Abortion S.L.E.D.

Abortion S.L.E.D.

by Questioner | Published on February 6th, 2008, 9:20 pm | Religion

as far as the human tissue issue (sorry about the rhyme), an embryo is not the same as tumor tissue. tumor tissue or any other body part removed does not have the same potential that an embryo does. tissue removed from the human body has no potential to develop on its own at any time, it will die unless rigorous and sometimes in spite of rigorous laboratory conditions. On the other hand, an embryo has the potential to grow and become an independent organism, it has the potential to live on its own outside of the body. IMHO, tissue is not that same as viable organism, even if a viable organism is made up of tissue.

Sorry friend, but an embryo removed from the body has no potential to develop on its own either. With careful handling in "rigorous laboratory conditions" it might survive and if reimplanted into a woman, it has potential to develop into a person. That is an awful lot of "ifs". Whether you know it or not, a majority of in-vitro efforts fail.

The fact is, lots of embryos treated with those laboratory conditions die anyway. Embryos are inherently fragile and difficult to keep alive--either inside a woman's body or in a laboratory.

You are correct that there is a difference between the 2 types of tissue. Most tumor tissue is made up of defective cells that have lost their cellular instructions about when to stop growing and how to properly differentiate to be healthy and useful cells. However, neither tumor or embryo tissues have the ability to survive on their own once removed from the human body. Let's use skin cells instead of tumor cells. With proper laboratory manipulation, skin cells have just about the same potential to develop into a new being as does an embryo. The majority of both will die anyway, and a few will survive and grow into a new person or animal--depending on the type of creature from which the skin cell is taken.

With cloning techniques, not only skin cells, but potentially muscle cells, or any other living cells in the body that have a viable nucleus and a full complement of DNA have the potential to become a new human being. A twin of the cell donor in fact....assuming that rigorous laboratory conditions are met and the researcher is extremely lucky too. They have cloned cats and dogs and horses from skin cells. So, if I cut off of piece of my skin, am I performing an abortion in your mind????

Your reasoning is flawed. Like my healthy, living skin cells, the fertilized egg, blastocyst and embryo all have the potential to someday develop into a new person. But potential is a very long way indeed from actuality. That is evidenced by the fact that even under the best of conditions, a majority of fertilized eggs die and therefore fail to develop into babies. Not to mention a significant number of pregnancies end up in miscarriages along the way to birth.

[Questioner]

According to you its not a decision between you and your wife. You stated it's the woman's decision. Apparently its none of your business what she decides.

That is a false extension. Let's say I was offered a plum job somewhere in Europe. I would guess you would admit that taking or declining the position is my decision. However, just because taking or declining a new job in Europe would be my decision, I would never say that decision is none of my husband's business. I have a legal right to take that position, but have too much love and respect for my husband to ever make a decision that will affect him without discussing it and giving great weight to his wishes, desires, and opinions.

[Questioner]

Star Wars-inspired tattoos and all

And piercings! Don't forget the piercings!

My favorite ER joke: "You must be a doctor if you have ever had a patient with 4 nose rings, a penis ring, a naval piercing and 12 ear piercings tell you he was scared of shots."

[A Person]

the fertilized egg, blastocyst and embryo all have the potential to someday develop into a new person.

It's worth remembering that we are all potential corpses. What something might become is not what it is.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

the fertilized egg, blastocyst and embryo all have the potential to someday develop into a new person.

It's worth remembering that we are all potential corpses. What something might become is not what it is.

Um... I think that the word you really need in this regard is "eventual" The potential that we will become corpses is 100%. Unless there's been a medical breakthrough I haven't heard about?

On the other hand, one might reasonably state that we are all "potential retirees..."

[BecauseHeLives]

the fertilized egg, blastocyst and embryo all have the potential to someday develop into a new person.

It's worth remembering that we are all potential corpses. What something might become is not what it is.

Um... I think that the word you really need in this regard is "eventual" The potential that we will become corpses is 100%. Unless there's been a medical breakthrough I haven't heard about?

On the other hand, one might reasonably state that we are all "potential retirees..."

No. there is no certainty that we will become corpses. AP was right.

[A Person]

The potential to be something however does not confer the rights & privileges of that something, before the potential is realised. We have the potential to become elected politicians and have the right to sit in Congress and determine public policy. Until we realize that potential we do not have the right. We do not lose our rights as living people even though we will (with certainty) become corpses without those rights.

Potential is not actuality.

[Questioner]

Um... I think that the word you really need in this regard is "eventual" The potential that we will become corpses is 100%. Unless there's been a medical breakthrough I haven't heard about?

