisms. Aka, they are ALIVE.
Yup, that definately marks one of the most silly statements I have ever heard on these forums.
*edit* Please.. someone else tell me I am not the only one laughing very hard.
I hit the reply button mistake without finishing reading, i ment to hit preview.
God that was stupid.I'm doing biology at A-Level so i should have thought about that more. I have added a marker in my previous thread to point at my stupidity. Bacteria are alive , and so is sperm is alive. GG Steel <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ok, so after hitting myself on the "omg, n00b that was st00pid "stick i have read up on it
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sperm is produced by spermatogenesis. A precursor cell with a full diploid number splits into 2 haploid number cells by meiosis, these two cells are 2 sperm cells.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sperm are alive, but they devide by meiosis, they cant devide by mitosis individually to grow by themselves, they have no function in but to carry half a strand of DNA. They is not sexual reproduction. Bacteria reproduce asexualy, and humans reproduce sexualy.
Why are we arguing about this anyway? I am digging myself in a ditch, ( a skillfully placed ditch by Gem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) You guys are trying to trip me up by saying "protect teh sperm, they could be human" but they arent. So i wont.
I have already tried to explain better why i think the sperm and the egg need not apply, as "the Zygote is a full creature, it is rapidly growing and most importantly its own full set of Genetic information, DNA. This DNA is different from its mothers DNA or its fathers DNA. It has a full diploid number, this enables it to build all organs, cells and structures in the body. It is, therefore, an independent life, its nature is human as that nature is inscribed in the genes, and its life is separate from the mother." (me, earlier on)
Anything BZ (before Zygote) in my mind need not apply
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 24 2005, 09:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 24 2005, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <span style='color:red'>EDIT, WTH Steel?? Were you standing on top of a stupid tree, slipped and fell hitting yourself on every stupid branch on the way down??Only to be run over by the retard ambulance? GG n00b ;P The previous sentence was just flipping st00pid </span> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, I like this Steel Troll guy. He should post here more often. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not, so I'll just say I'd rather discuss something with someone willing to rethink his statements and/or admit where he was wrong, than someone who believes his position to be unassailable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not, so I'll just say I'd rather discuss something with someone willing to rethink his statements and/or admit where he was wrong, than someone who believes his position to be unassailable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My apology and self criticism was not sarcastic at all.(or were you talkin about Cyndane's comment??) We are all human and we all make mistakes, just thank god im not one of them "im right, i never make mistakes so stufu" types. The whole point of a discussion is to get your views across, rethinking your argument and admiting when you are wrong, but standing up for for your views when you think they are right, you cant be just a washover, or you would just be boring. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But my beleif stands, "the Zygote is a full creature, it is rapidly growing and most importantly its own full set of Genetic information, DNA. This DNA is different from its mothers DNA or its fathers DNA. It has a full diploid number, this enables it to build all organs, cells and structures in the body. It is, therefore, an independent life, its nature is human as that nature is inscribed in the genes, and its life is separate from the mother." (me, earlier on)
Can you even immagine collectiong all sperm and eggs from humans and storing them? How impracticle would that be? (and gross at that)
EDIT: oh, sky... could these people be said to beleive their positions as unasailable? <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->nomatter what i will always believe that women should have the right to abort whenever they want<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
There aren't sufficient restrictions on human reproduction as it is. Anything that increases the birth rate is a bad idea, frankly.
As for the "foster care or adoption" argument, not only does the system tend to frequently produce mentally and socially damaged individuals, but it also costs a great deal of money, which would be better utilised on the education of children that have already been born.
That way I'd see my taxes going to teach British children how to use a spell-checker (clearly teaching them to spell is vastly too ambitious).
lol, I could poke about more but I think you did an admirable job of defending your viewpoint on zygote/gametes so I'll leave that side out of it ^~
My personal take on this stuff really is sorta mixed. Until it can survive on it's own I consider it abortable material; moreso really if it hasn't developed the human form enough. It's not really based in logic or whatever, it's just my personal stance on it based off how I feel about the whole thing.
This thread has kinda made me think about how we interfere with nature by allowing people who would never have lived to actually be born... might have to go make another thread discussing that :o
Gem, phew...i was bracing myself for more <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> , im glad you see my standpoint.
Grendel... <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel the Gray <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel the Gray <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There aren't sufficient restrictions on human reproduction as it is. Anything that increases the birth rate is a bad idea, frankly.
