A slightly different abortion thread.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

So know we can sell tomato seeds without allowing them to develop into a plant as actual tomatoes?

A little bit of reading comprehension is good to have. If you noticed the sentence it was in, you'd see I was using your statement of a fetus isn't a human to show how ridiculous that is. Apologies for it not being clear, I thought it was pretty clear.

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

Moreover, using the logic you stated above, we shouldn't cut off and dispose of gangerous limbs because they're of humans. Or self-harmers should be arrested because they're destroying human skin, something that contains a cellular pattern of ours. And just like those things I stated, fetuses are, by all means and purposes, not alive as an individual. This is purely scientific, by the way.

Science doesn't decide what is and what is not alive as an individual, hence it's not scientific. If it is, I'd like to see a scientific study where they determine that. You have the burden of proof to provide the scientific evidence you claim exists and I may change my mind.

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

and do not like being deemed "moronic" either.

I never said you were moronic. I said that what you proposed was moronic, that is different from me saying "you're a moronic individual". Perhaps you perceived it as though I was saying you were a moron, that may be the case however it is not what I said nor what I intended for you to perceive.

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

Sperm about as advanced, if not more advanced, than a fetus.

It's advancement and complexity don't matter because being advanced doesn't mean being alive, just like being simple doesn't mean being abiotic. The making of a computer is advanced, doesn't mean it's alive at least I'm not aware my computer is. The sheet of papers next to me aren't non-living because they're simple, they're non-living because they're simpler.

Originally Posted by TranquilChaos

But sperm has the potential for life, even if it needs an egg. It has the potential to be a life if it joins with an egg.

"Potential for life" isn't the same as saying it is alive. I have the potential to spread life however I choose not to when masturbating. I have the potential to end life when driving a car, however I choose and hope not to. Potential means it's not there but if circumstances are in its favour. However, there's also the potential that when it does join up with the egg, something negative happens impinging its possible future life. There's the potential though the egg could be damaged, the potential the pregnancy may become an ectopic pregnancy, potential the sperm is damaged, potential a genetic defect occurs/doesn't occur and on and on. At the end of the day, we can go on about the potential for each component being/not being there, being functional/dysfunctional but it doesn't matter because the fetus simply isn't there. It's an argument that is future-based and pointing to anything saying its presence or absence due to a plethora of things. It's such a weak argument it's straining me to even call it an argument.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Neither sperm not egg cells are viable on their own - they possess only 23 chromosomes which therefore makes them incapable of growth and/or cell replication, or any metabolic process for that matter. They simply carry genetic material and act as fuel for fertilisation. Remove a sperm or egg cell from the confines of your body and it will do nothing whatsoever. The same can't really be said of a foetus - it will certainly do something for however long it survives outside the uterus.

On the "potential life" point, reductio ad absurdum only works if it follows the logical implications of an argument, and I would not say any of the implications advanced are particularly logical. Citing absurd consequences is all well and good, but you need the logical pathway in the first place.

I am aware of the haploid and diploid differences here. I was citing those examples for the purposes of proving why we "waste" life daily in socially-acceptable conventions/incidents. Why should abortion be considered any different?
And the sperm point is relevant to the "potential" life point, because it could be harvested and dontated theoretically, but I or any other sane person would not condone doing so. And who are you to point the finger at reductio ad absurdum? The point here are perfectly legitimate. And how are your insights particularly logical whatsoever?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TranquilChaos

I'm still curious as to why you spell it foetus.

I'm British - we're strange like that. If you want the more technical explanation this explains it pretty well.

Originally Posted by TranquilChaos

But sperm has the potential for life, even if it needs an egg. It has the potential to be a life if it joins with an egg.

That is true, but on its own sperm does not and that is the key difference. It will, unless there is further intervention, remain a sperm cell until the day it dies and will not undertake any of the biological purposes required for something to be deemed "alive". A foetus in contrast will, unless there is further intervention, develop into a fully fledged unborn baby with the capacity to become an indepedent being and carry out such biological processes. One needs further intervention to gain potential life; the other is potential life unless there is further intervention. It's a slight but important distinction.

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

I am aware of the haploid and diploid differences here. I was citing those examples for the purposes of proving why we "waste" life daily in socially-acceptable conventions/incidents. Why should abortion be considered any different?

It's a question of viability. A gangrenous limb or skin cell will not, unless attached to a living human body, be a viable form of life and will die outside of such connection. Indeed, neither possess any of the required systems to support themselves independently and in normal functioning form part of a cohesive whole. It makes no more sense to claim they are "potential life" or "life" than it does to claim an engine in a crate is a potential car.

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

And the sperm point is relevant to the "potential" life point, because it could be harvested and dontated theoretically, but I or any other sane person would not condone doing so. And who are you to point the finger at reductio ad absurdum? The point here are perfectly legitimate. And how are your insights particularly logical whatsoever?

The reductio ad absurdum point was aimed more at Matthew's list, about which I should have been more specific and apologise for any offence caused. However, I would point out that making attacks in response to such statements does not provide the still-absent logical pathway I was referring to. In order for reductio ad absurdum to work, the absurd consequences alluded to must follow the same logic as the originating statement, and in this instance the logic is not followed. Aborting a foetus removes a complete set of genetic material and a developing human from the picture; removing gangrenous limbs or damaging skin does not. Likewise, Matthew's examples do not follow that logical pathway aside from the man-being-hit-by-a-car example, but even that is removing actual life and not potential. I make no claims at being an authority on matters of philosophy, but this is a public debate and I have the right to comment on technical matters of logic where I have the knowledge to do so.

[Cosmo]

By consciously choosing to not have sex, I am removing the potential for life of my sperm.

By having an abortion, you are consciously deciding to remove the potential for life of the egg.

I don't see any problem with that.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

By consciously choosing to not have sex, I am removing the potential for life of my sperm.

By having an abortion, you are consciously deciding to remove the potential for life of the egg.

I don't see any problem with that.

I can see one big problem - the subject matter of abortion stopped being an egg quite some time ago. As soon as conception occurs, it stops being an egg cell and instead becomes...I'm sure you know the score so I won't insult your intelligence by reciting it. In any event, abortion doesn't concern eggs. Contraception on the other hand does, as does tubal ligation.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

When will people realize that strong opinions in this area will prevail and cause indiffusible tension?
I vouch for making the services available for those that wish to utilize them and not promoting it as a first preference at any time (which no one does nor should do under any circustances), allowing women to possess the right to ensure their pregnancy goes as they wish to some extent. Those whom do not want these services do not have to use them.
Let's remember that this is a clinical, humane option. The alternatives that people may take on themselves are far worse.