Actually, there has been a medical breakthrough and immortality has been achieved. However, we doctors are keeping it all for ourselves. heh, heh, heh....

[Derbunk]

So you're driving down the road. From behind a parked van someone steps out directly in front of you. You run over them causing severe trauma to the body and caused them to go into a coma but they will not die. For the rest of their life they will be blind, a paraplegic, and after coming out of the coma partially brain dead. They no longer will "serve a function" in society and will only be a burden to resources and tax monies. No one has seen you and there will be no evidence of your presence at the scene of the accident. Do you allow them to "live" out the rest of their life or simply sever the spinal cord the rest of the way and "put them out of their misery " then and there?

[Questioner]

So you're driving down the road. From behind a parked van someone steps out directly in front of you. You run over them causing severe trauma to the body and caused them to go into a coma but they will not die. For the rest of their life they will be blind, a paraplegic, and after coming out of the coma partially brain dead. They no longer will "serve a function" in society and will only be a burden to resources and tax monies. No one has seen you and there will be no evidence of your presence at the scene of the accident. Do you allow them to "live" out the rest of their life or simply sever the spinal cord the rest of the way and "put them out of their misery " then and there?

Your example is in error. First and foremost, a diagnosis of brain death takes quite a bit more than looking at the person. It takes encephalograms, several days, and more than one doctor's opinion. In any case, one cannot be partially brain dead any more than one can be "a little bit pregnant". Brain dead is an absolute. Now if you are talking about a persistent vegetative state, that would be an OK example. That takes months to determine. Those people are not brain dead, but they are the next thing to it. They have such extensive brain damage that they are unable to take in nourishment, move, communicate, or sustain their own bodily functions, and show no evidence of having any potential for recovery. In Texas under George Bush, a law was passed so that either brain dead people or those in a persistent vegetative state could be removed from life support (including artificial feeding, provision of oxygen, etc.) by the hospital, even over the family's opposition. For the very reason you state. The argument was that society cannot invest unlimited resources trying to keep alive a person who would die on his/her own, and who could never again participate in any life activities. And this was supported and signed into law by George W. Bush.

There is, of course, disagreement about whether those people should be removed from life support. That is what the whole brouhaha in Florida over Terri Schiavo was about. I believe those people should be removed from life support and allowed to die naturally. I do not agree with euthanasia however, and would never participate in such an activity. (Which would never be performed by severing anyone's spinal cord. What a horrible idea!) However, I would agree to remove a ventilator, a feeding tube, or whatever other life support technology was being used once a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was made.

[A Person]

No one has seen you and there will be no evidence of your presence at the scene of the accident. Do you allow them to "live" out the rest of their life or simply sever the spinal cord the rest of the way and "put them out of their misery " then and there?

No. What would you do?

[matthewgoodnight]

The problem with your argument is that you seem unable to understand that other people do not agree that a single celled organism is a full, human person.

These "Other people".... are they ALL in agreement? I'd be surprised to hear that the medical community could come close to a "majority" opinion on this much less a unanimous one. Besides, does it have to be a FULL person to be human? Look back and read the Level of Development section again.

No doubt it is human tissue, with the potential to implant in a uterus and from there to develop into a human baby. But to call a fertilized egg a "person" or a "baby" makes no more sense to me than to call a fertilized chicken egg a "rooster" or a "hen".

Well we KNOW that the fertized egg HAS to be human. No doubt it is living (even science can not deny that) and it most certainly has to be human as there have been no accounts of a women giving birth to any other creature other than humans. You simply call it an "egg" because you can distance yourself from it easier that way. Its still human no matter what you call it.

The Law of Biogenesis states that when any two creatures of the same species reproduce, they reproduce after their own kind. Two dogs mate: they create nothing but a Dog. Two humans mate: they create nothing other than a human

[A Person]

That isn't what the Law of Biogenesis says. The law of Biogenesis states that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

However parents do give birth to offspring of their own species. So what?

Human sperm is human sperm, a human egg is a human egg, a human cadaver is a human cadaver, they are not humans, or your underpants would be able to vote.

[jennifer]

Well we KNOW that the fertized egg HAS to be human. No doubt it is living (even science can not deny that) and it most certainly has to be human as there have been no accounts of a women giving birth to any other creature other than humans. You simply call it an "egg" because you can distance yourself from it easier that way. Its still human no matter what you call it.

I never said it wasn't human, but it is human tissue. Not a person. Not a living, breathing, individual person. At that level (pre-implantation), it is merely a fertilized egg or clump of cells (blastocyst). It has no ability to live independently. It isn't even a parasite yet because pre-implantation, it is just one more fertilized egg or cell clump that might or might not implant in a uterus, might or might not form a viable placenta and umbilicus, might or might not develop sufficiently to grow into a full term baby.