As for the "foster care or adoption" argument, not only does the system tend to frequently produce mentally and socially damaged individuals, but it also costs a great deal of money, which would be better utilised on the education of children that have already been born.
That way I'd see my taxes going to teach British children how to use a spell-checker (clearly teaching them to spell is vastly too ambitious). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well firstly the avge children is 2.5 children in a family nowerdays. Restriction is not important and not necessary. We dont live in the ages of a family with 14 kids anymore So the increase in birth rate would not be disasterous.
Secondly
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats what the pro-life people want right? more babies?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SteelTroll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No we want the stopping of killing of innocent babies, not more babies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SteelTroll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of the NHS spending money on free abortons, they should spend it on educating the youth so as to minmise the risk of unwanted conception. Tbh pill + uterine cap + condom = almost 99.9% coverage against "mistakes"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.thefostering.net/' target='_blank'>http://www.thefostering.net/</a> foster care is not as innefective as it was a few years ago (10 or 20 years back) Psychologist work in Developmental Psychology has helped so much in aiding foster carers in looking after the children with minimal ill effects. All a child really needs to be is loved. Sure it might (in later life ) have issues about why they were adopted or fostered, but the work of so many dedicated individuals out there has helped to make the foster care system a better, more cohesive and child-centered tool.
In addition to this, more money could be syphoned to work by child psychologists and foster care working to make great scheams even better.
Was the Spelling comment a jab at me?Sure i may not use spellcheck, and i may not be pr0 at spelling, (or cant be bothered to use a spellcheck), but as long as my points have a certain degree of clarity and have an element of thought in them, then i see no need for any uproar. They are not illegible.
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 25 2005, 11:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 25 2005, 11:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Was the Spelling comment a jab at me?Sure i may not use spellcheck, and i may not be pr0 at spelling, (or cant be bothered to use a spellcheck), but as long as my points have a certain degree of clarity and have an element of thought in them, then i see no need for any uproar. They are not illegible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would have thought it was more to do with the fact that so many kids in the UK leave school illiterate.
<!--QuoteBegin-SteelTroll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Instead of the NHS spending money on free abortons, they should spend it on educating the youth so as to minmise the risk of unwanted conception. Tbh pill + uterine cap + condom = almost 99.9% coverage against "mistakes"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, what about sex education? Aren't kids nowadays taught about all the different contraceptives? I was...when did that stop?
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Apr 25 2005, 12:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Apr 25 2005, 12:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That way I'd see my taxes going to teach British children how to use a spell-checker (clearly teaching them to spell is vastly too ambitious). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I feel bad about my nation's apparent inability to spell and the overbearing lack of coherence from a large number of them <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SteelTroll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Instead of the NHS spending money on free abortons, they should spend it on educating the youth so as to minmise the risk of unwanted conception. Tbh pill + uterine cap + condom = almost 99.9% coverage against "mistakes"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, what about sex education? Aren't kids nowadays taught about all the different contraceptives? I was...when did that stop? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I always thought that they still do teach those things in Europe. In the US, we're starting to stop, because the Republicans are in power.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 11:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 11:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Apr 25 2005, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SteelTroll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Instead of the NHS spending money on free abortons, they should spend it on educating the youth so as to minmise the risk of unwanted conception. Tbh pill + uterine cap + condom = almost 99.9% coverage against "mistakes"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, what about sex education? Aren't kids nowadays taught about all the different contraceptives? I was...when did that stop? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I always thought that they still do teach those things in Europe. In the US, we're starting to stop, because the Republicans are in power. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> idk, I just finished a high school health class (half a semester). It really didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, except I now know how women's contraceptives work....and I fear. I actually find it incredibly funny that there are like 20 different contraceptives for women, but the male condom is the only protection that can prevent both pregnancies and STDs.
I remember seeing it was in testing recently, sooo... probably still testing. The test was supposed to take quite some time to make sure there's no long term side-effects like making guy's willies drop off or something :3
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Apr 25 2005, 01:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Apr 25 2005, 01:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I remember seeing it was in testing recently, sooo... probably still testing. The test was supposed to take quite some time to make sure there's no long term side-effects like making guy's willies drop off or something :3 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That probably won't be a <i>side</i> effect....
I'm not sure if I was a female that I'd trust any guy who said he'd taken it. "Are you sure you don't just want to get laid?" "Yeah honestly, I took it this morning!".
Besides which, most guys are far scattier and less able to keep to routines than women and they screw it up all the time.
Anyway, so are we all agreed that sperm etc isn't a human, that at some point ranging between conception and birth a foetus counts as human and that we can still kill them?
Good <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
Such an old, twisted, not updated view on the world.
<_< >_> It is a human being. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Aww plz dont go back to the rape thingy, we already explained that, dont keep on making me refer back. I explained 3 times why. Its wrong, it has been forced on the woman. It will already leave here with deep emotonal scarrs...
You pro-choice are so quick to shy away from any lable that links us undeniably to the foetus, because it is human.
CMEast, you say the mother has ultimate choice, but what right has she to terminate?If you say the baby is in her and therefore part of her and therefore she can abort at any time you are mistaken. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry I keep 'bringing you back to it' but your position on it doesn't make sense and you have yet to actually answer my question.
You keep stressing that it is a human life and that we have no 'right' to end it but then you say she can kill her baby because she has 'emotional scars'. Well in the end so what? She will have them whether she terminates the pregnancy or not so how does killing the baby help? Surely she could just have it removed when it can survive without her (and when it does no lasting damage to her).
You keep saying that 'we pro-choice' are avoiding calling it human but I keep telling you I don't care. Want me to change my wording to "Otherwise the baby gets nuked"? It still doesn't change my opinion that the mother comes first. Plus I have said I don't believe it right at 'any time' during the pregnancy, just for a large proportion of it. Unless you mean any time as in any circumstance in which case yes, they can. I personally haven't tried once to discuss whether it is human or not, I am dubious about it but as the question is mostly meaningless I am quite happy to agree for the moment that it is human, that it is a seperate individual from the very moment of conception. You can give it a soul and everything if you want as well, it doesn't affect my point. The mother comes first.
Filthy Larry, in my opinion the father can't decide to abort his legal responsibilities until he can carry the child to term himself. Why? Simple, because in making a child it is the mothers side of it to conceive the child and then carry it as it develops until she gives birth. While she hasn't completed her part in it she can still say no.
It is the fathers job to be there at conception, he has done his job and it can't be undone. Otherwise there would be guys impregnating women everywhere and then running off.
It is the fathers job to be there at conception, he has done his job and it can't be undone. Otherwise there would be guys impregnating women everywhere and then running off. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting point of view.
What would you make of the following scenario though?:
The woman decides to lie about taking "the pill" in order to get pregnant and trap a man into marriage.
IMO this an abstract form of rape don't you think? The father has not given consent for his semen to be used for reproduction.
The idea is not that the man has to give approval for the woman to have an abortion but that he can decide to absolve himself of legal (i.e. financial) obligations to the child if he decides that he is "not ready" to be a father. In other words it is the male equivalent of having an abortion ( a pseudo-abortion if you will).
I was curious to see the ladies response here because they all seem to be pro-choice. It seems a double-standard to then not allow a similar option for the father of the child does it not? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I feel that the woman has the right to an abortion because she's the one who carries the burden. She's the one who has to go through birth or the abortion. All the man has to do is helping the woman when she needs it (which he should be doing before, as well, really), and have sex. If he wants a baby or not, then he should probably make sure the woman agrees with him beforehand...
I hate the term "pro-choice". I'm "pro-abortion". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above: What if the woman lies about taking birth-control to have a baby against the man's wishes?
It is the fathers job to be there at conception, he has done his job and it can't be undone. Otherwise there would be guys impregnating women everywhere and then running off. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting point of view.
What would you make of the following scenario though?:
The woman decides to lie about taking "the pill" in order to get pregnant and trap a man into marriage.
IMO this an abstract form of rape don't you think? The father has not given consent for his semen to be used for reproduction. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, if I were a man in that situation, I would get out of that relationship fast. Nothing good would come from a marriage brought on by force by a child if one partner deceived the other. That's like a man putting holes in his condoms. Actually, isn't that illegal?
Hard and fast rules are so hard to come by in cases like these.
Interesting point of view.
What would you make of the following scenario though?:
The woman decides to lie about taking "the pill" in order to get pregnant and trap a man into marriage.
IMO this an abstract form of rape don't you think? The father has not given consent for his semen to be used for reproduction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, if I were a man in that situation, I would get out of that relationship fast. Nothing good would come from a marriage brought on by force by a child if one partner deceived the other. That's like a man putting holes in his condoms. Actually, isn't that illegal?