What you seem incapable of comprehending is that just because something is human tissue does not mean it is a person. If I cut a tumor off, what is cut off is human. Did it stop being human just because it is no longer attached to the person? Of course not. But it sure isn't a person. It is just human tissue. You choose to believe that a fertilized egg is a whole, separate, living, viable person. I view it as just some human tissue. Sure, it has potential to someday become a person. But at that point, there is nothing about it that I would agree is a separate person worthy of full rights of citizenship.

And of course, in all this you totally ignore the rights of the woman. Up until about 24 weeks, that egg, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is an obligate parasite. It cannot live on its own. The woman's body must host it, nourish it and keep it alive. An important question here is should anybody be forced to host a parasite against their will? Nobody can force me to provide for all the needs of any other human being. Even my own children can be given up for adoption should I wish to no longer parent them. So, while you may discount it, there is a very real issue here about whether one person can be forced to host a parasite against her will.

To you, those SLED arguments are final and conclusive. They are not even correct to me. They are one heck of a LONG way from being final and conclusive to the majority of people in this country, as survey after survey shows. Right now, the majority of people support abortion in at least some instances. The vast majority support it in cases of danger to the mother's health, rape, incest and fetal anomoly. Whether you like it or not, the majority of people in this country agree that abortion should be legal in at least some situations.

Your "SLED" argument is false, and while you may be unable to see the many holes in it, the rest of us see holes we could drive a truck through. Now, what about calling a chicken egg a hen or rooster? You haven't addressed that yet.

Are you calling a baby a PARASITE???? What do you mean by "hosting a parasite against her will?" She had sex. She made a choice. She must now take responsibility for her choice. That's the problem nowadays. People want to do WHATEVER they want to do without any consequences, without accountability. Doing whatever you want whenever you want with whomever you want is NOT freedom; it's licentiousness. True freedom is having the right to do what you OUGHT to do. The baby did not ASK to be conceived. That was the choice of a man and woman. The baby has done nothing wrong. If this "parasite" is not a person, then leave it alone and just wait and see what happens. What would you need to abort "tissue?" Since when did a baby become a "tumor?" Something bad for the body? I thought pregnancy was a natural part of life. I didn't know it was a disease that needed to be cured by some pill. I am really confused here....

[jennifer]

According to the American Medical Association, a pregnancy is defined as an implanted embryo. Until implantation, there is no pregnancy. That is the official definition and the official position of the only association that represents medical doctors in the U.S.]

This is also the view of the BMA

The term 'abortion' is used throughout this paper to refer to the induced termination of an established pregnancy (i.e. after implantation). It does not include the use of emergency hormonal contraception which the High Court has confirmed is not an abortifacient. [Go to reference 2]. All current methods of emergency contraception work prior to implantation and therefore are not abortifacients.

Emergency?? Emergency of WHAT?! Since when did a pregnancy become an emergency? Do we kill our two-year-olds because we can't make ends meet? Why, then, kill a baby in the womb? When life happens, it happens. Adoption is always an option. I guess the main debate is when does life begin. An oak tree would never become a tree without first being a seed. None of us would have been here had our mothers aborted us. I won't ever be fifty if you kill me at 35, and a baby will never be three if you kill it in the womb. I don't understand how there is even an argument that LIFE does not begin at the moment of conception.

[jennifer]

If you read my earlier post you'll see that there are several milestones in the development of an ovum to personhood. A journey that does not end until adulthood. My view is that there is no one 'binary' point at which the fetus suddenly becomes a person. As development advances more respect is due. We do not examine menstrual fluid for fertilized ova that failed to implant so that we can hold an inquest and a funeral. The implantation stage is merely an example of hoe the 'God gives a baby a soul at conception' argument fails. If that were the case then the souls of the unborn would outnumber the souls of the lived by 100 to 1.

However we have to put some formal demarcation points. The lack of a clear dividing line does not mean that there are no difference, merely that the line is fuzzy. As such my view is that we attach special significance to brain function and acknowledge that this is one of the things that makes us people. If there were a fire in a hospital we would be justified in saving a child before frozen embryos or a brain dead adult. A child can feel pain and experience terror. I would feel justified in saving a dog first for the same reason.

So my view is that abortion should be avoided wherever possible through good education and access to contraception. When an abortion is called for, it should be performed as soon as possible. Abortion after the brain starts to function (22 weeks) should demand some good reason - such as a threat to the mother's health.