Hard and fast rules are so hard to come by in cases like these. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with Sky. The guy can leave (and probably should).
If the man does have a say, then we would get situations where the man would veto a woman having an abortion if the contraceptives fail. That seems to me to be a lot worse, since the man doesn't carry the burden. In the other scenario, where the man doesn't want the baby but the woman does, the man may get a lenient sentence if he takes matters into his own hands. I wouldn't want that.
It is the fathers job to be there at conception, he has done his job and it can't be undone. Otherwise there would be guys impregnating women everywhere and then running off. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting point of view.
What would you make of the following scenario though?:
The woman decides to lie about taking "the pill" in order to get pregnant and trap a man into marriage.
IMO this an abstract form of rape don't you think? The father has not given consent for his semen to be used for reproduction. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple, if he can prove 100% that it is true then yes, he should be let off. Maybe if he wears a condom too :/ I have no idea how he would prove it but there are too many males who would use it as an excuse to escape so there would have to be very tight rules.
If a guy takes every precaution possible not to have a child and honestly believes the woman is too but she still gets pregnant and keeps it, I don't think he should have to have the responsibility. He did everything he could do not to have one then no, he shouldn't. Lives shouldn't be damaged just because someone decides to deceive you.
People should be able to have sex without the worry of kids, eventually contraceptives will be good enough but until then these kinds of measures should be around just in case.
Sorry
Forum debates are so much harder, in real life you could have told by the intonation of my voice that it was in jest, i was not trying to make you sound uneducated or anything. Hence the big smiley at the end of the sentence. Again, sorry Gem.
Hmm, reading back at my statements, i may have been rather brash, i must stop posting late at night...Let me start by refering back to your first question...
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->not to muddy the arguement further but considering we don't seem to have any concrete line for 'life' I wonder how much of it is also about 'potential life'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You might not have intended to muddy it but you sure have <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For example steel states that 24 weeks they can survive so what about before that? Are they just potential life?
Yes, the gametes are just potential life.
If that's the case how far do we take the protection of 'potential life'? Do we remove the eggs/sperm from people and store them safely so none can be lost to menstration/masturbation? After all every sperm and egg is half of a potential life... do we only go so far as to count the ones that combine even though each one has a chance to combine to be a fully-grown human?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes we do only count the ones that combine.In my views two gametes are not a human being. Sure they have the potential to become a human being, but they are not one yet.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you insist on fusion being the defining point of a baby based off the arguement that the two gametes that make it a whole aren't a fully formed thing in themselves then doesn't it logically follow that the zygote isn't a baby as it also isn't a full creature with organs, blood and form. It has to first split and duplicate several million times to become the building blocks of the foetus... even then when do we draw the line?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Zygote is a full creature, it is rapidly growing and most importantly its own full set of Genetic information, DNA. This DNA is different from its mothers DNA or its fathers DNA. It has a full diploid number, this enables it to build all organs, cells and structures in the body. It is, therefore, an independent life, its nature is human as that nature is inscribed in the genes, and its life is separate from the mother.
<!--QuoteBegin-WIKIPEDIA+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WIKIPEDIA)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Animals: The embryo of vertebrates is defined as the stages between the first division of the zygote (a fertilized ovum) until it becomes a foetus. An embryo is called a foetus at a more advanced stage of development and up until birth or hatching. In humans, this is from the eighth week of gestation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*conception, start of life** =>Zygote => Embryo=>Foetus=>Baby=>child=>Teenager=>Adult
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm only trying to work out what your stance really is as I'm really not seeing the dividing line here......
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not defending all the haploid cells, which would be impractical and not rational in the fact that they are not alive. To be alive
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In biology, an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence:
1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A sperm cell and an egg cell can not reproduce individualy, and therefore they are not alive.
<span style='color:red'>EDIT, WTH Steel?? Were you standing on top of a stupid tree, slipped and fell hitting yourself on every stupid branch on the way down??Only to be run over by the retard ambulance? GG n00b ;P The previous sentence was just flipping st00pid </span>
So storing them just because they have a chance of becoming alive only if they come into contact with each other is not practical. There are millions of half cells, they are not human. They are not an animal. They are just vessels carrying half of one of your DNA strands. They are expendable biological-molecule carrying cells.Not human.
I am defending a living homo sapiens in an earlier stage of life. A foetus will probably feel pain when the abortion is carried out. A sperm cell or egg wont feel pain, as it is not alive.
Is my stance now clear?