Would you please define what a "person" or "personhood" is to you? I know what I think it is, but I'm curious what you mean when you use this term. Also, so what if the unborn souls outnumber those lived by 100:1? Why is that a hard concept to believe? Yes, babies who die or who are killed before being born ARE souls that have eternal life.

[jennifer]

I thought I had explained why.

Would you let a child die in a fire to rescue a container of 50 frozen embryos? If not why not?

What are the embryos for? Research?

[jennifer]

the fertilized egg, blastocyst and embryo all have the potential to someday develop into a new person.

It's worth remembering that we are all potential corpses. What something might become is not what it is.

I disagree. The essence of a person always stays the same - from womb to tomb, birth to earth. Essence is different than accident. The body is different than the soul.

[jennifer]

I thought I had explained why.

Would you let a child die in a fire to rescue a container of 50 frozen embryos? If not why not?

Why not? Because the child is absolutely, with no doubt, going to live on if i save him/her. First of all, why am I in the fire? Am I a fireman, did i make the fire, or am I a courageous bystander? Assuming i was a fire man or any of the other choices, how would I know that they were embryos? Is there a label on the container? How do I even know theirs embryos in the container? Do I get burnt saving any of them? Do i have a mental illness, or am I extremely selfish in this situation? Why cant i save both? Is their a fire timer? Do I even want to save the child or the embryos? If I'm hungry i could roast marshmallows instead...So many variables.

The Embryos will be fine, their frozen ....Why are those two anywhere near each other?

Hahahah, I especially like the "Is there a label on the container?" and "Why can't I save both?"

[jennifer]

Well we KNOW that the fertized egg HAS to be human. No doubt it is living (even science can not deny that) and it most certainly has to be human as there have been no accounts of a women giving birth to any other creature other than humans. You simply call it an "egg" because you can distance yourself from it easier that way. Its still human no matter what you call it.

I never said it wasn't human, but it is human tissue. Not a person. Not a living, breathing, individual person. At that level (pre-implantation), it is merely a fertilized egg or clump of cells (blastocyst). It has no ability to live independently. It isn't even a parasite yet because pre-implantation, it is just one more fertilized egg or cell clump that might or might not implant in a uterus, might or might not form a viable placenta and umbilicus, might or might not develop sufficiently to grow into a full term baby.

What you seem incapable of comprehending is that just because something is human tissue does not mean it is a person. If I cut a tumor off, what is cut off is human. Did it stop being human just because it is no longer attached to the person? Of course not. But it sure isn't a person. It is just human tissue. You choose to believe that a fertilized egg is a whole, separate, living, viable person. I view it as just some human tissue. Sure, it has potential to someday become a person. But at that point, there is nothing about it that I would agree is a separate person worthy of full rights of citizenship.

And of course, in all this you totally ignore the rights of the woman. Up until about 24 weeks, that egg, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is an obligate parasite. It cannot live on its own. The woman's body must host it, nourish it and keep it alive. An important question here is should anybody be forced to host a parasite against their will? Nobody can force me to provide for all the needs of any other human being. Even my own children can be given up for adoption should I wish to no longer parent them. So, while you may discount it, there is a very real issue here about whether one person can be forced to host a parasite against her will.

To you, those SLED arguments are final and conclusive. They are not even correct to me. They are one heck of a LONG way from being final and conclusive to the majority of people in this country, as survey after survey shows. Right now, the majority of people support abortion in at least some instances. The vast majority support it in cases of danger to the mother's health, rape, incest and fetal anomoly. Whether you like it or not, the majority of people in this country agree that abortion should be legal in at least some situations.

Your "SLED" argument is false, and while you may be unable to see the many holes in it, the rest of us see holes we could drive a truck through. Now, what about calling a chicken egg a hen or rooster? You haven't addressed that yet.

Are you calling a baby a PARASITE???? What do you mean by "hosting a parasite against her will?" She had sex. She made a choice. She must now take responsibility for her choice. That's the problem nowadays. People want to do WHATEVER they want to do without any consequences, without accountability. Doing whatever you want whenever you want with whomever you want is NOT freedom; it's licentiousness. True freedom is having the right to do what you OUGHT to do. The baby did not ASK to be conceived. That was the choice of a man and woman. The baby has done nothing wrong. If this "parasite" is not a person, then leave it alone and just wait and see what happens. What would you need to abort "tissue?" Since when did a baby become a "tumor?" Something bad for the body? I thought pregnancy was a natural part of life. I didn't know it was a disease that needed to be cured by some pill. I am really confused here....