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have no intentions of watching the clip... why? Because I've probably already seen it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why dont you click on the link and then see if you have seen it,the link takes you to the website not the actual video.. If you have seen it, tell me what you thought of it,if you havnt, then watch it. <a href='http://www.silentscream.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.silentscream.org/</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Gem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After a certain stage of development I might be inclined to agree with you but to outright illegalise abortion at any stage of pregnancy seems flawed<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not advocating outright illigelisation of abortion. There are exceptions. They were stated in my very first post. Why does a stage make it any less human? Most of you dissagree with lables, is isnt a stage name just a lable? Is it not a homo sapiens from the moment of conception?
1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A sperm cell and an egg cell can not reproduce individualy, and therefore they are not alive. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/male_reproductive.html' target='_blank'>Male reproductive system</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Once a male has reached puberty, he will produce millions of sperm cells every day. Each sperm is extremely small: only 1/600 of an inch (0.05 millimeters long). Sperm develop in the testicles within a system of tiny tubes called the seminiferous tubules. At birth, these tubules contain simple round cells, but during puberty, testosterone and other hormones cause these cells to transform into sperm cells. The cells divide and change until they have a head and short tail, like tadpoles. The head contains genetic material (genes). The sperm use their tails to push themselves into the epididymis, where they complete their development. It takes sperm about 4 to 6 weeks to travel through the epididymis.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, they do split individually, well at least the sperm do. Therefore, they fit your biological definition of alive. You kill a sperm cell you are killing a (potential) human.
Wrong, they do split individually, well at least the sperm do. Therefore, they fit your biological definition of alive. You kill a sperm cell you are killing a (potential) human. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is A-sexual reproduction, bacteria and plants do this, and so do sperm. I meant sexually reproduce. They cannot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahh so by your definition, bacteria are not alive.
Bacteria are by definition, single celled organisms. Aka, they are ALIVE.
Yup, that definately marks one of the most silly statements I have ever heard on these forums.
*edit* Please.. someone else tell me I am not the only one laughing very hard.
God that was stupid.I'm doing biology at A-Level so i should have thought about that more. I have added a marker in my previous thread to point at my stupidity. Bacteria are alive , and so is sperm is alive. GG Steel <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ok, so after hitting myself on the "omg, n00b that was st00pid "stick i have read up on it
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sperm is produced by spermatogenesis. A precursor cell with a full diploid number splits into 2 haploid number cells by meiosis, these two cells are 2 sperm cells.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sperm are alive, but they devide by meiosis, they cant devide by mitosis individually to grow by themselves, they have no function in but to carry half a strand of DNA. They is not sexual reproduction. Bacteria reproduce asexualy, and humans reproduce sexualy.
Why are we arguing about this anyway? I am digging myself in a ditch, ( a skillfully placed ditch by Gem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) You guys are trying to trip me up by saying "protect teh sperm, they could be human" but they arent. So i wont.
I have already tried to explain better why i think the sperm and the egg need not apply, as "the Zygote is a full creature, it is rapidly growing and most importantly its own full set of Genetic information, DNA. This DNA is different from its mothers DNA or its fathers DNA. It has a full diploid number, this enables it to build all organs, cells and structures in the body. It is, therefore, an independent life, its nature is human as that nature is inscribed in the genes, and its life is separate from the mother." (me, earlier on)
Anything BZ (before Zygote) in my mind need not apply
*edit* wrong use of the word... its a noun not an adjective. lol
Oh, I like this Steel Troll guy. He should post here more often. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
My apology and self criticism was not sarcastic at all.(or were you talkin about Cyndane's comment??) We are all human and we all make mistakes, just thank god im not one of them "im right, i never make mistakes so stufu" types.
The whole point of a discussion is to get your views across, rethinking your argument and admiting when you are wrong, but standing up for for your views when you think they are right, you cant be just a washover, or you would just be boring. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But my beleif stands, "the Zygote is a full creature, it is rapidly growing and most importantly its own full set of Genetic information, DNA. This DNA is different from its mothers DNA or its fathers DNA. It has a full diploid number, this enables it to build all organs, cells and structures in the body. It is, therefore, an independent life, its nature is human as that nature is inscribed in the genes, and its life is separate from the mother." (me, earlier on)
Can you even immagine collectiong all sperm and eggs from humans and storing them? How impracticle would that be? (and gross at that)
EDIT: oh, sky... could these people be said to beleive their positions as unasailable?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->nomatter what i will always believe that women should have the right to abort whenever they want<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As for the "foster care or adoption" argument, not only does the system tend to frequently produce mentally and socially damaged individuals, but it also costs a great deal of money, which would be better utilised on the education of children that have already been born.
That way I'd see my taxes going to teach British children how to use a spell-checker (clearly teaching them to spell is vastly too ambitious).
My personal take on this stuff really is sorta mixed. Until it can survive on it's own I consider it abortable material; moreso really if it hasn't developed the human form enough.
It's not really based in logic or whatever, it's just my personal stance on it based off how I feel about the whole thing.
This thread has kinda made me think about how we interfere with nature by allowing people who would never have lived to actually be born... might have to go make another thread discussing that :o
Grendel...
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel the Gray <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel the Gray <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There aren't sufficient restrictions on human reproduction as it is. Anything that increases the birth rate is a bad idea, frankly.
As for the "foster care or adoption" argument, not only does the system tend to frequently produce mentally and socially damaged individuals, but it also costs a great deal of money, which would be better utilised on the education of children that have already been born.
That way I'd see my taxes going to teach British children how to use a spell-checker (clearly teaching them to spell is vastly too ambitious).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well firstly the avge children is 2.5 children in a family nowerdays. Restriction is not important and not necessary. We dont live in the ages of a family with 14 kids anymore So the increase in birth rate would not be disasterous.
Secondly
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Thats what the pro-life people want right? more babies?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SteelTroll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No we want the stopping of killing of innocent babies, not more babies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SteelTroll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of the NHS spending money on free abortons, they should spend it on educating the youth so as to minmise the risk of unwanted conception. Tbh pill + uterine cap + condom = almost 99.9% coverage against "mistakes"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.thefostering.net/' target='_blank'>http://www.thefostering.net/</a> foster care is not as innefective as it was a few years ago (10 or 20 years back) Psychologist work in Developmental Psychology has helped so much in aiding foster carers in looking after the children with minimal ill effects. All a child really needs to be is loved. Sure it might (in later life ) have issues about why they were adopted or fostered, but the work of so many dedicated individuals out there has helped to make the foster care system a better, more cohesive and child-centered tool.
In addition to this, more money could be syphoned to work by child psychologists and foster care working to make great scheams even better.
Was the Spelling comment a jab at me?Sure i may not use spellcheck, and i may not be pr0 at spelling, (or cant be bothered to use a spellcheck), but as long as my points have a certain degree of clarity and have an element of thought in them, then i see no need for any uproar. They are not illegible.
I would have thought it was more to do with the fact that so many kids in the UK leave school illiterate.
<!--QuoteBegin-SteelTroll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Instead of the NHS spending money on free abortons, they should spend it on educating the youth so as to minmise the risk of unwanted conception. Tbh pill + uterine cap + condom = almost 99.9% coverage against "mistakes"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, what about sex education? Aren't kids nowadays taught about all the different contraceptives? I was...when did that stop?
I feel bad about my nation's apparent inability to spell and the overbearing lack of coherence from a large number of them <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Instead of the NHS spending money on free abortons, they should spend it on educating the youth so as to minmise the risk of unwanted conception. Tbh pill + uterine cap + condom = almost 99.9% coverage against "mistakes"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, what about sex education? Aren't kids nowadays taught about all the different contraceptives? I was...when did that stop? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I always thought that they still do teach those things in Europe. In the US, we're starting to stop, because the Republicans are in power.
Instead of the NHS spending money on free abortons, they should spend it on educating the youth so as to minmise the risk of unwanted conception. Tbh pill + uterine cap + condom = almost 99.9% coverage against "mistakes"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, what about sex education? Aren't kids nowadays taught about all the different contraceptives? I was...when did that stop? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I always thought that they still do teach those things in Europe. In the US, we're starting to stop, because the Republicans are in power. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
idk, I just finished a high school health class (half a semester). It really didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, except I now know how women's contraceptives work....and I fear. I actually find it incredibly funny that there are like 20 different contraceptives for women, but the male condom is the only protection that can prevent both pregnancies and STDs.
That probably won't be a <i>side</i> effect....
Besides which, most guys are far scattier and less able to keep to routines than women and they screw it up all the time.
Anyway, so are we all agreed that sperm etc isn't a human, that at some point ranging between conception and birth a foetus counts as human and that we can still kill them?
Good <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->