[jennifer]

Well we KNOW that the fertized egg HAS to be human. No doubt it is living (even science can not deny that) and it most certainly has to be human as there have been no accounts of a women giving birth to any other creature other than humans. You simply call it an "egg" because you can distance yourself from it easier that way. Its still human no matter what you call it.

I never said it wasn't human, but it is human tissue. Not a person. Not a living, breathing, individual person. At that level (pre-implantation), it is merely a fertilized egg or clump of cells (blastocyst). It has no ability to live independently. It isn't even a parasite yet because pre-implantation, it is just one more fertilized egg or cell clump that might or might not implant in a uterus, might or might not form a viable placenta and umbilicus, might or might not develop sufficiently to grow into a full term baby.

What you seem incapable of comprehending is that just because something is human tissue does not mean it is a person. If I cut a tumor off, what is cut off is human. Did it stop being human just because it is no longer attached to the person? Of course not. But it sure isn't a person. It is just human tissue. You choose to believe that a fertilized egg is a whole, separate, living, viable person. I view it as just some human tissue. Sure, it has potential to someday become a person. But at that point, there is nothing about it that I would agree is a separate person worthy of full rights of citizenship.

And of course, in all this you totally ignore the rights of the woman. Up until about 24 weeks, that egg, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is an obligate parasite. It cannot live on its own. The woman's body must host it, nourish it and keep it alive. An important question here is should anybody be forced to host a parasite against their will? Nobody can force me to provide for all the needs of any other human being. Even my own children can be given up for adoption should I wish to no longer parent them. So, while you may discount it, there is a very real issue here about whether one person can be forced to host a parasite against her will.

To you, those SLED arguments are final and conclusive. They are not even correct to me. They are one heck of a LONG way from being final and conclusive to the majority of people in this country, as survey after survey shows. Right now, the majority of people support abortion in at least some instances. The vast majority support it in cases of danger to the mother's health, rape, incest and fetal anomoly. Whether you like it or not, the majority of people in this country agree that abortion should be legal in at least some situations.

Your "SLED" argument is false, and while you may be unable to see the many holes in it, the rest of us see holes we could drive a truck through. Now, what about calling a chicken egg a hen or rooster? You haven't addressed that yet.

Are you calling a baby a PARASITE???? What do you mean by "hosting a parasite against her will?" She had sex. She made a choice. She must now take responsibility for her choice. That's the problem nowadays. People want to do WHATEVER they want to do without any consequences, without accountability. Doing whatever you want whenever you want with whomever you want is NOT freedom; it's licentiousness. True freedom is having the right to do what you OUGHT to do. The baby did not ASK to be conceived. That was the choice of a man and woman. The baby has done nothing wrong. If this "parasite" is not a person, then leave it alone and just wait and see what happens. What would you need to abort "tissue?" Since when did a baby become a "tumor?" Something bad for the body? I thought pregnancy was a natural part of life. I didn't know it was a disease that needed to be cured by some pill. I am really confused here....

[A Person]

It seems that Jennifer also wants to avoid answering the question honestly.

Hahahah, I especially like the "Is there a label on the container?" and "Why can't I save both?"

Yes the container is labelled, you know what the contents are. You can carry either but not both.

What are the embryos for? Research?

What possible difference could that make? If you feel it makes a difference then explain how that would affect your decision.

The body is different than the soul.

Very. One is real and tangible.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

According to the American Medical Association, a pregnancy is defined as an implanted embryo. Until implantation, there is no pregnancy. That is the official definition and the official position of the only association that represents medical doctors in the U.S.]

This is also the view of the BMA

The term 'abortion' is used throughout this paper to refer to the induced termination of an established pregnancy (i.e. after implantation). It does not include the use of emergency hormonal contraception which the High Court has confirmed is not an abortifacient. [Go to reference 2]. All current methods of emergency contraception work prior to implantation and therefore are not abortifacients.

Emergency?? Emergency of WHAT?! Since when did a pregnancy become an emergency?

The point in A Person's post, I think, was that RAPE is an emergency situation. And that since a femal victim of rape may become pregnant as a result of it, there should be no problem with using hormonal treatment to prevent the start of a pregnancy before implantation.

[BecauseHeLives]

The point in A Person's post, I think, was that RAPE is an emergency situation. And that since a femal victim of rape may become pregnant as a result of it, there should be no problem with using hormonal treatment to prevent the start of a pregnancy before implantation.

"The Point is" is that pregnancies by rape are an EXTREMELY small percentage of pregnancies. Way less than 1% of abortions are from that cause. So why even bring it up in the argument?

[BecauseHeLives]

The body is different than the soul.

Very. One is real and tangible.

You infer that the soul is not real. Please provide some proof of such a statement.